Slashdot Mirror


Al Gore Invents Internet TV

catdevnull writes "The SF Gate is reporting that former VP Al Gore is launching "Current" a new CableTV-Internet hybrid. From the article: "Current, the name of Gore's enterprise, hopes to do that by airing a shuffle of short news features, some produced by the network but many submitted online by viewers. Current will also air segments every half hour showing TV viewers what Google searchers are tapping into at that moment -- everything from current events to tourist destinations. It's all directed at a generation that thinks nothing of plugging into more than one media outlet at once." "

474 comments

  1. Next week... by FlyByPC · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...he'll invent SlashDot!

    --
    Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
    1. Re:Next week... by alex4u2nv · · Score: 1

      To late. He already invented http://slsahdot.org/

    2. Re:Next week... by lbmouse · · Score: 1

      No, Science: World's First True Blue Rose , Thanks to Al Gore

    3. Re:Next week... by Seumas · · Score: 0

      I have nothing in particular against liberals and democrats (certainly no more so than I have against the republicans and conservatives), but this whole thing is going to flop over like a shit-filled balloon within two years, just like Air America. This is NOT going to be some revolutionary thing.

      Christ, they couldn't even get enough young people out to vote for the heinous George Bush last year. How are they going to yank them off the internet and onto some crappy dull cable station about current events, where Al Gore is deciding what bling is fly?

    4. Re:Next week... by Aractor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Christ, they couldn't get enough young people out to vote for the heinous George Bush last year."

      Just to set the reconrd straight, there was a huge turnout of "new voters" in the last election. But the other issue was the large turnout of Religious Right voters as well. Thus making the influcence of young voters far less noticable.

      Just had to get my 2 cents in there...

      --
      That is aboslutely idiotic. You totally missed the point. Don't breed....please.
    5. Re:Next week... by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      How are they going to yank them off the internet and onto some crappy dull cable station about current events, where Al Gore is deciding what bling is fly?

      In case you didn't bother to RTFA:

      Why do Gore, who's 57, and Hyatt, 54, think they know what people in their 20s want to watch? That's not really their job, they say; those decisions will be left to younger people.

      "We're the suits," Gore said with a laugh.


      Now, whether you believe Gore, I don't know.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    6. Re:Next week... by Seumas · · Score: 1

      The percentage of young voters turning out was no greater than the previous election. The fact of the matter is that they didn't energize the masses. Especially the young masses.

      In fact, I was surprised at how many very liberal, very open-minded, very not conservative young people (my age and younger) were telling me they were voting for Bush. Granted, it was mostly over the whole terrorism thing - but I was just shocked.

      I didn't vote for either of 'em, but they clearly weren't winning converts. People either hated or loved bush. Minds were already made up. There wasn't any persuading going on. And the results bear that out, unfortunately.

      Anyway, there's no point trying to merge TV and the internet. That's ridiculous. Rather than dumping a hundred million bucks into the TV network, they should have focused on a quality internet based campaign/system. Then you're not dealing with fighting to get the youth off the computer and back to the television - you're catching them on the medium they're already on. There's enough broadband around that they could do the whole video/blogging/programming/radio/television thing all online through a well-designed hub of a website.

      The TV angle just makes it kind of schlockey.

    7. Re:Next week... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      He could flip the shows between conservative and liberal viewpoints, but Tesla already invented alternating current.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  2. Internet-TV hybrid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You mean like MSNBC? The channel both Microsoft and NBC want to dump?

    1. Re:Internet-TV hybrid? by Khakionion · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, exactly. Except for not at all, but barring that detail, yes, you're right.

      --
      OMG! Wau!
  3. Oblig quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Al Gore's endorsement should be enough for anybody"

  4. How the mighty fall.... by ergo98 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    And this man was almost president.

    1. Re:How the mighty fall.... by DAldredge · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Isn't it amazing how fscked up the US electoral system is? :)

    2. Re:How the mighty fall.... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      You're assuming he wasn't always like this.

      There's nothing special about candidates for political office.

    3. Re:How the mighty fall.... by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Funny
      And this man was almost president.


      Thank God we dodged that bullet, eh? With the wrong man in charge we might have ended up, oh, I don't know, invading the wrong country by mistake or something...

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:How the mighty fall.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      ' Thank God we dodged that bullet, eh? With the wrong man in charge we might have ended up, oh, I don't know, invading the wrong country by mistake or something...'

      Probably. Thankfully, the elected President retaliated against the right countries for their promotion of terrorism. No mistakes there.

    5. Re:How the mighty fall.... by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Apparently some people can't read this without jumping to conclusions, so let me recap.

      I said

      And this man was almost president.

      Note how there is no "phew!" at the end, or "Holy jesus, thank the lord!". It is a simple statement demonstrating amazement that someone could rise to be vice-president for 8 years, and lose out for the presidency by the slightest of margins...and now he's doing this. Apparently the US has such a schism now that this sort of observation can't be read without people hopping on their idiotic Republican/Democrat high horses.

    6. Re:How the mighty fall.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Probably. Thankfully, the elected President retaliated against the right countries for their promotion of terrorism. No mistakes there.
      Except, of course, that the statement about "right countries" and "promotion of terrorism" are complete lies.

      So, Saddam gave some money to widows and orphans of Palestinians some of whom might qualify as "terrorists" (a badly misused and meaningless, not to mentioned loaded, word). That's Israel's problem not ours. Oh, wait, I forgot: we're the United States of Israel now. I keep forgetting "everything changed" after 911.

      If you were referring to the alleged Iraq/Al Qaeda link, that's complete bullshit. Only the shills still push that line.
    7. Re:How the mighty fall.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea almost president.. lucky us huh??
      i mean who wants a president who's into advancing current technology.
      and if he woulda become president IT would be more important to staying in this country.
      i mean could you imagine a nerd as a president.
      yea probably better he lost out cause we all know none of us want to see a nerd in the whitehouse.

    8. Re:How the mighty fall.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but he won a Presidential election.

    9. Re:How the mighty fall.... by stinerman · · Score: 1

      With the wrong man in charge we might have ended up, oh, I don't know, invading the wrong country by mistake or something...

      Ha!

      You think it was a mistake.

    10. Re:How the mighty fall.... by superyooser · · Score: 1

      Are you implying that Star Wars fans voted for Bush?

  5. It will be crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the stuff on ifilm.com is any measure of what will come out of this, then it won't be worth watching.

    I think this will be an exercise in the value of entertainment corporations screening out most of the crap.

    1. Re:It will be crap by doppe1 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I think this will be an exercise in the value of entertainment corporations screening out most of the crap.

      What, you mean the stuff we get has had most of the crap screened out.

  6. Al Gore? by iGN97 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The original inventor of the algorithm?

    1. Re:Al Gore? by stalefries · · Score: 2, Funny

      Quite the resume, isn't it? Invented the internet, internet tv, the Al-Gore-ithm, and ran for the presidency and lost just because of a few Floridians!

      --
      -stalefries
    2. Re:Al Gore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...lost just because of a few Floridians!

      Yet not the actual voters, oddly enough.

    3. Re:Al Gore? by slashrogue · · Score: 1

      That's Algorythms!

    4. Re:Al Gore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Based on his dance moves, there's no way "Al Gore" and "rhythm" should be used in conjunction.

    5. Re:Al Gore? by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      You mean "the robot"?

      I'll be here all week!

    6. Re:Al Gore? by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      Any /. article where both Futurama and VGCats can be referenced is a good article.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
  7. Uhhh... by MagicDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Current will also air segments every half hour showing TV viewers what Google searchers are tapping into at that moment

    That's going to be kindof X-rated, don't you think? Experience has shown that at any given point, a good portion of people using the internet are searching for porn, or at least naked pictures of celebrities.

    1. Re:Uhhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wait... what? There is porn on the Internet!? Why am I always the last to find out about these things.

    2. Re:Uhhh... by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      X-Rated? Are you kidding me? It's more likely going to be a cross between getting a first post on Slashdot and Google Whacking. Just before the Google segment starts the hordes with descend on Google and try and get their "amusing" search phrase up in lights. Who knows, there might even be a fortune file in the offing too...

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    3. Re:Uhhh... by irix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A couple of years ago at OLS they had a presentation by someone from Google on their use of Linux in house (this one I think).

      At the end of the presentation, he brought up a web page that showed a scrolling list of google queries that were being done in near-real-time. I think it was showing every nth query (every query would have been scrolling too fast to see). He said that they had two versions of this web page - a filtered and an unfiltered one, and he was running unfiltered.

      Was it ever funny - people entering some of the craziest X-rated search phrases you could imagine. If he could have left it up I would have stayed there and watched for hours :-)

      --

      Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
    4. Re:Uhhh... by theraccoon · · Score: 1

      If not p0rn, then "sin city filetype:torrent"...

    5. Re:Uhhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That ought to get the righteous right going.

    6. Re:Uhhh... by Sinus0idal · · Score: 1

      And where are these google stats going to come from?

    7. Re:Uhhh... by floodo1 · · Score: 0

      a good portion????

      --
      I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
    8. Re:Uhhh... by erick99 · · Score: 1

      Or pictures of naked celebrities . . .

      --
      http://www.busyweather.com/
    9. Re:Uhhh... by knapper_tech · · Score: 1

      Isn't it obvious that google is paid for by market researchers probing the minds of internet junkies and searching for a way to make money off of them?

      --
      "There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them." ~ Louis Armstrong
    10. Re:Uhhh... by wolf- · · Score: 1, Funny
      --
      ----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
    11. Re:Uhhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG, make sure not to do an image search on that first one with safe search off. *shudder*

    12. Re:Uhhh... by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

      Dude, there's porn on all the internets.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    13. Re:Uhhh... by nmb3000 · · Score: 1

      Good point.

      Maybe they could get a deal with ThinkGeek and pull straight from their fortunes database. Just show that 24 hours a day. Hey, maybe I'll even finally see one of my own fsking posts!

      I had to remap F5 to F6 just because F5 stopped working after a little use, and I am determined to see my own post. It's coming. Really. I can feel it. Just a few more refreshes...

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    14. Re:Uhhh... by C0d1ngM0nk3y · · Score: 1

      I can imagine it now:

      Last 20 searches....

      Anna Kornikova Naked Pics
      Anna Kornikova Naked Pics
      Anna Kornikova Naked Pics
      Anna Kornikova Naked Pics
      Anna Kornikova Naked Pics ....etc
      Anna Kornikova Naked Pics
      Firefox.
      Anna Kornikova Naked Pics

  8. Ahaha.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Still funny. All these years later. No it is, it's never gotten old. Not even when the NSF credited him with a major role in makeing the internet into something broadly useful.

    1. Re:Ahaha.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still funny. All these years later. No it is, it's never gotten old. Meanwhile the Anonymous Coward is off to other posts thinking to himself, "...Internet TV invents YOU!...ahhh sheer brilliance."

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

      Posted in part in three places by necessity. Read the actual definitions of words from a dictionary written by a University. This issue has been forced away from being rationally discussed and into partisan bickering with no productive function, but should be settled to reduce the idiocy that develops from misinterpretation of the English language (fewer and fewer people in the US seem to actually understand it).

  9. is drudge running /. this week? by Sebastopol · · Score: 1, Insightful

    First an irate and bogus article referring to "Communist San Fransisco", and now jokes from 5 years ago!

    Waaazzzzzzzuuuuuuupppppppp Taco!!!!!!!!!!!

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    1. Re:is drudge running /. this week? by hungrygrue · · Score: 1

      And a joke based on a lie at that.

    2. Re:is drudge running /. this week? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1
      CNN Late Edition, March 9, 1999

      Wolf Blitzer talking with Al Gore:

      BLITZER: I want to get to some of the substance of domestic and international issues in a minute, but let's just wrap up a little bit of the politics right now.

      Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process?

      GORE: Well, I will be offering -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.

      But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

      During a quarter century of public service, including most of it long before I came into my current job, I have worked to try to improve the quality of life in our country and in our world. And what I've seen during that experience is an emerging future that's very exciting, about which I'm very optimistic, and toward which I want to lead.

      Emphasis added, of course. Maybe a bit of a mis-statement, but certainly not really the truth, either.
      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    3. Re:is drudge running /. this week? by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1
      Sorry, which part of "I took the initiative" is "not really the truth"? The words are a bit of management-speak; if you're a manager and you give a go-ahead to a project, you've "taken the initiative in creating it." That is miles from saying "I did it. I came up with the idea and I executed it on my own"; in other words, there is no truth in the claim that "Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet."

      It's amazing that you can look at evidence that should refute that ridiculous claim once and for all and still see only your own preconceptions.

      Bush demonstrably lies all the time, yet people still play up this phone equivalence of "both sides do it, man."

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    4. Re:is drudge running /. this week? by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      There's not enough inflamitory language and lies^H^H^H^Hrumomrs for it to be drudge. Cut Taco some slack. He needs some practice before he can stand up to the master.

    5. Re:is drudge running /. this week? by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      Management-speak, eh? So he said it without saying it?

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    6. Re:is drudge running /. this week? by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

      No. But if you're enjoying pretending not to understand, by all means, continue.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    7. Re:is drudge running /. this week? by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      Humor, my friend, humor. I personally think the "Gore invented the internets" thing quite funny, even though I realize he didn't say that.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    8. Re:is drudge running /. this week? by ArtStone · · Score: 2, Informative

      Al Gore was first elected to the US House in 1976 where he "took the initiative to create the Internet".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore%23Early_polit ical_career

      The Internet was "created" in 1969.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet%23Creation_o f_the_Internet

      Next question?

      --
      Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
    9. Re:is drudge running /. this week? by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1
      Fair enough. I guess I'd find it funnier if it hadn't led to 8 years of Bush flushing down the toilet the last circling turds of other nations' goodwill towards the U.S.

      Sorry, that wasn't very funny, either.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    10. Re:is drudge running /. this week? by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1
      Next question?

      OK, are you too much of a pedant to see the forest for the trees? (Your citing wikipedia may already have answered this.)

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
  10. Haven't we had enough.... by rob_squared · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...articles about robots recently?

    --
    I don't get it.
  11. rumours? by Kevin+Mitnick · · Score: 0

    Are you sure those aren't just "rumors on the Internets" ?

  12. Show Google searches? by djkoolaide · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So they're going to start monitoring Google and can see what people search for? I really hope I just read that wrong.

    1. Re:Show Google searches? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Summarized queries aren't so bad..

      read: http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html

  13. Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by bird603568 · · Score: 0

    Yes there is something form me to see here. Its tv and internet. Al Gore saying he invented the internet was a prelode to the tvinternet. I just dont see how this is going to be practicle. Somebody will figure out how to spam and do popups. The question is can you browse the internet, download a iso of your favorite distro of course and use viop all at one?

  14. Obligatory Al Gore Link: by ImaLamer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Credit for Internet funding by Vinton Cerf & Robert Kahn:

    http://tinyurl.com/65ssc

    1. Re:Obligatory Al Gore Link: by DAldredge · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Do you have any quotes from people who are not dependent on Governmental contracts for their incomes?

      Insulting elected officials is a good way to get funding/contracts killed. Ask Theo.

    2. Re:Obligatory Al Gore Link: by ImaLamer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, because Al Gore is giving out so many contract now a days huh?

    3. Re:Obligatory Al Gore Link: by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      Do you have any quotes from people who are not dependent on Governmental contracts for their incomes?


      So you'd like some quotes from non-government-funded developers of a networking system whose development was wholly government-funded?


      I think you're likely to get killed at the next zebra crossing.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:Obligatory Al Gore Link: by deanj · · Score: 1

      Vinton Cerf once took credit the term "surfing the net" ("cerf-ing" the net, I suspose), on CNN, or CNBC. After I saw that interview, I quit listening to what he had to say.

    5. Re:Obligatory Al Gore Link: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why use TinyURL? What's the point? I think /. should ban all tinyurl links. There's no reason have them, besides making people click on goatse.

  15. Okay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THAT'S funny.

  16. What Al Gore said... by DAldredge · · Score: 0, Troll

    For all those that say Gore didn't claim to invent the net I include the following.

    On CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part):

    During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

    1. Re:What Al Gore said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great that's all we need, more gore on TV.

    2. Re:What Al Gore said... by op12 · · Score: 1

      Apparently he also took the initiative to say initiative a billion times.

    3. Re:What Al Gore said... by crayz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Look at the context of the quote though. It's obvious he's talking about a legislative accomplishment

    4. Re:What Al Gore said... by EvilSS · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep he said it. I don't know why people get all worked up about it though. Like "Internets" it was a verbal screw-up that has since become a never-ending running joke.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    5. Re:What Al Gore said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And he did. Even the NSF acknowledged as much. Without the shift in government policy, we wouldn't have had the explosion of Entrepreneurship. The republicans post-Regan aren't pro Entrepreneurship, they're pro consolidation, pro-monopoly, and quite frankly, anti-american.

    6. Re:What Al Gore said... by mondoterrifico · · Score: 1

      Of course its obvious. But then again so are most trolls.

    7. Re:What Al Gore said... by mondoterrifico · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What are you 5 years old?
      I bet you are wetting yourself in anticipation of all the flames this topic will produce.

    8. Re:What Al Gore said... by DAldredge · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yea! Because we all know that pointing out what Gore really said makes me a troll. Just because I didn't edit it to fit the /. groupthink view doesn't mean it is a troll.

    9. Re:What Al Gore said... by Xoro · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't know why people get all worked up about it though.

      People get worked up about it because it was used during the 2000 election by right-wing pundits (yes, I mean *you*, Peggy Noonan) to "prove" that Al Gore was a serial liar who couldn't be trusted with the presidency.

      So people on the right who get worked up about it do so because they see it as evidence that Gore is a dangerous buffoon who came *this close* to leading the country. People on the left who get worked up about it do so because it confirms for them that Republicans are evil, election-stealing savages.

      Still others get worked up because the initial accusations and the long debate that followed seem to suggest that either something is badly wrong with the political system, or possibly that people aren't wearing enough hats.

      Take your pick.

      --
      Kill, Tux, kill!
    10. Re:What Al Gore said... by tscrum · · Score: 0

      Ever thought that he did mispeak by actually mentioning the "Internets"? Maybe there are Internets. Like the big CIA, FBI, conspiracy theory type of Internets.

    11. Re:What Al Gore said... by cloffin · · Score: 1

      This has to be a new low for Slashdot. Al Gore actually did to a lot for the Internet, and he never claimed to "invent" it. Whoever posted this needs to stop watching Fox News occassionally and use his brain.

    12. Re:What Al Gore said... by dthx1138 · · Score: 1

      How to take shit out of context (Republican version)

      1. Find somebody you hate. That was easy.
      2. Find something he said that is moderately vague
      3. repeat said words over and over, paraphrasing liberally. block all attempts at discussion over what said words meant.
      4. respond to all questions about said quote with more rhetorical questions. Example:

      Skeptic: "sir, do you really think Gore meant he singlehandedly got a bunch of programmers together and told them to create the internet?"

      Response: "i don't know, YOU TELL ME!"

      --
      I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].
    13. Re:What Al Gore said... by gumbi+west · · Score: 1
      That says it all. The only way you can interpret that to mean that he thinks he came up with the internet is if you think he is claiming to have been hacking in the back row of the Senate floor.

      Thanks a lot for digging out this quote though, it's nice how often zealots find counter-factuals for you.

    14. Re:What Al Gore said... by patonw · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you actually read the quote you'll see he never said he invented the Internet. That accusation is the work of spin doctors. Invention and creation are completely separate things. Invention is the conception of an idea. He never said he hit his head on a toilet and came up with the idea for the Internet out of the blue. What he said in fewer words is that the idea existed, he knew about it, he liked it enough that he actually wanted to see it implemented. He took the initiative to bring a concept to fruition by legislative action. He even opens the quote by saying he was in congress, not in some laboratory. Twisting his words and saying that he claimed to invent the Internet was an attempt to brand him as a liar, exaggerator and lunatic as part of the smear campaign. I'm not an Al Gore fanboy but I cannot believe that people are still buying that crap. I guess tomorrow CNN will run a story about how 90% of americans still believed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that they are still there in the hands of insurgents. I am just dumbfounded by how cynical the Republican leadership is and how shamelessly and blantantly they exploit the media, then turn around to say that the liberal media is out to get them.

    15. Re:What Al Gore said... by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please provide proof that the National Science Foundation acknowledged this.

    16. Re:What Al Gore said... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ok. Find some of the people you think he should have shared credit with, and see whether they felt that Al Gore's statement was dishonest. (And obviously it's self-serving. It'd be self-serving for him to claim such credit even if he personally invented TCP/IP.)

      His mistake was in making his statement too easy to misinterpret. I believe he's admitted as much.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    17. Re:What Al Gore said... by yotto · · Score: 1

      Actually, I almost modded you a troll to lower your ranking below 0 so your "homepage" link would stop screwing up my 80-column display. Instead, I was nice and loaded up IE instead of the terminal I had been using.

    18. Re:What Al Gore said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, when I was watching their big anniversery pat on the back, I saw them do on the UW's TV channel. I'm sure there's a powerpoint presentation of it still littering the internet somewhere.

      But, much like with evolution, or the big bang, I'm not responsible for you ignorance. If you want to be a dumbshit, that is *your* choice. And there is precious little I can do about it if you're set in your ways. Little less time in church, little more time expanding your world.

    19. Re:What Al Gore said... by rhakka · · Score: 2, Funny

      1. Used "groupthink" in a sentence.
      2. Thinks Gore bragging about having voted to fund the growth of the internet is somehow "damning" or "Gore having claimed to invented the internet".

      We have ourselves a Fox News Zombie!

    20. Re:What Al Gore said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..maybe you should learn how to disable control sequences in your terminal...

    21. Re:What Al Gore said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He just made the mistake of saying it in too public a forum." ...and so did you...

    22. Re:What Al Gore said... by justins · · Score: 1

      I've heard rumors about those internets.

      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    23. Re:What Al Gore said... by Rei · · Score: 1

      Well, we've seen the protests when they put more bush on TV.

      --
      What a crazy random happenstance!
    24. Re:What Al Gore said... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      I have been called Liberal, Conservative, Too Christian so far in theis subthread. I am just missing the God hater label :)

      BTW, government orgs are prohibited by law from doing what you say the NSF did.

    25. Re:What Al Gore said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ... huge government...

      Go check which presidents were in power during the biggest expansions of government. There are a couple names on that list above FDR that you might find interesting.

    26. Re:What Al Gore said... by DAldredge · · Score: 0, Troll

      I bolded what he said. It is rather telling that, when confronted with the facts of what gore said, you resort to name calling instead of facing the facts.

      Doesn't that make YOU the Zombie?

    27. Re:What Al Gore said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "internet" was around when Al was masturbating to lingerie in a Sears catalog.

    28. Re:What Al Gore said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      And all of us on /. are ever so thankful for internet related legislation.

    29. Re:What Al Gore said... by craXORjack · · Score: 2, Funny

      Skeptic: "Sir, do you really think that George W. Busch singlehandedly got a bunch of CIA agents together and told them to create a national crisis that would make the American people 'call for help', allowing for the creation of a national secret police founded and staffed by Busch henchmen while simultaneously sending the price of gasoline through the roof and making his fatcat oil friends even wealthier?"

      Response: "I don't know, YOU TELL ME!"

      Democratic followup: "Dubya isn't smart enough to do that. Just look at him for God's sake!"

      Republican followup: "Yes, he is."

      --
      Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
    30. Re:What Al Gore said... by rhakka · · Score: 1

      that's funny, cause I think that completely ignoring context in order to slur someone you don't agree with is more indicative of zombielike behaviour than calling someone on it would be.

    31. Re:What Al Gore said... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      I bolded what he said. It is rather telling that, when confronted with the facts of what gore said, you resort to name calling instead of facing the facts.

      You said, and I quote, "telling that, when". What does that mean?

      "Telling that, when". It doesn't make any sense. What are we supposed to make of that? That sounds like random babbling. Come back when you can make every individual part of your discussion mean the same as the whole.

    32. Re:What Al Gore said... by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      That would have to be legisaltors since he is obviously talking about a legislative sucess. What kind of sucesses would you talk about if you were a former legislator?

    33. Re:What Al Gore said... by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Do you want to pickup the tab for the backbone components?

    34. Re:What Al Gore said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sentence is perfectly well-formed. "Telling" can also mean "revealing". Some would argue that the commas were not necessary but that is certainly a stylistic point. The sentence certainly makes grammatical sense.

    35. Re:What Al Gore said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The quote in question is not a sentence, it's the exact three words and a comma: "telling that, when". The quoted text does not make grammatical sense outside of its context, and we're not considering context in this thread.

    36. Re:What Al Gore said... by ediron2 · · Score: 1

      Is there anyone still buying that pack of Rethuglican bulls**t?

      http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm
      http://www.sethf.com/gore/

      So, who're we to believe? Some guy on slashdot, rethugican hacks, or Vint Cerf... I choose to believe Cerf.

      Everyone, don't feed the troll.

    37. Re:What Al Gore said... by kisak · · Score: 1
      People get worked up about it because it was used during the 2000 election by right-wing pundits (yes, I mean *you*, Peggy Noonan) to "prove" that Al Gore was a serial liar who couldn't be trusted with the presidency.

      The "funny" thing is that Bush has shown himself to be a serial liar, from Iraq to the real reason they want to "save" social security (and I can mention many more examples if anyone needs any help). Also ironic that under Bush's "leadership" the government will cut the funding of DARPA research which Gore as a younger politician played an important part to get started. Should make some of those nerds who laughed at the cheerleaders internet jokes think again.

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    38. Re:What Al Gore said... by will_die · · Score: 1

      And except for a few jokes made at his expense that would of been it, if he had corrected what he meant.
      However what he did after that was send people speaking for his campaign to show such as charlie rose, etc, and say he meant that he was talking about the commercialization of the internet and that was what he had helped was talking about initiating. That also failed so they then tried the same thing with putting the government on the internet, that was also a failure. All the while inidcating he had taken a active role in what was done.
      When thoses did not catch on, so they went with the current thinking they are selling today. It is an interesting idea that with the current blog situation, you would of seen the liberal blogs take it as truth that he had initiated the commercialzation of the internet. So if they had been around would that be still be the current selling point?

    39. Re:What Al Gore said... by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
      I've seen all these links. They even blame Dick Armey for the quote, when in fact it is from a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer.

      The problem with much of the links and material presented is that they attempt to excuse Mr. Gore's incorrect claim that he invented the internet by giving him great praise for helping the Internet after it was created. This is what Mr. Cerf is doing.

      IMHO, he deserves this praise. Also, IMHO. the false "creation" claim is not anything like an intentional lie by Gore, nor is it anything like a symptom of a pathological problem where Gore liked to claim things he didn't really do. Gore himself admitted that he misspoke when he made this controversial statement.

      There is plenty of wrong on both sides: the Right is wrong to claim this as an example of Gore's dishonesty. The Left is wrong to call Gore a liar in a way: whenever they claim that Gore really created the Internet, they are calling Gore's claim that it was a mis-statement a lie.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    40. Re:What Al Gore said... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      I have been called Liberal, Conservative, Too Christian so far in theis subthread. I am just missing the God hater label :)

      Iduno. I'll call you a belligerent jackass. Does that make you feel better?

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    41. Re:What Al Gore said... by flatface · · Score: 1

      Those are intranets. There is only one Internet.

    42. Re:What Al Gore said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm...

      Gore said something that is published widely with context. It does NOT say he invented the internet.

      Armey and lots of others that politically opposed him *lied* and misquoted him, mocking him and creating false controversy that damaged his political candidacy. Papers followed suit. Unlike the Republican party, the papers later corrected the error.

      The lie lives on, considering the title of TFA.

      People in the know said that Gore deserves credit for being there for them before anyone else. Not coincidentally, Gore's statement is accurate enough to the statements made by these people that the Armey-et-al lie becomes utter douchebaggery.

      You say Gore 'admitted that he misspoke'. To anyone smarter than a houseplant or GWB, that means not a *lie* but that admitting that there was a better way to describe things.

      So, tally is:
      Right: lies lies lies. And embraces their lie.
      Left: stands in the same place, clarifying the details.

      Comparing the right's lie for character assassination to anything else in this is so FAR from 'plenty of wrong for both sides' that you just earned the nickname 'Rightwing-Douchebag'. If that seems harsh, I hear Dubya's got a habit of giving people scatological nicknames. Deal with it.

    43. Re:What Al Gore said... by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
      "It does NOT say he invented the internet."

      Rather: Gore said he did invent the internet.

      "The lie lives on, considering the title of TFA."

      Gore's statement about inventing the Internet is now a matter of public record. It cannot be erased. Live with it. Get over it. It does not make me think less of him, why should it?

      "Armey and lots of others that politically opposed him *lied* and misquoted him" I have yet to see one of Armey's quotes or analize it. What Armey said or did not say does not change the fact that Gore made a misstatement about Internet history.

      "People in the know said that Gore deserves credit for being there for them before anyone else"

      People in the know know that before Gore was there, there were others who had created the Internet before Gore was even elected to Congress.

      "Not coincidentally, Gore's statement is accurate"

      How is it in any way accurate? The Internet started in 1969. It had the name Internet by 1974. Gore was elected in 1976. Given the irrefutable facts of history, it was not accurate of Gore to claim he took the iniative in creating it while in Congress.

      "...Armey-et-al lie...."

      You are rather off topic.

      "You say Gore 'admitted that he misspoke'. To anyone smarter than a houseplant or GWB, that means not a *lie* but that admitting that there was a better way to describe things."

      Lie? I have not used that claim in this argument. Repeatedly, I have referred to it as a mistatement, a mistake. Not something he intended to say. Maybe ARMEY said it, but who cares. The whole mention of Armey is a straw-man argument.

      The tally is:

      The right? Does not really matter in this. The Right did not make in incorrect claim of creating the internet. However, for the Right to call the incorrect claim a LIE is very likely unfair.

      The left? Gore slipped up, and admitted his mistake. Gore comes out looking clean. Yet, there are blind apologists on his side that think it serves Gore to twist history and words beyong meaning to try and make out like a bad statement is really true. You blind apologists are calling Gore a liar by insisting that the bad statement is true even though Gore said it was not.

      "If that seems harsh, I hear Dubya's got a habit..."

      Ah. I see where you are coming from. By using a common insult for Bush, you betray that you are not interested in facts: you just want to spin things to favor your party. That is all. Your arguments lose credibility like those of right-wingers who call Clinton "Slickwilly". Well, you can always go back to babbling about Dick Armey.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  17. P-sha! That's nothing! by Nybble's+Byte · · Score: 0
  18. Al Gore and the Internet by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    I swear to god, when I heard about this (several days ago, btw, on my local nightly news program- Slashdot is a little slow on the uptake), the newscaster said something along the lines of "Al Gore isn't stopping with the internet, now he's doing his own TV channel!"

    I always assumed that everyone got that the whole "I invented the internet" stuff was a bunch of crap, but now I'm starting to have my doubts- I think a lot of people DO think he "invented the internet".

    She wrapped it up with "however, Gore will not appear on the channel himself." Thank god- we've have an epidemic of people falling asleep from Instant Boredom.

    1. Re:Al Gore and the Internet by 2ms · · Score: 1

      Dude he may not of literally said he invented it but he definately tried to take credit for it. Like countless times too.

      Everyone's never going to get that it was a bunch of crap because he continued to boast about it for years even after people had started giving him shit about it and millions of us saw it on tv. Gore was a horse's ass it's ok to accept this even as a democrat. how do you think bush won? Kerry was a fraudulent ass. And he really did flip flop. Like ridiculously. He said he would have invaded irag too, and then he said he wouldn't have, and then the votes were in and the public never once heard an alternative to the war out of him. These guys were both asses and that's how bush won the taking credit more the internet was typical of this.

      It's good these guys were asses because they almost won and look how big asses they were next time will be a sure thing as long as not an ass.

    2. Re:Al Gore and the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't that be 'Goredom'?

    3. Re:Al Gore and the Internet by galdur · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suppose Americans would rather be entertained by a clown than having a good albeit dull president. TV. Gotta love it.

    4. Re:Al Gore and the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      ' I suppose Americans would rather be entertained by a clown than having a good albeit dull president '

      We have a good but dull president. The clown who said he invented the Internet is now off inventing the cable network.

    5. Re:Al Gore and the Internet by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 1
      She wrapped it up with "however, Gore will not appear on the channel himself." Thank god- we've have an epidemic of people falling asleep from Instant Boredom.

      Hmmmm. Good night-time tv...

    6. Re:Al Gore and the Internet by slutdot · · Score: 1

      I certainly prefer to get my entertainment from entertainers, not politicians.

    7. Re:Al Gore and the Internet by galdur · · Score: 1

      Clowns are the ones who read books upside down

  19. Not a bad idea folks. by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 1

    "Part of our objective is to connect those two experiences"
    I don't think he'd want to see the outcome of TV and Internet merged under one solution. We already got Paris Hilton all over the net and on tv :X

    Then I read the following line:
    Those hoping for a liberal network to balance the conservatism of Fox won't find it here.
    Well now I'm almost sold!

  20. When will Al Gore's head become... by dspisak · · Score: 5, Funny

    Emperor of the Moon? It's taking too damn long.

    A TV show or short segment showing what people are looking for on Google? Oh god, I can just imagine it now:

    193.53.2.10 is looking for "l33t w@r3z" with 57 hits

    Oh but check this out! 216.23.129.44 is looking for "vast right wing conspiracy" with 683,000 hits!

    101.23.64.99 is looking for "CENSORED" with 2,947,345 hits. What a perv!

    Etc.

    1. Re:When will Al Gore's head become... by Mechcozmo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey! That's my IP!

  21. only a matter of time by Syini666 · · Score: 1

    It will be priceless when a bot comes out to flood google with searches about the current political climate and it gets picked up. Hopefully this like most other retarded plans falls by the wayside as real ideas come forward.

  22. SHOWING Google searches??? by balaam's+ass · · Score: 2, Funny

    Uh, is Al sure he wants to broadcast how often people are searching for pr0n, and the different "kind" of pr0n they're looking for?

    What would Tipper say??

  23. Re:Yeah, and? by qewl · · Score: 2, Funny

    He's making "liberal TV" But he says he's not.

    Nah, I'd guess it to be more like Robot Wars 24/7.

    --

    (\_/)
    (O.o) This is Bunny. (> <)
  24. Re:Did he? by mondoterrifico · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm
    Nope. The internet makes you stupid.

  25. Got Google by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    If nothing else, this venture is useful because it makes someone who's not the NSA an important customer for Google's aggregated surf data. Showing it live on TV opens it up to the public.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  26. I don't think so by JoeBuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People seem to be assuming that Gore wants to make a liberal counterpart to Fox News, but it appears that he's trying to do something quite different, making something that is far more interactive than traditional television. I have no idea if it will work (and I suspect that it won't), but critics might want to actually pay attention to what he's trying to do before criticizing something that has nothing to do with what he is trying.

    1. Re:I don't think so by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      The idea sounds cool: until the channel gets bought a few times and turned into crap and we all have this overwhelming feeling of deja-vu.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    2. Re:I don't think so by qewl · · Score: 1

      Well interactive TV can't get much worse than MTV's TRL and similar with all the little LOL OMG!! MUDVAYNE IS SOO COOL AND EXCITING AND ORIGINAL!

      --

      (\_/)
      (O.o) This is Bunny. (> <)
    3. Re:I don't think so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe it will be more like moveon.orgtv. Al Gore says it will not be biased. I suggest looking at the people involved in launching the network and decide for yourself how unbiased they are.

      I also have a question for those that say Fox is biased. Even assuming that they are, who cares? It's not like there is not another news source that will present news with a more liberal twist. I don't actually believe their news coverage is biased. I expect to get attacked with what about Hannity and O'reilly. They are commentators, they are supposed to have opinions.

    4. Re:I don't think so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They are commentators, they are supposed to have opinions.

      Right, that's why it's called the Fox Commentary Channel. O'Reilly et al make no effort to distance their own commentary from the news, but then they hide behind this "Oh, I'm just a commentator" defense. I don't buy it.

    5. Re:I don't think so by jlanthripp · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yup, there's no liberal bias in the news, and nobody calling themselves "journalists" while pushing a liberal agenda...

      And Dan Rather never said:

      "The new Republican majority in Congress took a big step today on its legislative agenda to demolish or damage government aid programs, many of them designed to help children and the poor."
      -- Leading off the March 16, 1995 CBS Evening News.

      or

      "Republicans kill the bill to clean up sleazy political fundraising. The business of dirty campaign money will stay business as usual."
      -- CBS Evening News, February 26, 1998.

      or

      "There was no doubt Republicans in the House had enough votes tonight to pass another key item in their agenda to rip up or re-write government programs going back to the Franklin Roosevelt era. It is a bill making it harder, much harder, to protect health, safety, and the environment."
      -- CBS Evening News, February 28, 1995.

      or

      "President Bush tonight outlines his cut-federal-programs-to-get-a-tax-cut plan to Congress and the nation."
      -- CBS Evening News, February 27, 2001.

      or

      "I hear you talking and, as I have before on this subject, I don't know of anybody, friend or foe, who isn't impressed by your grasp of the details of this [health care] plan. I'm not surprised, because you have been working on it so long and listened to so many people."
      -- Interview with Hillary Clinton, 48 Hours, Sept. 22, 1993.

      or

      "I read the book [My Life by Bill Clinton] completely. And I think it compares very favorably with Ulysses S. Grant's gold standard of presidential autobiographies."
      -- Dan Rather on CNN's Larry King Live, June 18, 2004.

      or

      "This Democratic platform calls for not a single new domestic spending program. In other words, the party continues to march toward what some would call the center, others would say the right."
      -- CBS's Democratic convention coverage, July 19, 1984.

      or

      "Democrats were quick to portray the ticket as, quote, 'two Texas oilmen' because Cheney was chief of a big Dallas-based oil supply conglomerate. They also blast Cheney's voting record in Congress as, again quote, 'outside the American mainstream' because of Cheney's votes against the Equal Rights for Women Amendment, against a woman's right to choose abortion -- against abortion as Cheney prefers to put it -- and Cheney's votes against gun control."
      -- Reporting on Bush's selection of Dick Cheney as his running mate, July 25, 2000 CBS Evening News.

      or

      "Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore officially introduced his history-making running mate today, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut....In their first joint appearance they gave a preview of the Gore-Lieberman fight-back, comeback strategy. Their message: They represent the future, not the past, and they are the ticket of high moral standards most in tune with real mainstream America."
      -- Reporting on Lieberman's selection exactly two weeks later, August 8, 2000 CBS Evening News.

      Nope, no liberal bias in mainstream media. None at all. Nothing to see here, move along.

      At least O'Reilly and Limbaugh have the decency to call themselves commentators. Dan Rather is at least as biased as either of them but got away with calling his editorialization "journalism" for 40 years.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    6. Re:I don't think so by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1

      Dan Rather is one man. Fox News is an entire network.

      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    7. Re:I don't think so by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1, Informative

      critics might want to actually pay attention to what he's trying to do before criticizing something that has nothing to do with what he is trying.

      People may be a bit prejudiced against Mr. Gore because of what he has done in the past.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    8. Re:I don't think so by jlanthripp · · Score: 1
      Let's see here...post a message about the liberal media to a story about the liberal media and get modded "Offtopic" twice.

      It's okay, I have plenty of karma to burn. Nice to see that the Left still stands against censorship (except, of course, censorship of that with which they disagree).

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    9. Re:I don't think so by jlanthripp · · Score: 1

      Dan Rather has been the face of CBS News for 23 years. He *IS* (well, *WAS*) CBS News. FNC has barely even been around for HALF that long.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    10. Re:I don't think so by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      Hello braindead individual. It's time to pull out your feeding tube.

      Right wing or left wing bias in news media is unwelcome to anyone who actually thinks. The only job that jounralism has is to present the basic information and let people form their own opinions. This is not what happens today. Instead, opinions get presented as facts. And idiots who don't think take these opinions and treat them like the final word from supposed authorities. The sad part is that there is damn little that can be done about it. You really can't trust many sources of information right now because it's become all too easy to turn lies into plausible situations thanks to technology and years of building very cunning strategies to manipulate people with. Couple all that with people who want to control your opinion for a profit motive (yea capitliasm!) and you have a media monster that is unstoppable and uncontrolable.

      A lot of people expected the internet to democratize society and the media a good deal. It was supposed to result in the end-user becoming the producer. But then we have the problem of determining how authoritative a source is. ANYONE can put up a blog and claim to have inside information or breaking news. The fakest of the fake get weeded out, but the best bloggers and alternative news sources have a way of making their take on a story both very convoluted and plausible. It's next to impossible to discern between truth and convenient misdirection. You read these blogs and "insider" news sites and then you think, "Hmmm... that sounds right". Then you read the other side and if you're a level headed and unbaised person you think "Hmmmm... that sounds right too". Only one side has to be closer to the truth, but good luck figuring out which. Especially since many of the things discussed involve people and places you will never personally meet or visit. Without being there or seeing something for yourself, you're always at a disadvantage.

      News media is screwed by technology and paid strategists. The only way to really know the truth about things is to actually witness everything yourself. However, in many cases you can't because you're not privvy to the information. For example, how many of us could have actually walked into Terri Shiavo's hospital room and attempted to get her to smile or utter a sound? I'd guess that would be a big fat zero. On the other hand we could buy into the other side of the story that says she's been brain dead (like most people here in the U.S.) for a very long time. But that requires faith in the source of that inforrmation. Somewhere in that mess is truth. But I'll be damned if I take a side on that story because there just isn't enough reliable information from either side to convince me one way or the other. I've seen the video of her, I've read the medical reports. Too much dissonance.

      It's a case of too many questions and everyone with an agenda (which is to keep you blinded to certain facts). This is the case with every major news story that impacts you indirectly. You can chose to take a side (which is stupid these days) or you can deeply research things on your own (which many of us don't have time for) or you can just ignore it all and hole up in your house. These days, I read a lot and then decide that there is no truth in the media for either side. There are bits and pieces but they are hand picked and packaged to fit the ideologies that the U.S. and many other parts of the world have been manipulated into siding with.

      Gore's plan sounds interesting on the surface, but it will likely be too much work for the majority of Americans who despise the act of thinking and prefer to have their ideas spoon fed to them. There is no generation that is interested in multiple simultaneous media mostly because most people don't want to be made to think. Most people don't want to be aware of just how bad things are for some people. It's too disappointing and frightening because it makes the world that surround you personally very fragile. If you make people aware of the fragility of their comfortable lives, they will attack you just like Gollum attacks when someone tries to keep him from his "precious". Sad. Really, really sad.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    11. Re:I don't think so by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      Its not our fault you're a fucking twit. ;)

      Cheers.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    12. Re:I don't think so by jlanthripp · · Score: 1

      My, my. Lame ad hominem *and* profanity all in one sentence. Must've tickled your hypocrisy nerve there. Truth hurts, doesn't it?

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    13. Re:I don't think so by evilviper · · Score: 1
      People may be a bit prejudiced against Mr. Gore because of what he has done in the past

      Did you have a point there, or were you just trying to plug a link to a right-wing site, with vast ammounts of blatantly false information?
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    14. Re:I don't think so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False information ?

      You mean left-wing sites , don't you ?

    15. Re:I don't think so by kisak · · Score: 1

      Wow, is that really the best the right-wing smearers can find on Gore?! Shows what a decent man Gore is compared to the current president if nothing else.

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    16. Re:I don't think so by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      Nothin tickeld, I just thought itd go well with the general sentiment. You seemed to be talking out of your ass, I talked out of mine. Take a look at the definition of conservative and the definition of liberal, excise the political iterations stuck to them, and THINK about what each means. No sensible person is strictly conservative. No sane person is strictly liberal.

      Cheers.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  27. this is rapidly fractal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so, we can watch TV of Google lookups of TV of Google Lookups of ...

    yay.

  28. Re:Woohoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah keep mocking him. You'll be sorry when he decides to take it back.

  29. On the first episode: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You are hearing me talk."

  30. Re:Did he? by SydShamino · · Score: 5, Informative

    No he didn't. That wasn't his choice of words at all. He said he "took the initiative in creating the internet."

    Still a poor choice of words, but you are spouting the same falsehoods as you see on TV/Slashdot.

    Snopes Article

    And "took the initiative in creating" and "inventing" are most certainly differnt. Nikola Tesla discovered/invented AC power distribution, but George Westinghouse took the initiative in creating the power grid, by providing the money for it. Al Gore's role was more like Westinghouse's, in that he worked to secure funding for the internet and similar projects in the 80s when no one else really cared about them.

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  31. Re:Did he? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "[Taking] initiative in creating" is not the same as "inventing," but thanks for playing/trolling. Not that I like Al Gore, but hey, play fair.

  32. no! by barryfandango · · Score: 4, Funny

    "...a generation that thinks nothing of plugging into more than one media outlet at once."

    Maybe in my college days, but never again!

    --
    In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
    1. Re:no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was young and needed the money.

  33. Re:Inventor extrodinaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The next time you have a thought, gashuffer, just let it go.

  34. Whole discussion: -1 Flamebait by ImaLamer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He actually said he "took the initiative in creating the internet"

    Poor choice of words? Maybe, but Wired misquoted (libel!) him and put the word "Invented" in his mouth.

    Either way, Al Gore did coin the phrase "Information Superhighway" and Eisenhower should get credit for the Internet because it's his vision of the Interstate system that was the fundamental idea that went into creating the Internet (and that was in like the 1950's!)

    1. Re:Whole discussion: -1 Flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Entirely off-topic, but the link in your sig to the "Real Ultimate Power: Terry Schiavo" is easily the funniest thing I've ever seen since Saturday. If you created that, good work, if not, thank you for enlightening the rest of us.

    2. Re:Whole discussion: -1 Flamebait by kisak · · Score: 1
      Poor choice of words? Maybe, but Wired misquoted (libel!) him and put the word "Invented" in his mouth.

      Actually, it is said that Dick Armey misquoted Gore. And strangely enough, our heavily biased liberal media did not correct the lies of Bush when he repeated the libel (would maybe have been an idea to stop the liar with his first "innocent" lie instead the lies to follow where people ended up dying or losing jobs). Anyway, you get what you vote for.

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    3. Re:Whole discussion: -1 Flamebait by grain · · Score: 1

      Was the Interstate Highway system Eisenhower's idea, or was it spawned elsewhere in military or civilian command?

      There's some similarity here; both DARPAnet and the Interstate were created primarily to serve the interest of the US military.

      The Interstate was designed to allow military vehicles, including those transporting missiles, to travel easily in the event of emergency redeployments. Note the minimum height of overpasses. They're higher than necessary for semi trucks alone.

      DARPAnet was designed to allow military information to travel easily.

      Those are pretty broad strokes (please correct me on the details if I'm wrong), but that's my impression.

  35. Stop it already by nxtr · · Score: 2, Funny

    April Fools is over for more than 5 days now!

  36. Re:Yeah, and? by yoder · · Score: 1

    "He's making "liberal TV" But he says he's not."

    Of course he will not call it liberal TV. If he even hints that it may possibly have a liberal slant, every wingnut in the country will start screaming of how they are being persecuted by the media. If it were possible for him to come in under the wingnut radar, he might be able to avoid some of the crap that Air America radio went through.

    More power to him. I'll pay for the channel.

    --
    "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
  37. Re:i heart al gore by wolenczak · · Score: 0, Redundant

    GoreTv, hehe

  38. Does anyone actually care about.... by chroot_james · · Score: 1

    what people are searching google for every 30 minutes?!

    --
    Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
  39. X-Bender by joe_bruin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Announcing Car Bot: Thank you all for coming. It is my pleasure to
    introduce the host of the Kyoto global warming convention. The
    inventor of the environment, and first emperor of the moon, Al Gore.

    Al Gore: I have ridden the mighty moon worm!

    [Applause]

    Fry: Good for him.

    1. Re:X-Bender by batousai · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't forget he's patented double clicking!

      But its ok, I right click select open and then left click...

      --
      {Insert Signature Here}
  40. Easy enough solution: by ImaLamer · · Score: 2, Funny
    "Put the off button on."
    George W. Bush February 14, 2000 Advice to parents who have concerns about violence on television.
  41. Will the lame Al Gore jokes never cease? by Dh2000 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Probably not, but it's pretty boring to hear them over and over again.. guess I'm getting too old.

    On second thought, maybe it's because he's only "mis-spoken" a few times that there are so few jokes to be made.

    Anyway, Internet-TV has been here, already.. for years. Big Whoop. Will it be better from the crappy CNN and horrible FOX and pitiful MSNBC or the neutered ABC & CBS networks?

    Maybe, but I kinda doubt it. It'll probably be full of advertisements, infomercials and other useless pap within the year.. if not from the start.

    One can only wish for investigative, Fact-based-journalism that doesn't mindlessly repeat whatever important-person-x says or yak-yak about celebrity-scandal #1,043,323.

    1. Re:Will the lame Al Gore jokes never cease? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just a Social Democrat.
      Trust me, it's still funny to everyone else.

    2. Re:Will the lame Al Gore jokes never cease? by Dh2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, I'm not. The Democratic party is quite off my politics. As are most American political groups.

      I trust AC's very little and those who label me as something I'm not, not at all.

      Yes, it'd be funny if it was true... but it isn't, so it isn't.

  42. Viagra by workman161 · · Score: 0

    How many ads will feature viagra though?

  43. Remember QUBE? by Gleepy · · Score: 1

    ...a failed cable TV experiment with interactive boxes? Even venerable game show host Bill Cullen did a one-off game show in Columbus called How Do You Like Your Eggs?

    --
    Gleepy the Hen. More intelligent than the average hen.
    1. Re:Remember QUBE? by ChipMonk · · Score: 1

      I do remember QUBE. Its days may be over, but I'd hardly call it a failure. It proved that broadband cable was possible, by carrying signals both ways, in a widely-deployed system. The knowledge gained from the "experiment" was tremendous.

  44. I hope this goes over better than Air America by Shivetya · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    AA failed miserably because instead of being original they were shallow and vicious copy cats. Most of their junk was a mean spirited parody of some other sucessful show.

    Gore says he isn't going to slant the shows yet the list of whos who there is very very slanted.

    I just hope he doesn't get as dumb as Rock The Vote has become or worse delve into the nasty politics of MoveOn or similar from the right.

    If he truly wants to show that he is sane; yes I doubt it sometimes; lets hope that he doesn't slant it too much and not become just another mouthpiece for the DNC.

    If your going to compete with the likes of Rush, Hannity, and the right you need to deliver facts and keep the slant off. Do not copy unless your doing so out of sincere flattery for someone else's job well done. Lastly do not EVER go off on a tirade that borders on a political stump speech.

    Oh, please don't blame anyone else if you fail.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:I hope this goes over better than Air America by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      If your going to compete with the likes of Rush, Hannity, and the right you need to deliver facts and keep the slant off. Do not copy unless your doing so out of sincere flattery for someone else's job well done. Lastly do not EVER go off on a tirade that borders on a political stump speech.

      Sean Hannity quotes about the war in Kosovo that sound exactly like the sort of quotes about the War in Iraq that he criticises as Unamerican.

      The Center for American Progress creates a list of on-air lies by Sean Hannity in response to being challenged someone to "defend and explain one example where I -- where I said something that was so false." (Points 5 & 13 are the weakest IMHO.)

      Sean Hannity suggested early in the Abu Ghraib scandal that photos of the torture of prisoners were a DNC plot. (Note that this post tried to defend the infamous CBS memos before they were verified to be false.)

      Rush Limbaugh defends Abu Ghraib torturers as boys performing harmless pranks and blowing off steam.

      Limbaugh spins an article about advances in medical technology as disappointment in the low levels of fatalities in the war by the anti-war camp to our troops while in Iraq.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    2. Re:I hope this goes over better than Air America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The author spins the last article into saying Limbaugh says all Americans feel disappointment in the low levels of fatalities in the war which Limbaugh doesn't do. Limbaugh was talking directly about the media and some liberals like yourself.

      Now why would he say this? Well quite frankly it is a valid point. The liberal media IS dissapointed in the low level of fatalities in the war. Why? What better way for liberals to argue for the end a "wrong" war then to say we are losing too many lives? Limbaugh states rightly that they cannot do this because of our great medical technically. As all liberals seem to do lately though, you use no logic in discovering this and will probably argue that Limbaugh is against medical advances or something else.

    3. Re:I hope this goes over better than Air America by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Um, both Rush and Hannity spin like crazy themselves. Not that that's a good thing. Personally, I'd rather have a forum with solid facts and as little spin as possible, but I don't see that from the left OR the right.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    4. Re:I hope this goes over better than Air America by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      The author spins the last article into saying Limbaugh says all Americans feel disappointment in the low levels of fatalities in the war which Limbaugh doesn't do. Limbaugh was talking directly about the media and some liberals like yourself.

      Welcome to your own personal world of spinsanity. You fail to recognize that claiming that the media and "liberals like [me]" would love to see more soldiers injured is spin and lies in and of itself. The person quoted is only saying that lowered casualty levels is not indicative of the war going better than previous wars thanks to advances in medical science. All he's saying is that the metric is different nowdays, and Rush is claiming that that means he is disappointed by less loss of life. That's spin and lies.

      What better way for liberals to argue for the end a "wrong" war then to say we are losing too many lives?

      There are many better ways to argue that it's a wrong war. One could argue that the entire pretext for the war was wrong. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There were none of the large facilities needed for building nuclear weapons in use since 1990 thanks to constant weapons inspections. The roving biological weapons trailers tip was a lie from an unreliable source held in a Turkish prison. Everyone but the CIA knew that the aluminum tubes were the wrong size and coated with a bad material for making centrifuges. Bush had a report from Ambassador Wilson (and another one from another source in the State Department) decrying the purchase of yellowcake from Niger as a ludicrous idea before he made his lie in the State of the Union address.

      One could note that the supposed connections to al-Qaeda were a fantasy of the neo-cons. No evidence of support has ever been found, and Saddam (as a secular dictator up until 1990 and a lip-service Muslim ever after) had a justified wariness of dealing with an organization whose stated goal was to overthrow all corrupt Arab governments to create a unified theocratic Middle East. Subsequent intelligence after the war has confirmed that Saddam had no tieds to al-Qaeda.

      One could argue that the war was poorly planned. Paul Wolfowitz claimed before the war that we would be welcomed by the Iraqis, that casualties would be miniscule, that there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, and that we would not have to pay for the recovery since the Iraqi oil ministry could be up and running in less than a year. On all of these counts, he was dead wrong. He publicly rebuked General Shinseki for suggesting that holding Iraq would take a force in the hundreds of thousands to achieve when today we have a force of over 150,000 in Iraq. Our troops suffered from the restructuring of the armed forces to be a light-weight fast-strike force under the plans that Donald Rumsfeld has been pushing since the 80s. These plans made us incredibly effective at taking the country and incredibly ill-suited to hold it. We have failed the Iraqi people in rebuilding their infrastructure thanks to poor logistics and naked graft and corruption. By the end of this year, we will have ladled out nearly $200 billion dollars of taxpayers money for a war that the White House claimed would pay for itself -- a war with no exit strategy.

      From an international diplomacy standpoint it was wrong. We blew all the political capital we had as victims of September 11 which led many people to declare, "We are all Americans." Now we are internationally reviled for our lies, our belligerence, and our lack of respect for other nations. Instead of being loved and respected as soldiers of justice, we are known as bullies and torturers. The administration casually blew off the concerns of "Old Europe" to build a "Coallition of the Willing" with the full belief that after the war was over, other nations would gladly sign up to help rebuild what we knocked over. Instead, our allies have one by one turned their backs on us and walked out. Spain's government toppled over involvement in I

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    5. Re:I hope this goes over better than Air America by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
      A few comments. The parts I agree with, i'll leave.

      "Spain's government toppled over involvement in Iraq"

      Actually, Spain's government was leading by a wide margin in the polls. What changed and caused them to lose? The Madrid attack. The voters were temporarily shocked by the terrorists to vote for appeasement.

      "and England's Labor party has suffered for their help"

      They have not suffered much. Teflon Tony....

      "They see support for oppressive governments like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan"

      The interesting thing about this is that the so-called opposition in the Arab street to these governments wants to see them replaced with governments that are much more oppressive. I also take exception to charactarizing Jordan's government as particularly oppressive compared to the others.

      "They see a once prosperous and stable (though not free) state [Iraq] turned into a ruined haven for terrorists who attack Muslims. "

      Saddam had ruined Iraq long prior to the Bush invasion. It was not prosperous. "Stability"? Not for much of the country. The southern swamps were not stable as the people were being killed during the draining, and the ongoing situation of forcing Kurds (as part of a planned destruction of their society) out of their homes was not stable either

      "It is wrong because it fails to achieve its stated goal -- to bring democracy and stability to the Middle East and to turn aside the tide of anti-Americanism"

      Likely it is lucky timing, but prospects for democracy in the region are a lot stronger now than a few years ago, even aside from the two "regime changes": Lebanon, Palestine, even something in Saudi Arabia.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    6. Re:I hope this goes over better than Air America by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      You're right about Spain -- the Popular Party did have a nice lead, but mismanagement of the crisis and an attempt to foist the whole thing on ETA contributed to their loss in a country where 90% of the population no longer supported war in Iraq. The Socialists made a very savvy play for power based on this undercurrent in the country and won while Aznar rode support for the war down the drain. While one might argue that he admirably stuck to his guns, it was an unwise move when the polls showed such strong feeling against it.

      Labor lost a few seats the last election, but barely held off the Tories and has had to play a more concillatory role than in previous years. The government has lost face, but not that much power. The war in Iraq is deeply unpopular there too. Even before the war, support for it however at only about 50% and has dropped ever since. Labor's strongest problems, though, will be with economic and domestic issues in this next election in May. I predict that Labor will pull through, though.

      (I must also admit, even though the war in Iraq is intensely unpopular in Italy especially in the wake of the death of one of their secret service agents, it will be economic issues that are likely to topple Berlusconi's government in the next election.)

      I also take exception to charactarizing Jordan's government as particularly oppressive compared to the others.

      I put Jordan on the borderline along with Pakistan. I wavered about including it in my post, and probably should have dropped it. The populace doesn't like America very much in spite of the government liking us, and a lot of Arab resent the government of Jordan as a result.

      Saddam had ruined Iraq long prior to the Bush invasion. It was not prosperous.

      Iraq was prosperous before 1990. I believe that the sanctions against the country were necessary, but it caused a lot of suffering amonst the people and a lot of poverty in an industrialized nation. This has generated a good amount of ill-will against the US in the Arab world. There's a lot of potential in the Iraqi labor force that hasn't been taken proper advantage of that could've fixed lot of this, but the infrastructure of Iraq today is worse than it was even during the 1990-2003 era.

      The lawless looting and the insurgent attacks on the populace are new, though, and we're getting the blame for it for not having a proper plan to secure the country in place before invading. If we had locked down the country's weapons and munitions depots, we could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble. As for the plight of the Marsh Shia and the Kurds, the sad truth is that most of the Arab world couldn't give a damn. It is noble and right to help them out, but it does little to soften the negative publicity we've been earning.

      Likely it is lucky timing, but prospects for democracy in the region are a lot stronger now than a few years ago, even aside from the two "regime changes": Lebanon, Palestine, even something in Saudi Arabia.

      I will grant Lebanon. I will also grant an improvment in Libya. Saudi Arabia's changes are merely cosmetic. All the power is still focused in the hands of the royals and their hand-picked members of parliament. The religious secret police still prey upon the populace, and women's rights are still atrocious.

      As for Palestine, I won't give Bush any f---ing credit for sitting on his hands for four years while the Intifada grew worse and waiting for Arafat to die. Many Israelis and Palestinian deaths could have been prevented with some application of the muscular diplomacy he's so fond of. While I will give him credit for advocating a two-state solution and for pressuring Israel to stop settlement expansion, I hold against him his administration's ambivalence about the West Bank barrier and his hinting that Israel should get to keep some West Bank settlements. Those two moves have been very damaging to the Middle East peace process and have convinced most of the world that we are even less of a neutral parter for peace than before. Nothing that was done in Iraq has anything to do with the advancement of peace in Israel & Palestine. Nothing.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    7. Re:I hope this goes over better than Air America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The person quoted is only saying that lowered casualty levels is not indicative of the war going better than previous wars thanks to advances in medical science. All he's saying is that the metric is different nowdays, and Rush is claiming that that means he is disappointed by less loss of life. That's spin and lies.

      I would say that Rush is saying that liberals no longer have a metric in which to scare Americans into believing we should get out of this war. It WOULD be disappointing for liberals to not have their "best" (I explain "best" more fully further down) counter-argument against the war.

      No, the fact that we must sacrifice for what we wish to achieve is not the best argument. The fact that we are failing to achieve it due to incompetence is.

      This argument is not about incompetence, regardless of whether it is there or not (I do agree that there have been cases of it). My argument, like Limbaugh's, was the fact that liberal media have used the number of casualities in the war to justify an end to it and that with increasing medical advances they could not do that anymore. You are right that casualites are not the best argument, but I only stated that as a view liberals have taken. Maybe I should have put quotes around that or something. This doesn't surprise me though as liberals have not, as I have stated, always used the best logical arguments and I am not sure how many of them would agree with you that it isn't the best argument. That was the point of my last statement you have tried to counter.

      I will repeat that this is not an argument for/against the other things you have stated. They are almost pointless in this argument, partly because Rush would probably fail to concede some of them (I won't try to back them up or not). This is an argument against what Rush and myself feel is the "best" argument the liberals have used and are no longer able.

    8. Re:I hope this goes over better than Air America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Continuing (I thought I had posted this but I guess I did not).

      You should read that link you gave me more closely. By stating those incompetences you have set up a strawman against me.

  45. Re:Yeah, and? by tscrum · · Score: 0

    he's getting it funded by Budhist munks.

  46. May as well make a pron channel by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's what most Google searches are for. And all the ad breaks will be infomercials for Viagra etc.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:May as well make a pron channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Real programmers have sixteen fingers.

      Not fair! I only have $14 digits, counting fingers AND toes.

  47. Electoral College by p51d007 · · Score: 2

    Obviously you need to go back and read from the constitution what the electoral college is and quit relying on what your liberal teachers tell you. The electoral college was a great idea our founding fathers came up with. This gives an equal share of the outcome of an election to small states or large states based on population. Without the electoral system, there would be NO NEED for any politician to ever visit "flyover" country. They would spend all their time in: California, Florida, New York, Illinois, Texas and a couple of other states, where the bulk of the population resides. The other states in the union would not receive any representation, since they have "too few" people. The electoral college prevents that from happening.

    1. Re:Electoral College by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If no-one lives there, why give a fuck?

    2. Re:Electoral College by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but bush is teh winnar so teh elecshun systum is teh fuxored. if gore was teh winnar teh elecshum systum would be teh leet and teh democracy. but too bad beacause now we live in amerikkka.

    3. Re:Electoral College by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The electoral college was a great idea our founding fathers came up with. This gives an equal share of the outcome of an election to small states or large states based on population.

      How can you think that this is a good thing? How can it possibly be fair that your vote is worth twice as much as mine (or more), just because of where you live? Everyone should be equal, no matter whether they live in California or Wyoming.

    4. Re:Electoral College by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      That is aboslutely idiotic. You totally missed the point. Don't breed....please.

    5. Re:Electoral College by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It works so brilliantly, too. Now the politicians tour only swing states and "flyover" California, New York, Illinois, and Texas and the couple of other states where the bulk of the population resides. The electoral college causes that to happen (actually, the fact that most states don't select electors proportionally causes it to happen).

    6. Re:Electoral College by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The electoral college was a great idea our founding fathers came up with.

      Sure, when your guy wins. It is worth noting that the Bush 2000 campaign had discussed the idea of disputing the electoral college results if he lost the electoral college vote but won the popular vote. He didn't seem to have as much of a problem with it when he squeeked through in the electoral college.

      They would spend all their time in: California, Florida, New York, Illinois, Texas and a couple of other states

      As opposed to now, where they go to all states equally instead of focusing on, say, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and a couple of other states.

    7. Re:Electoral College by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
      As opposed to now, where they go to all states equally instead of focusing on, say, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and a couple of other states.

      If there's a benefit of that, it's to encourage political balance in all states. For example, all New Yorkers would benefit from a stronger Republican presence, and all Georgians would benefit from a stronger Democrat presence. Ohio and Florida are damn near 50/50%, no surprise they get the attention.

    8. Re:Electoral College by KingSkippus · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It is crap for a couple of reasons.

      First, there is something philosophically nice about the person who gets the most votes winning an election. The electoral college is an obstacle to that. I am a liberal, but I've been saying that ever since sixth grade or so when someone first explained to me what the electoral college was. I would still say it even if Kerry had won the electoral vote and Bush the popular vote. In fact, I was really rooting for that outcome. It will probably never be changed unless both parties get burned in quick succession.

      Second, in most states (all but one or two), there's no provision for splitting up the electoral vote. For example, Georgia has 13 electoral votes. It doesn't matter whether 50.1% or 99.9% of Georgia votes for George Bush, he gets all 13 electoral votes. Why does he not get 7 with the loser in Georgia getting 6? Because it's a dumb idea.

      The problem is that small states have too much power. There is already a provision to balance it out in Congress with each state having two senators. As for the presidency, I don't like the idea that someone's vote being worth more or less collectively than mine just because of our respective geographic locations.

      And you're complaining that candidates would never visit small states? They hardly ever do now. How many trips did the candidates make to small states such as Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, etc. in 2004? And is it really better the way it is now, where candidates never visit non-battleground states?

    9. Re:Electoral College by bombadillo · · Score: 1

      The Electoral College is an outdated system. If it is so good then why have we not exported to other foriegn governments that we are helping build? The simple reason is that it is a hold over from a time when.

      - Most of the populace was uneducated and couldn't read/write
      - The Vice President was the person with the second highest electoral vote.
      - Allowing Men to vote that did not own land was considered liberal.
      - Most of the cities were only conected by trails. Making a true popular election pretty difficult.

      It is true that it was intended to give a fairer shake to the smaller states. However, that was also in a time when states were fiercly independent. This simply isn't the case now. Also, you do realize that it is statistically possible ( Although highly unlikely ) to win the election by wining only 13 states. So it is possible to win the Presidency by only carying 1/3 of the States.

    10. Re:Electoral College by ImaLamer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am a liberal, but I've been saying that ever since sixth grade or so when someone first explained to me what the electoral college was.

      I'm a liberal but don't get all of us involved! If you haven't learned anything since the 6th grade, then I pity you.

      The problem is that small states have too much power. There is already a provision to balance it out in Congress with each state having two senators. As for the presidency, I don't like the idea that someone's vote being worth more or less collectively than mine just because of our respective geographic locations.


      Tough! All of these concerns were addressed hundreds of years ago. Everyone brought up these arguments but this way works best. The only thing that was total bullshit in the way the Constitution set things up was the 3/5ths of a person.

      Plus, it has nothing to do with geography or the size of the states (a point you contradict in your own post). It's all about population, the thing that matters and the thing you want it to be based on.

      in most states (all but one or two), there's no provision for splitting up the electoral vote. For example, Georgia has 13 electoral votes. It doesn't matter whether 50.1% or 99.9% of Georgia votes for George Bush, he gets all 13 electoral votes. Why does he not get 7 with the loser in Georgia getting 6? Because it's a dumb idea.

      As there shouldn't be! I think that idea is un-Constitutional at best. If you split the electoral votes then you are back at the popular vote - duh.

      And you're complaining that candidates would never visit small states? They hardly ever do now. How many trips did the candidates make to small states such as Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, etc. in 2004? And is it really better the way it is now, where candidates never visit non-battleground states?

      I covered the election and that isn't true at all. Candidates hit every state, with Hawaii and Alaska getting visits from VP candidates (if anyone visits Alaska at all).

      How about getting good candidates to run before you try to fix a non-broken system to elect them.

      (I say Gore-Clinton in 2008!!!)

    11. Re:Electoral College by polanyi · · Score: 1
      While the electoral college provides a boost to the likes of Wyoming and Delaware, it it most benefits big states, due to the winner-take-all aspect. From this article in Slate:
      In their book Electoral College Primer 2000 (which, alas, was not updated for 2004), Lawrence D. Longley and Neal Peirce calculated that the states enjoying higher-than-average voting power under the Electoral College were the following (in declining order): California Texas New York Florida Pennsylvania Illinois The states with the least voting power under the Electoral College were the following (in ascending order): Montana Kansas West Virginia Maine Arkansas Utah Nevada
    12. Re:Electoral College by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      With all due respect, the electoral system doesn't encourage a thing. Your argument would work if Democarat's in New York decided to turn into Republicans so that they would get more attention in the next election. Of course that would never happen because, it would be a just plain foolish thing to do.

      As other's have pointed out the electoral system fails to accomplish what it was designed to do because instead of candidates ignoring the least populated states they are now ignoring anything that isn't a swing state. That means many, many states of all sizes get ignored instead of just a few small ones.

      It was a nice experiment, but it failed. Time to ditch it.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    13. Re:Electoral College by Monte · · Score: 1

      How can it possibly be fair that your vote is worth twice as much as mine (or more), just because of where you live? Everyone should be equal, no matter whether they live in California or Wyoming.

      I am going to assume you're not an American citizen, otherwise I'd feel compelled to flame you good and hard for such an ignorant statement.

      The nation is called The United States of America, not The Big Shiny Happy Glob of America. It was founded on a principal of a bunch of mostly self-governing states, each with it's own set of laws and priorities. So if, for example, the people in your state didn't think alcohol was a good thing, they could implore the state legislature to outlaw it. And if another state thought weed should be legalized, ditto. In fact, some states had their own organized churches (which kinda shoots down the "separation of church and state" thing, but that's another rant).

      The bi-cameral federal legislature (senate gives equal representation per state, house apportions according to population, both must agree for a law to pass) and the electoral college are mechanisms to insure this idea of state individuality.

      There was a time when some very populous states started bossing around some of the less populous ones, you may have heard it called "The American Civil War". or as some call it "The War of Northern Agression". Very nasty bit of business, that. It was almost the end of the country.

      If you find any of this intriquing I'm sure there are many places on the net (or even your public library) that can provide you with more information. Here in the United States this sort of thing (under the title "Civics") is taught in public schools.

      At least that's the theory.

    14. Re:Electoral College by deanj · · Score: 1

      And, if they did away with it, they'd only try and carry the most populous states, so they only have to "carry" even fewer states.

      Oh...and SURPRISE...doing away with the electoral college would heavily favor the Democrats, since most of them live in those populous states.

      No thanks.

    15. Re:Electoral College by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
      With all due respect, the electoral system doesn't encourage a thing. Your argument would work if Democarat's in New York decided to turn into Republicans so that they would get more attention in the next election. Of course that would never happen because, it would be a just plain foolish thing to do.

      Well, yes and no. Republicans in the NE are more liberal, Dems in SE are more conservative. Both out in the rockies are more libertarian. Point is, the college should encourage more regionalism amongst the parties as they try to capture swing states. Right now both seem to have given up on a lot of states, and that isn't working at all for one party in particular. This is cyclical, and if they decide to reassess the situation, it will change.

      As other's have pointed out the electoral system fails to accomplish what it was designed to do because instead of candidates ignoring the least populated states they are now ignoring anything that isn't a swing state. That means many, many states of all sizes get ignored instead of just a few small ones.

      To amplify my point, it specifically results in the ignoring of states that don't have political balance. As you say, it would be asinine for someone to start voting for the lower party in their state in the interest of parity. But it would be worth it for the national parties to make concessions that keep more states competitive. in many ways maintains a more healthy, less stagnant political system. If nothing else, since swing states are always changing, the college rotates the pork around instead of having it always go to the biggest states only.

      It was a nice experiment, but it failed. Time to ditch it.

      Well...what has it failed *at*, specifically?

    16. Re:Electoral College by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The only thing that was total bullshit in the way the Constitution set things up was the 3/5ths of a person.

      In that case, you should agree that the Electoral College is total bullshit, because it was designed with the purpose of letting the 3/5 Compromise affect the presidential election.

      As there shouldn't be! I think that idea is un-Constitutional at best.

      Then it's you who is ignorant of the Constitution. There is absolutely no Constitutional requirement for a winner-take-all system. Or even any evidence of the intention for one.

      Have you ever thought that maybe there's a reason why, for example, California has 55 individual electors instead of just one elector with 55 votes?

    17. Re:Electoral College by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      From what I've read/heard/seen, most of the populace is still relatively uneducated in regards to politics.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    18. Re:Electoral College by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      All of these concerns were addressed hundreds of years ago. Everyone brought up these arguments but this way works best.


      How can you know that, given that we've never tried any other way?


      It's all about population, the thing that matters and the thing you want it to be based on.


      A direct vote would be even more directly based on population...


      As there shouldn't be! I think that idea is un-Constitutional at best.


      Nope, it's not un-constitutional at all... it's up to each state to decide how they want to select their electors. Colorado even had a proposition on the ballot to start doing just that... it lost, though.


      How about getting good candidates to run before you try to fix a non-broken system to elect them.


      Are you happy with the quality of the candidates and debate we have seen recently, from either party? Most people aren't. That's a good sign of a system that could be improved.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    19. Re:Electoral College by Tinik · · Score: 1

      Who elects the president, the people or the states? Should it matter which states have the most people in a nation-wide elction? Why are state boundries an issue when it is the will of the people of the entire country that is being decided?

    20. Re:Electoral College by Manchot · · Score: 1

      Just because a politician visits a state twice in the span of four years, it does not mean that he cares about that state at all. Nor does it mean that he will take that state's denizens into consideration when he makes a decision. It means that he or she is simply trying to get the favor of the easily swayed. For some reason, it works.

    21. Re:Electoral College by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      Let me better qualify that. Much of the populace is still blah blah blah.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    22. Re:Electoral College by unitron · · Score: 1
      "In fact, some states had their own organized churches (which kinda shoots down the "separation of church and state" thing, but that's another rant)."

      The Constitution only bars Congress from getting the federal government into the religion business, it doesn't say that the individual states can't make that mistake. That idiot judge in Alabama that blew $30,000 of the taxpayers' money on a chunk of marble actually had support from that state's constitution to do so.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    23. Re:Electoral College by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      Are you happy with the quality of the candidates and debate we have seen recently, from either party? Most people aren't. That's a good sign of a system that could be improved.

      I'd say most people are, considering most voted for George W. Bush. On the other hand, I really liked John Kerry... True, the system could be improved. Instant Run-off ballots, could be a good start.

      I think banning all private funds in campaigns would be a good start too. I say if you want to support a candidate you take out a commercial or ad space in the newspaper. Make all campaigns tax supported, give every candidate an equal ammount of money. Free transportation to speaking events and debates....

    24. Re:Electoral College by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and I'm sure the 250,000 dollars of federal money that went to a Dr. Suess park in Indiana a few years back was well worth taxpayer money!!! At least that was 30,000 spent on a topic that caused people to think about the nature of this country. Think of all the pork that goes through...

    25. Re:Electoral College by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

      Well, as long as I'm arguing and off-topic, I might as well be arguing and way off-topic. Wow, that first replier is RIGHT on the money! For real, if more people want a Democrat to lead us than a Republican, what the hell does it matter where they live!?

      doing away with the electoral college would heavily favor the Democrats

      How do you figure? First of all, if more people vote for a Democratic candidate, are you suggesting that he or she shouldn't have a "favored" outcome? Why? Because they live in a big state? If all the Democrats dispersed themselves geographically across the country, does that mean that their votes are for some reason now more valid? That's ridiculous, and only a thinly veiled excuse for the real reason: you think they should lose because he or she is a Democrat, the will of the people be damned.

      Second of all, as incomprehensible as it still is to me, George W. won the popular vote in 2004. It seems to me that doing away with the electoral college doesn't favor anything except the will of the people.

    26. Re:Electoral College by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The parent said to you: "doing away with the electoral college would heavily favor the Democrats"

      It sure looks like they are openly selling the Electoral College as a tool to increase Republican power. When someone proposes such a policy for blatantly biased or unfair reasons like this, it turns me off from it. This is similar to the racists who try to sell "PR" (Proportional Representation) to elect individuals of a certain race. Or the places where Republicans opposed "motor voter" because if it was easier to register, more Democrats might vote. (the reverse of this is Democrats who oppose IDs to prevent voter fraud, out of an apparent belief that too many fraud voters are Democrats and this would hurt them).

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    27. Re:Electoral College by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But it would be worth it for the national parties to make concessions that keep more states competitive. in many ways maintains a more healthy, less stagnant political system.

      [snort]

      It does? And what are some of these many ways?

    28. Re:Electoral College by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      Nope, it's not un-constitutional at all... it's up to each state to decide how they want to select their electors. Colorado even had a proposition on the ballot to start doing just that... it lost, though.

      It's not unconstitutional - just stupid (for a small state) to do. Iowa was split down the middle - 51/49 or so this time, and has 7 electoral votes to give. Proportionally awarding electors would have resulting in a 4/3 split. Chances are that the electoral split would rarely exceed 4/3 either way almost no matter what.

      If that was the case, what reason would there be for any candidate to care about Iowa (or any other individual state for that matter). Awarding electoral votes in an all-or-nothing manner makes carrying each individual state more important in each election.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    29. Re:Electoral College by Angafirith · · Score: 1

      Yes, a system that makes it pointless to vote in states that traditionally vote a certain way (like Maryland) is more representative of the population than a popular vote!!

      That's sarcasm, by the way.

      Originally, the state legislature would appoint the Congressmen, and the House of Representatives would appoint the electors. This system was based on the idea that the common person was stupid and needed someone to make their decisions for them. They only had a say in who represented them on the state level. With better communication, everyone is better informed about the issues, and able to make their own decisions. In my opinion, changes are necessary to fix this.

      --
      "It is better to risk sparing a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one." - Voltaire
    30. Re:Electoral College by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

      If you haven't learned anything since the 6th grade, then I pity you.

      I didn't say I haven't learned anything since 6th grade, I said that I've KNOWN this since 6th grade. Did anyone else misunderstand this? And I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that all liberals think the same thing I do, so I take back the comment that I'm a liberal.

      it has nothing to do with geography or the size of the states

      I was referring to the geography of where one lives, and to small POPULATION states, of course. I thought that would have been obvious by my reference to Wyoming, Montana, and especially Alaska as small states. And it is only PARTLY based on population, which is my probem with the system. The other part of the equation is that every state gets an extra two electors regardless of its population.

      Munch on these simple examples: In 2000, Wyoming's population was 6.0% of Georgia's (where I live), but they have 20% of the electoral vote of Georgia's. Wyoming accounts for 0.18% of the U.S. population, but 0.56% of the electoral vote. If you happen to live in Wyoming, your vote counts over three times what it should based on your state's population because of the skew in how the number of electors is based on factors other than population.

      I think that idea is un-Constitutional at best.

      No, it's not. As I said, some states do it already. Since you won't take my word for it, I had to go and look it up. The two states that do it now are Maine and Nebraska. The Constitution simply leaves it up to the states to decide how to select electors. In theory, a state could just appoint them without even HAVING a presidential election. (Though I doubt that would go over so well in the next state legislative election.)

      Candidates hit every state, with Hawaii and Alaska getting visits from VP candidates

      I reiterate, they HARDLY ever visit small (population) states now. Maybe an hour or two here or there. Doing away with the electoral college wouldn't change that, it would be pretty much the same.

      And I still don't see any convincing argument as to what is wrong with this concept: If more voters vote for a Republican presidential candidate (as they did in 2004), then that Republican should be President. If more voters vote for a Democratic presidential candidate (as they did in 2000), then that Democrat should be President. It doesn't matter whether those voters live in New York, Texas, Alaska, Wyoming, or a U.S. military base in Germany. This is a NATIONAL election; if you are an eligible voter and choose to exercise that right, then your vote for President should count just like any other.

      That kind of system--everyone's vote counting equally--IS unConstitutional, and it needs to be changed. But as long as people don't feel like they're being screwed, it won't. In 2000, the Democrats (rightfully) felt like they were screwed out of the election, but it didn't do any good since the Republicans were in control. If Kerry had won the electoral vote and Bush the popular vote in 2004, then the Republicans would have (rightfully) felt like they were screwed out of the election. With almost everyone feeling screwed, the system would have finally been fixed. But no, the Republicans eeked by in Ohio, and because most don't have the brains to realize how close they were to being bitten (nor do most Democrats, but they now have firsthand knowledge), everyone has to keep living with this harebrained idea until yet more people get screwed. :-(

      How about getting good candidates to run before you try to fix a non-broken system to elect them.

      Is there any particular reason we can't do both?

    31. Re:Electoral College by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      I'd say most people are, considering most voted for George W. Bush.


      Actually, only about 60% of eligible voters actually bothered to vote at all, so given that Bush got approximately half the vote, that means only about 30% of the people voted for Dubya. (and that's a record high turnout since 1968, too!) 40% of the people couldn't be bothered to participate at all... many of them because they feel the game is too rigged to make it worth their time.


      Instant Run-off ballots, could be a good start.


      I totally agree. With Instant Runoff, third party candidates would not be spoilers, so people wouldn't be afraid to vote for the person they really liked. Right now, you have your choice of Republican, Democrat, or (protest vote that doesn't affect the result one way or another, you might as well stay home).


      I think banning all private funds in campaigns would be a good start too.


      I don't think that is the right way to do it... people should be allowed to support the candidates they want to. A better method is Public Campaign Financing, where politicians who can get enough signatures and $5 token donations become eligible for public campaign funding. That was we can have politicians who aren't beholden to big benefactors, but only to the public at large -- without any potential 1st Amendment issues.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    32. Re:Electoral College by winwar · · Score: 1

      Nebraska and Maine actually award their electoral votes based on winners of house districts with the overall vote getter taking the "senate" electoral votes, IIRC. Voters were wise not to vote for the measure, because, as you note, there would be no point in wasting time or money in such a state....

      Now, if one were devious, you might introduce such a measure in a populous state that votes against your preferred party..... Think of the effect of such a thing in CA, FL, NY, TX, etc....

    33. Re:Electoral College by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      In theory, a state could just appoint them without even HAVING a presidential election.

      I bet Texas or Florida will do this first.

    34. Re:Electoral College by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fourteenth ammendment ensured that all US citizens had freedom of religion. Before that states had the power to restrict that freedom.

    35. Re:Electoral College by jfern · · Score: 1

      In 1876, Colorado was admitted to the union to give 3 EV to the Republican party. They didn't bother to have a popular election, the state legislature just appointed the 3 electors.

      Anyways, the election had some uncanny similarities to 200. The Republican ended up *ahem* officially winning Florida by several hundred votes, losing the popular vote, and winning the electoral college with so small a margin that any state would have made the difference.

    36. Re:Electoral College by jfern · · Score: 1

      >Oh...and SURPRISE...doing away with the electoral college would heavily favor the Democrats, since most of them live in those populous states.

      In 2000, the Bush campaign decided that there was a chance they'd win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote. I guess they had their options covered for however the popular and electoral vote went. Here's the article.

      In 2004, Bush won the popular vote by 2.47%, and Ohio by 2.10%. If there was a uniform shift of between 2.10% and 2.47%, Bush would have still won the popular vote, but Kerry would have won the electoral vote.

    37. Re:Electoral College by jfern · · Score: 1

      Advertizing per capita is lower in the heartland states than California. Can you explain to me why they wouldn't advertize in the small states?

      And, anyways right now the voters of Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, and Alaska are being taken for granted. Wouldn't you like to see the candidates have to to campaign there?

    38. Re:Electoral College by IPFreely · · Score: 1
      A lot of discussion of election reform methods is specifically in terms of whether it benefits or hurts one of the two major parties, the Democrats or the Republicans.

      What if we discuss the electoral reforms in terms of what benefits the voters rather than what benefits the parties? The ideas you mentioned all will have their various effects on the parties, but they will also have their effect on the voter too. Policies that make it easier for voters to get registered, and easier to vote are good for the voter. Making voter registration and election day more accurate and secure is also good for the voter. Instant runoff voting is good for the voters too, and that's something that is likely to weaken the power of both major parties.

      Ultimately, elections are not about the parties, they are about the voters.

      --
      There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
    39. Re:Electoral College by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
      It does? And what are some of these many ways?

      It keeps the parties more responsive to more of the country than they otherwise would, and it encourages the political climate in each state to be more competitive. I believe that this results in faster evolution of the parties to meet shifting demographics, because it makes it extremely clear why and how one party is losing out.

      As an example, the Democrats now. They used to own the south, which finally realized it's extremely conservative and switched. Because losing each of those states was so costly, the Dems can't afford to let it happen again. I guarantee you'll see concessions to change the Dem party before 2008 to make it have any appeal at all outside the coasts.

      If it weren't for the college, you'd see them always campaigning in bigger states no matter what the margin trying to get their margin frmo 60-40 to 70-30. That's the real kicker right there - *the electoral college prevents further polarization of the states*. And I think that's a good thing.

      Give it a think about what would happen if we switched. I don't mean next year, I mean in 10-20 years. Candidates would actually campaign in fewer states, and the margins of victory in each state would be far higher. Our country would be more polarized than it is now. Personally, with as diverse a country as we have, we can do without further divisiveness.

    40. Re:Electoral College by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Shift of between 1.051% and 2.47% in point of fact.

      51.-1.051=49.949 48.9+1.051=49.951

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    41. Re:Electoral College by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Advertizing per capita is lower in the heartland states than California. Can you explain to me why they wouldn't advertize in the small states?

      You're making a crucial, and boneheaded, assumption. Media costs are not equal. It is much more expensive to buy 30 seconds of TV time in LA or NYC than Iowa. As such, per capita media spending is not an accurate indicator of "amount of advertising".

    42. Re:Electoral College by elakazal · · Score: 1

      Of course, when considering where people will actually campagin, the top six feature only two worth campaigning seriously in, FL and PA. CA, NY, and IL are pretty safe Democratic states, TX is a safe Republican state. In the bottom seven include at least four swing states (WV, ME, AR, NV) maybe five (MT is looking swingier these days). So while the electoral college may allow the state the least voting power, the individual voter in these states has more actual power to influence a national election.

    43. Re:Electoral College by amliebsch · · Score: 1
      Originally, the state legislature would appoint the Congressmen

      Senate, yes, House, no. The House has always been ruled by popular vote.

      Article I, Section. 2.

      Clause 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

      I'll additionally point out a benefit to the electoral college nobody else has yet: it is more robust, by confining extremely close outcomes in the popular vote to units 1/50th the size of the whole. Without it, then in the event of a close outcome,the entire nation would have to undergo manual recounts. Ugh!

      Additionally, the electoral college has federalism implications, making it possible for the states to maintain their own election procedures.

      In any case, it will not be changed, because Congress cannot change it.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  48. Re:Did he? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    You give people too much credit by assuming they weren't stupid before they got on the internet.

  49. Ticker!!! by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

    I say put it in the ticker (news crawl):

    Linux ext3 tweaks - Opus Dei - free porn movies - cosign auto loan - mario - squirting mpeg videos - lighsaber - free amateur husband creampie wife sample videos

    (Based on eal dogpile searches)

  50. Re:Did he? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And "took the initiative in creating" and "inventing" are most certainly differnt.

    The effect is the same though, those words make it seem like he is taking credit for something he doesn't deserve.

  51. NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NSF credited him with improving the Internet. This does not make his entire false claim of having created in the first place it any more true.

    1. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nor does it make your claim to be a purple chicken with twelve eyes correct. What? You never made any such claim? Doesn't matter, Mr. Gore never claimed to invent the internet either.

    2. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The quote actually does not, except by wild misinterpretation, actually mean what the widespread, if only in jest, humorous interpretation implies it does. The actual quote: "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." this means, from the political perspective, that he encouraged the allocation of funds for the greater development of the protocols and systems that now comprise the systems that are thought of when "Internet" is heard by the majority, into the commercial entity that it now is.

    3. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The relevant definition from the 1913 Webster's dictionary, entry for creating (as it seems you mistakenly imply to mean invent in the sense that you are able to believe he claimed a direct role of technical involvement):

      To effect by the agency, and under the laws, of causation; to be the occasion of; to cause; to produce; to form or fashion; to renew.

      In this sense, Al Gore, and any and every other politician involved (depending on the degree of their involvement in allocating funds, etc.) are also creators of the present Internet.

    4. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Rei · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's like having a mid-level manager whose department invented the Cross-Flange Widget(tm) after being directed to modify an existing Widget for Cross-Flange capability, being interviewed with questions about his accomplishments, and responding "I took the initiative in creating the Cross-Flange Widget". Yes, he wasn't the one down there hammering out the new type of widget, but if it had been some other manager (in a company for which 95% of the managers at the time could care less about widgets), it would not have been invented (or invented much later). Oy, the analogy is strained. My apologies :)

      --
      What a crazy random happenstance!
    5. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      The exact quote:

      "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

      'Initiative' means "A beginning or introductory step; an opening move".

      Now, 'create' and 'innvent' are synonyms:

      create = "To cause to exist; bring into being."
      invent = "To produce or contrive (something previously unknown)..."

      so, substituting into the original statement:

      During my service in the United States Congress, I took the first move in inventing the Internet."
    6. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The actual quote: "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." this means, from the political perspective, that he encouraged the allocation of funds...

      Then he should have said "I took initiative in helping FUND the internet."

      But he didn't say that, did he? He said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet".

    7. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was also a project that he outstandingly supported despite large opposition to its development; that additional effort qualifies his comment on creating it as defined by the 1913 Webster's dictionary (See concurrent thread with applicable definition).

    8. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
      Then he should have said "I took initiative in helping FUND the internet."

      For those of you keeping score at home:

      Al Gore: 1 semantic slipup

      His Opponent: 12,476 slipups (plus $2e11 mistake penalty), and counting.

    9. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Brandybuck · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      (or invented much later)

      It was much later. The internet was already around by the time Algore took the initiative in creating it.

      Like Quayle's Tomatoe, Algore's invention is something he will never live down. It's the curse of vice presidents, and all his sycophants need to realize it and get on with their lives.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    10. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posted in part in three places by necessity. Read the actual definitions of words from a dictionary written by a University. This has nothing to do with sycophant status, only, at least for myself, a desire to impose clarity on an issue that has formerly been forced away from being rationally discussed and into partisan bickering that has no productive function.

    11. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Scudsucker · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The internet was already around by the time Algore took the initiative in creating it.

      Your statement is one of the least retarded in this thread, but it still misses the point by a dozen miles. All an internet is, is a group of connected networks, and yes the concept was invented decades ago. However, the Internet - note the capitalization - with its petabytes of deta, millions of hosts, educational and consumer access was the work of business, government and higher education. And considering you can't name a government official more involved in the creation of the Internet as it is today than Al Gore, his origional comment was entirely appropirate.

    12. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by unitron · · Score: 1
      The flaw in your reasoning is that the internet wasn't really invented so much as assembled from a bunch of other inventions.

      Henry Ford said "I invented nothing new. I simply assembled into a car the discoveries of other men behind whom were centuries of work."

      Gore was one of the people who helped get all the ducks in a row appropriations-wise. This might not be the same as single-handedly finding a universal cure for cancer on your day off, but there were lots of other people in Congress at that same time who didn't do what he did.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    13. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      Even that's iffy, since the funding actually came from taxpayers.

      How about "I took the initiative in helping allocate other people's money to fund the internet"?

    14. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Brandybuck · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Dude, I was USING the internet before Al Gore was ever got involved! Maybe it didn't have that name, but a TCP/IP network connecting universities and government agencies was already in place. That may not be the internet that we know today, but it was the seed from which it directly grew.

      Al Gore didn't create a damned thing, all he did was spend money to expand it. No matter how many times his fans mod it down as flamebait, the truth will not change.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    15. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, how inane it is for some to try defending what is Gore's verbal screwup, another AlGoreism, all the spin explaining away how he "took initiative in creating the internet".

    16. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 1
      How about "I took the initiative in helping allocate other people's money to fund the internet"?

      How about: "As the person responsible for the budget, I put my signature on a request for funding to start developing the internet."

    17. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by gafisher · · Score: 1
      >> ". . . he encouraged the allocation of funds. . ."

      In other words, rather than "I invented the internet" he meant to say "I gave people your money and they invented the internet." I guess that makes sense.

    18. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by IPFreely · · Score: 1
      Are you sure? Maybe you were using ARPANET, a US government funded research project in conjunction with major US educational institutes?

      Maybe it wasn't the Internet, the international network of privately owned network nodes and independant administration?

      Transmission Control Protocoal does not define the Internet. The ownership, management and organization defines the internet.

      TCP/IP alone is not enough to claim they were the same thing, any more than saying all operating systems are the same if they support POSIX.

      --
      There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
    19. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by IPFreely · · Score: 1
      Al Gore didn't create a damned thing, all he did was spend money to expand it.

      Wrong here too. Al Gore did a lot more than throw money at it.

      At first, there were several independant networks, like ARPANET, BITNET and some others. Each was an independant research project owned and run by various misex is governemtn and educational institutions. Al Gore brought these together to a unified network working under unified organizational control. That's big , and its not about money.

      Second, the resulting netowrk was still mostly government owned and managed. Al Gore got the network ownership moved out of government hands an into independant management in the private sector. This is also a big move, and it is not about money.

      There was certainly money involved in merging and expanding the network. But if you choose to ignore the rest of the value that Gore added, then you are only fooling yourself. You can argue all day about the meaning of the word "Create", but in the end the value that Gore added to the Internet comes very close to whatever definition of "Create" you finally settle on. So stop being pedantic about vocabulary and give him the credit he deserves.

      --
      There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
    20. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      Since he's no longer a political figure, and his former voters' dreams of creating a socialist utopia are smashed on the altar of Bush's equally practical dreams of creating a great empire, I'm really surprised how many people are still rushing to his defense whenever anyone pokes fun at him.

      Dan Quayle doesn't have that luxury.

    21. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Wrong here too. Al Gore did a lot more than throw money at it.

      Why did you reply to my post twice? Lame.

      I don't understand why you and people like you are treating this like a religious issue. The fervency of the rebuttals approaches fanaticism. Again, why did you reply to my post twice? Of all the accomplishments of Al Gore, why are you fixated on this one tiny mispeak of his? Why do you act as if disputations of his claim are sacrilege?

      ARPANET was the internet. Period. Much of the core infrastructure of todays internet was in ARPANET. That was the seed from which the internet directly grew. The internet *evolved*, grew and coalesced, it was never created. I know someone who happens to have an internet account that has been continuously active since its creation on ARPANET.

      Algore certainly promoted the internet. I believe he was the one who came up with the ultralame "Information Superhighway". Heck, he may even have been the first person to capitalize "The Internet". But he didn't take the initiative in creating it. Your sacred hero exaggerated his importance in a television interview. He's a politician and that's what politicians do. So get over it.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    22. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because Dan Quayle never did anything of significance. He's a living monument to the office of Vice President.

    23. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He gets credit for the internet is the same way Kennedy gets credit for the moon landing. Without him providing the political will, it might have happened but it would be very different, and odds are not as good as it is right now.

    24. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Scudsucker · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Dude, I was USING the internet before Al Gore was ever got involved!

      Dude, you totally missed the point! Again! Here, I'll repeat myself:
      • All an internet is, is a group of connected networks, and yes the concept was invented decades ago. However, the Internet - note the capitalization - with its petabytes of deta, millions of hosts, educational and consumer access was the work of business, government and higher education. And considering you can't name a government official more involved in the creation of the Internet as it is today than Al Gore, his origional comment was entirely appropirate.
      Maybe it didn't have that name, but a TCP/IP network connecting universities and government agencies was already in place. That may not be the internet that we know today, but it was the seed from which it directly grew.

      I see, I was wrong, you are in fact prefectly aware that the Internet as it is today did not spring from whole cloth in 1969, but rather it was an evolutionary process. As the government had a lot to do with this, and Al Gore was explicitly talking about his "term of service in the United States Congress", as a government official there is only one possible conclusion. You are unbelievably stupid.

      the truth will not change

      The truth is something you obviously can't deal with. Your dismissal of Gore doesn't have anything to do with the facts, but rather the fact that you don't like him and, like Tucker Carlson, can't let go of a good talking point, the truth be damned. The Internet has been an evolving beast for decades, and Al Gore certainally "took the initiative" in that process. You are wrong, you have been proven to be wrong, now deal with it.
    25. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Scudsucker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I don't understand why you and people like you are treating this like a religious issue.

      Since when is dealing with cold, hard facts religion?

      The fervency of the rebuttals

      We need frequent rebuttals because there are frequently morons who spout the same crap no matter how many times an urban legend has been put to rest. Like the idiots who blame Clinton for the Ruby Ridge shootings (happened before he took office).

      Your sacred hero exaggerated his importance in a television interview.

      No, he didn't. Your sacred whipping boy made a perfectly honest claim. Even Vin Cerf has said so. Now, deal with it (again) and drink a nice, warm cup of stfu.

    26. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by internic · · Score: 1
      I don't understand why you and people like you are treating this like a religious issue. The fervency of the rebuttals approaches fanaticism.

      Funny, to me it looks like he provided a lot of relevent background that shows reasons why Gore's claim might be considered reasonable. Most of us call that reason, not fanaticism.

      The point is that what you call the beginning of "The Internet" is a matter of semantics. Gore split hairs to make himself look good. You apparently want to split hairs to make him look foolish. Personally, I wouldn't agree with Gore's statement, but most of the discussion about it that has followed has been nonsense distortions. I'm glad people jump on the "Al Gore invented the internet" thing because there's no point in spreading that distortion or arguing over a claim that was never made.

      --
      "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
    27. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...no matter how many times an urban legend has been put to rest.

      The urban legend is about him saying he *invented* the internet. That's clearly untrue, and I never repeated this anywhere. However, he DID say he took the *initiative* *in* *creating* the internet. Even the famous Algore apologist, Barbara Mikkelson, affirms that he made this statement.

      The problem seems to be over the definition of "internet." Those who want Algore to be the father will define it in such a way that he becomes the father. There are those of us, however, who distinctly remember using something remarkably similar to the internet before Gore "took initiative."

      p.s. I call you guys "religous" because of the religious style indignation you exhibit over this possibility that he isn't infallible.

      p.p.s. What what the fck are you doing bringing in Ruby Ridge? Let's just hijack the whole thread why don't we? Let's just make it a left versus right issue and damn the facts to hell! "Oo oo he doesn't like algore therefore he must be a rightwing nutbag because only rightwing nutbags don't like algore so let me drop in a reference to ruby ridge and that will show him who has the biggest yarbles yeah!"

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    28. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Most of us call that reason, not fanaticism.

      I didn't call the response unreasonable or fanatic. Only "fervent".

      If this were the only discussion I ever had on the subject, I wouldn't have a problem. But when these exact same arguments come up, over and over again, at exactly the same tempo, like they're all reading from the same Mikkelson script, then it begins to sound like a religious litany.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    29. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      An acorn germinates, grows into a sapling, and a few years later Al Gore comes along and waters it. Years later still it becomes a mighty oak and Al Gore proudly proclaims that he "took the initiative in planting the oak tree".

      Is he telling the truth? While he certainly did water the tree and dump MiracleGro(tm) on it, it is untrue that he "planted" the tree. He wasn't there at the beginning.

      This is the core of the issue, and it has NOTHING to do with whether I like Al Gore or not. Was it the creating (planting) or the fostering (watering) that Al Gore took the initiative in?

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    30. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Al Gore: 1 semantic slipup

      It's a hell of a lot more than that. You guys just fixate on that one in the hopes that all the others will be forgotten. What other slipups? See, you've forgotten already!

      Here's one other. Right at the very beginning of his VPship he said he was going to do a study of government waste and get right back to us. And get back to us he did. Most of you aren't old enough to remember, so run upstairs to the kitchen and ask your parents. In Al Gore's half hour government waste primetime television special I held up two bottles of floor polish. One was expensive and used by the government, and the other was inexpensive and a common consumer brand item (Mop-n-Glo, IIRC).

      Here was his slipup: He claimed the two items were equivalent. Bullshit! The polish you mom uses on her cheap kitchen vinyl is *NOT* equivalent to industrial grade floor polish. It's a different chemical compound. One barely manages to keep a shine with just one small family and a schnauzer. The other manages to keep a shine with hundreds of people traipsing across it all day long.

      He should have bought a commercial polish at a commercial janitorial supply company, and compared the price of that to the polish the government used. That would have been an equivalent comparison. But instead he went for the cheap visual and used a common household brand. He blew his credibility for me in his first month.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    31. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Updated Score:

      Al Gore: 2 semantic slipups (Now including flub on *critical* floor-wax issue! OFMG!)

      His Opponent: 12,483 slipups (plus $2.1e11 mistake penalty), and counting.

    32. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your definition of creating is poorly constructed. There are many aspects, facets, and degrees of detail involved in its meaning based on complete context, usage, and background knowledge of the subject matter that establish its contextual meaning. The English language is complex, and so are all other languages with exception to the utility hunting and artificial languages.

    33. Re:NSF had nothing to do with his funny claim by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
      "There are many aspects, facets, and degrees of detail involved in its meaning based on complete context, usage, and background knowledge of the subject matter that establish its contextual meaning"

      Exactly, and in the context Gore used, invent and create mean the same thing, even if they would not mean the same thing in another context.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  52. Why are we still using CableTV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously? 200 channels, all coming down your cable connection, why not have 9000 channels all coming down your broadband connection?

    1. Re:Why are we still using CableTV? by fox9397 · · Score: 1

      Al Gates! Gates has been talking about IP TV, this seems to be moving in that direction. Conceptuality it it is a good idea to have short Internet viewable news, comedy, videos in one spot. Why bother putting it on cable?

    2. Re:Why are we still using CableTV? by JeffTL · · Score: 1

      Well, cable never has to buffer, and I'd venture to guess that more people have cable than decent broadband. I probably won't be watching Current, though, because I haven't seen a compelling reason yet to get digital cable -- all it'd do is make my TiVo less reliable. I doubt it'll be on analog, so I'll just hit their website once in a blue moon.

  53. Just what Google searchers are looking for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tipper Gore Nude

  54. The link? by ImaLamer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why not post the link to the Current TV homepage?

    It's pretty, and it the layout works with Firefox (unlike some sites)

    1. Re:The link? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 4, Funny

      Looking at this page it's apparant taht Al Gore wants to create FarkTV.

      GOD HELP US ALL.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    2. Re:The link? by mrjeff3000 · · Score: 1
      Why not post the link to the Current TV homepage?

      Why not indeed? It's only fair - they link to Slashdot:
      Hey, why can't I leave comments on your blog? I thought this was supposed to be participatory! Creating community spaces that are both open and useful is a challenge. Some sites have risen to it by insisting on strict registration policies; other use cool collaborative filtering schemes.
  55. censorship? by loonicks · · Score: 1

    But will he ban Gore-y movies?

  56. Re:Did he? by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

    You must be new if you think facts are a consideration to the fox-heads around here...

  57. Pointless by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a /. reader/commenter, you are supposed to post without RTFA. So what's the point in posting links.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Pointless by ImaLamer · · Score: 1
      oh...

      I just knew the link because I saw the same story everywhere else. (I didn't RTFA)

    2. Re:Pointless by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      I find it humorously ironic that the parent was modded Insightful.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    3. Re:Pointless by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wasn't aware of the total breadth and depth of your post until I realised that, instead of funny, it was rated insightful. Kind of tells you how far slashdot really has gone, huh.

    4. Re:Pointless by crucini · · Score: 1

      Yes, but how can we PWRTFA unless advised of TFA?

    5. Re:Pointless by leshert · · Score: 1

      Gone? From what lofty plain did it start?

  58. Pls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Add this guy to the political troll list...

    Wtf is up with this non-sequitor.

    1. Re:Pls by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Add this guy to the political troll list...

      Political troll list? What kind of douche-bag comment is that?

      I'm neither for or against Mr. Gore, but I find it remarkable that the man who was vice president of the US of A for 8 years, and almost became president, is out pimping rather half-baked TV channels.

      It is pretty telling that so many are so defensive about their political views that the topic is untouchable.

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

      Wtf is up with this non-sequitor.

      Uh, you're dumb. His/her comment was that this person was almost president. Now he's president of a shitty TV channel. You see these are related because these are positions in life, like "Wow, he used to be a principal, and now he's a drug dealer".

      You see? You get that through your tiny head you sheep cliche using bitch? The next time you hear a big saying like non-sequitur just fucking let it be before you inappropriately go repeating it (albiet mispelling it) you fucking slackjawed retard.

    3. Re:Pls by schtum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, how do you feel about the last Republican to lose a presidential race? If I recall, he was on TV peddling Viagra in a matter of weeks.

      Better question: What, in your mind, would be an appropriate activity for an ex-presidential candidate? And who the hell are you to judge?

      Al Gore and Bob Dole have made, and will make, millions in their post-political careers. Meanwhile, every business G.W. Bush touched before becoming President turned to shit. The shocker here is not how the mighty have fallen, it's how the weak have risen.

    4. Re:Pls by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      What an extraordinary situation where, even when specifically being told that it wasn't a partisan comment, some people just can't help unleashing their tired rhetoric. Apparently I should have given equal time to mock Dole for a viagra ad in response to an article about Gore.

  59. YOU'RE SMART!!! LOL!!11 by King+Fuckstain · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    "every wingnut in the country will start screaming"
    Why would wingnuts on the left scream about it? Oh, you're under the impression that all crazy people are conservatives - how silly of me.
    --
    Update For for the dupe. Not going well. Appreciate all the hate mail. Really encourages improvement.
  60. Idiot by Rufus88 · · Score: 1

    For all those that say Gore didn't claim to invent the net I include the following.

    Ok, so you indicate that you're about to show that he claimed to have *invented* the internet. But then you quote Gore as having said:

    I took the initiative in creating the Internet

    I'd just like to make two points here:
    1) If you question Gore's role in CREATING the internet, why don't you read what the guys who INVENTED the internet have to say about the matter.
    2) "Invent" is not the same as "create". Last week I created a meatloaf in my kitchen. I did not *invent* meatloaf.

    1. Re:Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you did invent THAT meatloaf.

    2. Re:Idiot by unitron · · Score: 1
      "I did not *invent* meatloaf."

      Of course not, Jim Steinman did :-)

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    3. Re:Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off. The distinction between Invent and Create in this context is silly. You're right you did not invent your meatloaf. But then again there are millions of meatloafs out there. The is one and only one internet. The people who created it also invented it. Al Gore did not create the internet. I disagree with snope's interpretation of what was said.

      Secondly, some have argued that he's a politician and didn't mean that he personally created it but through government created it. That's a real stretch when you consider that ARPANet was created in 1969 and the modern internet was around at least in the early 80's.

      The criticism of what he said is not some Republican/Fox conspiracy. What he said was completely untrue. Like most politicians (Rep or Demo), he took credit for something he had little to do with. He admitted it and so should.

    4. Re:Idiot by Rufus88 · · Score: 1

      It's amazing that people can demonstrate that they don't understand the difference in meaning between "create" and "invent", even right after that distinction is pointed out to them.

    5. Re:Idiot by Rufus88 · · Score: 1

      First off. The distinction between Invent and Create in this context is silly

      I disagree. It is the crux of the matter. "Invent" refers specifically to a process of intellectual ingenuity. "Create" is a much broader term, and includes even things like the manual routing of wires. Politicians take credit for their legislative creations all the time, without having words like "invent" misattributed to them. If the distinction were so inconsequential, as you would have us believe, then Republicans wouldn't have changed his statement in a way as to evoke such incredulity, and repeatedly gone out of their way to use the word he didn't use, rather than the one he did use.

      Secondly, some have argued that he's a politician and didn't mean that he personally created it but through government created it. That's a real stretch [...]

      Personally, I think the real stretch is what Republicans would have us believe: that Gore was claiming expertise in information coding, network protocols, and communication systems.

      when you consider that ARPANet was created in 1969 and the modern internet was around at least in the early 80's.

      The vision that Gore articulated during his congressional service was of an Internet that did not yet exist: a nearly ubiquitous communication medium for enhancing and facilitating education and commerce.

      The criticism of what he said is not some Republican/Fox conspiracy

      Actually, it is. They are the ones who coined the phrase "invented the internet", and have been using it ever since.

      What he said was completely untrue. Like most politicians (Rep or Demo), he took credit for something he had little to do with

      Why are you wasting your time discussing it here? Write to Cerf and Kahn and tell them how wrong they are.

      He admitted it [...]

      Citation please?

  61. WTF -- add this guy to political trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    What is this doing on an article about Al Gore's new enterprise?? We could care less what you think about what Al Gore meant when he said that... You're just parroting right wing talking points.

    You deserve to be put on the political troll list.

  62. Gore and Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From AP article:

    "The $100,000 television camera has become a $3,000 high- definition camera, and the $250,000 editing console has become a $1,000 Apple computer program," Gore said.

    Given Gore's membership on the Apple board these days, what kind of influence does Steve Jobs have on the set?

  63. Already Invented by Alien+Venom · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    See my previous post regarding Aussie TV Networks Fight BitTorrent.

    This whole TV on the internet thing has been done already. It's called using BitTorrent and RSS feeds. And is available to everyone (not just the US)! In order for any "official" TV on the internet to be any good, I feel it has to be at least up to par (in terms of quality) with what I can download already -- that means, HDTV-quality releases with the possibility of AC3 sound.

    1. Re:Already Invented by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 1

      It's NOT tv ON the internet, if you RTFA it's tv ABOUT the internet. Big difference.

      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    2. Re:Already Invented by Alien+Venom · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean like TechTV? Official TV "on" the Internet would be a better idea.

  64. Al Gore TV: Same Impact as... by Nova+Express · · Score: 1
    I'm sure Al Gore's network soon become as equally profitable, and as commercially successful, an unstoppable media juggernaut as Air America has.

    >

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:Al Gore TV: Same Impact as... by dcmeserve · · Score: 2, Insightful
      --
      "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
  65. I don't know... by merpal · · Score: 1

    ...if I should watch Gore's Internet-TV hybrid, or this new slew of enthralling reality shows!

  66. Re:Who cares? by centipetalforce · · Score: 3, Informative

    Dumbass: AA came back and now has 53 stations across the country.

  67. Sounds good at first... by cold+wolf · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The new network, planned for an Aug. 1 premiere, will enable Internet users to send video content through the online system "to help us make the viewer-created content that will be a large and growing part of what we put on the air," Gore said.

    Having viewers make shows for you? I guess that's kind of like how /. works. I was hoping, however, that it would be like blogging meets TV--you know, bloggers at events and getting air time in front of a cable audience and not just the blogosphere.

    Then again, it's already like that but with only text. And the blogging goes straight through to the viewer. So the more I think about this, the more it sounds like he's creating a middle-man company, which is to say, a completely useless and potentially brain-damaging company. Fuck that.

    By the way, the first sentence of the article is "Al Gore never said he invented the Internet." So at least there's some good text in there.

  68. Air America Failed? by ppp · · Score: 3, Informative

    AA failed miserably because instead of being original they were shallow and vicious copy cats. Most of their junk was a mean spirited parody of some other sucessful show.

    Air America now has 51 stations, and reaches millions of viewers. It is also, according to Time magazine, "financially stable."

    If your going to compete with the likes of Rush, Hannity, and the right you need to deliver facts and keep the slant off.

    I almost spit up my drink over that line. Do you really believe that Rush and Hannity don't have a "slant"? Sounds like you drank the coolade to me.

    1. Re:Air America Failed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Air Amerika has to pay for air time.

      It is also, according to Time magazine, "financially stable."

      Hahaha! Yeah. Sure they are. And they really did not bounce allll those checks. haha Doofus.

    2. Re:Air America Failed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha! haha Doofus. Hahaha! haha Doofus. Hahaha! haha Doofus. Hahaha! haha Doofus. Hahaha! haha Doofus.

      I'm a rightwing wackjob!! you doofus!

      Hahaha! haha Doofus. Hahaha! haha Doofus.

    3. Re:Air America Failed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there ya go. Libs have nothing. Are nothing. Will never be anything other than the silly little do nothing teets they are now. Time to cowboy up ya bunch of p*s*ies.

    4. Re:Air America Failed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to cowboy up ya bunch of p*s*ies.

      There's nothing quite like a pussy calling someone else a pussy while they can't even own up to typing the word "pussies".

      Actually, there is something like that. I believe it's called a h*pocr*te.

    5. Re:Air America Failed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was pulling your mom's p*ss* hair out of my teeth when I was typing that. Sorry. BTW, she said she has gotten over the fact your gay and she wants you out of her basement by Wed.

  69. Wrong way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Going from the internet to cable TV is going the wrong direction. So you get a fixed video RSS stream? Big fucking deal, that's already old (in korea only old people watch cable?). If he wanted to invent something then he'd have gone the other way and put cable content onto the internet such that you could make your own custom or community feeds and watch TV via your own personalized channels.

    Michael

  70. I actually think it has a chance by ween14 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I for one wouldn't count out the possibility of this channel actually becoming popular. I mean, it seems to be feeding off the viral video phenomenon that the Internet has created. If it can really manage to get material that is as addictive as all these viral videos then it has a chance.


    The only real concern I have is that it is selling itself as a news channel. There really isn't much viral news out there on the internet. But it will be nice to see them give it a try anyways. Could be the first _new_ approach to television in years.

    --
    Java has no friends.
  71. Binary Numbers by michelcultivo · · Score: 2, Funny

    And Microsoft invented the Binary Numbers.

  72. Here's the thing about that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The policy change was not something that interested lawmakers. It was really Gore's pet project, he fought tooth and nail for it, and as I recall the margin of victory was narrow.

  73. Al Gore's Algorithm by Sundroid · · Score: 3, Funny

    From the description in this news article, "Current" sounds like MTV without the music tapes. String together all the semi-hip news and pretentious lecture-in-disguise clips MTV now offers, and you get "Current"!

    A friend who has participated in numerous "brainstorm" sessions in TV industry once described those meetings as "plenty of saliva storm but no brain". Now I know why.

    The report says Gore bought the network for $70 million; my graphic blog, http://sunandfun.blogspot.com/, does not cost a dime to produce and offers plenty of entertainment.

    1. Re:Al Gore's Algorithm by J3Holaday · · Score: 1

      I guess it makes sense. Liberals making a tv network for morons. Just like MTV. HAHA

    2. Re:Al Gore's Algorithm by dg41 · · Score: 1
      "Current" sounds like MTV without the music tapes.

      What are you talking about? MTV is MTV without the music tapes nowadays.

    3. Re:Al Gore's Algorithm by dangitman · · Score: 1
      From the description in this news article, "Current" sounds like MTV without the music tapes.

      MTV has music now??

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  74. Eric Schmidt generates the AlGoreRhythm. by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 1

    Eric Schmidt, formerly of Novell, now of Google, is a real political animal:
    Elton John helps raise money for Gore
    September 20, 2000

    ATHERTON, Calif. (Reuters) - Flamboyant rock star Elton John, making his first foray into American politics after three decades of performing in the United States, endorsed Vice President Al Gore at a ritzy Silicon Valley fund-raiser... The fund-raiser, at the home of Novell Corp. Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, raised $3.25 million for the Democratic National Committee...

    http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/0 9/20/campaign.gore.john.reut/

    Gore television network debuts in August
    April 5, 2005

    San Francisco, CA (UPI) -- The television network headed by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore debuts Aug. 1 and will feature short-form content rather than traditional long form news... Current has partnered with Internet search engine Google, executives said, to produce news updates on topics being searched on the Internet...

    http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050405-1 03500-6028r.htm

  75. I propose... by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
    ... when the first of these segments is to air, we all hit Google and search for "Naked Al Gore".

    1. Re:I propose... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Here. [Note to moderator, please mod me +5 informative for this valuable public service I just provided to the Slashdot community.]

  76. Oh, really? by mat+catastrophe · · Score: 0, Troll

    "It's all directed at a generation that thinks nothing of plugging into more than one media outlet at once...."

    All without having the first clue about any of it. Brilliant.

    Fuck the kids

    --
    sig not found
  77. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So basically, he's merging CNN Headline news with MTV and the Left of the US.
    Sounds like it will be really appealing...
    Maybe I'm being overly simplistic here: Is it wise to have the candidate from the 2000 election who made George W. Bush look like the guy "with the striking on-air personality" the head of any network (Cable or otherwise?).

  78. TV on the internet? by pronobozo · · Score: 1

    Impossible,

    zed.cbc.ca


    oh wait.. a tv episode for download? look there's even an interview with Bram Cohen..

    You can even download the episode from a torrent, What is this world coming too!!


    :-)

    --
    ------
    insert sig here,here, and here
  79. Correction about what Al Gore "Claimed" by novakane007 · · Score: 1, Informative

    Al Gore never claimed he invented the internet! Let's be clear about this. He said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
    Which is true, he was a part of a house sub comitte that funded the DARPA research to develop a communications system that would withstand a nuclear attack. What they came up with eventually was adopted by universities and then by the masses. It is now known as the internet. He didn't invent it, nor did he ever claim he did. He was a key figure in it's creation though.

    --

    WURD!!
    1. Re:Correction about what Al Gore "Claimed" by ChaoticLimbs · · Score: 1

      Don't you think, though, that his statement as you quoted it places a little more significance on Mr. Gore's involvement in the initiative than would be expected for a congressman? "I took the initiative in creating the internet" is a WAY more positive statement than "when it came to comittee I voted yes on the internet"? It's typical Washington spin and he got busted on it. Nobody said he lied, they claimed that his statement was exaggerated. You can go ahead and defend it if you're a Democratic Fanboy, but I would prefer to hold members of BOTH parties to task for their spin and deceptive campaigning. The reason people were upset is that it seemed like he was fishing for votes from the uninformed who would assume from his statement that his involvement was somehow instrumental in bringing this technology to them, when it wasn't. Many scientists and computer engineers concieved, planned, and built the original internet. From there it organically became what it is now. It was not because of the actions of one man, or even a select few men, and Mr. Gore was taking credit for things when they weren't really his to take credit for.

    2. Re:Correction about what Al Gore "Claimed" by novakane007 · · Score: 1

      I agree. His wording was poor. I'm not a big fan of Gore, but I think it's unfortunate that a lot of people think he's a liar because of a sensationalized quote.

      --

      WURD!!
  80. Next up is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Life After Losing To Bush" ..with co-host John Kerry.

  81. Video Googlebombing! by IronicGrin · · Score: 1

    Wow, this opens up a whole new way for people to abuse Google--if you can get enough people to search for the same thing at any given time (or if you can virally distribute a script that'll do it for you) you might *conceivably* be able to get something on the air. Have they really thought this through? Imagine a couple million computers across the country bombing Google with some ridiculous or obnoxiously commercial search request (Golden-Palace.com, maybe?) j

  82. 2 things that don't matter: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1- It doesn't matter what taco posts, even if it's blank post, we will all comment on it endlessly.

    2- It doesn't matter what Al Gore does, he is always inventing something new and we will all comment on his inventions endlessly!

  83. right flop like air america radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which now stands at 53 stations nationwide, one of the busiest internet streams and has a presence on both satellite radio outlets.

    progressive talk radio really must be flopping when clear channel starts getting in on the game.

    just because YOU don't get it doesn't mean it a bad idea,

    1. Re:right flop like air america radio by Seumas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Don't get it"??

      Dude, I've been listening to talk radio since I was 8 years old. I have two solid decades of talk radio under my belt. I know good talk radio from bad. I have listened to "Air America" plenty and it is the most droll, uninteresting, unprofessional, ill-prepared drek ever. It's a decent idea, but poorly excecuted. You can't just take the cast of SNL and make a syndicated political talk station out of it.

      And 53 stations is nothing if they're 53 stations with poor ratings.

      I don't know a soul who regularly listens to their programming. It's downright painful at times. Even my hardcore liberal friends can't stand it. They'd rather listen to a professional right-winger who knows what being a radio personality is than some chunky comedienne whining about how unfair the world is like your typical hollywood looney.

      I'd give my left nut for a station that aired an opposing side to the right-wing drek that's on the air (I don't agree with either side, but it would be nice to switch to for a bit of flavor now and then), with a reputable person instead of some smarmy LA git. Dump Al Franken and Janine and give me, say, James Carville. Come on.

      I'm really tired of everyone thinking that just because they're famous, they can swing radio. They CAN'T. Radio is DIFFICULT. You have to be INTERESTING and CLEVER and ARTICULATE. People like O'Reilly and the above mentioned names don't belong within a mile of a radio broadcasting booth.

      Anyway, the same network that is responsible for all of the whacko rightwingers is responsible for the leftwing "Air America". Yep. You got it. Clear Channel. Oooh. That's really showing them!

      And just because it has okay numbers (nothing to crowe about in most of the country, including the very progressive west coast state I live in), doesn't mean it's good radio. If you're a hardcore lefty, what are you going to listen to? It's not that there's much else out there. You have your choice between many very talented conservatives who you may disagree with most or all of the time, or very unpolished highschool/junior college quality liberal broadcasters that you can enjoin for a round of daily navel-gazing.

      That it can manage to eek a three-share at times just means people are desperate for a different voice. And since this is the only voice out there doing that, it's their only option. Stick a competing network up out there that shares the same views, but with more professional and qualified personalities and you will quickly see Air America circle the drain.

    2. Re:right flop like air america radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with a reputable person instead of some smarmy LA git. Dump Al Franken and Janine and give me, say, James Carville. Come on.

      James Carville? BWA HAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!!!

    3. Re:right flop like air america radio by fakedavid · · Score: 1

      It does seem like Air America was created by people who didn't realize that broadcasting is actually an artform, and having strong political beliefs is not the only qualification for holding up 3-4 hours of airtime. Still, they do have a couple of talented radio personalities who have been working at the format for 15-20 years. Mainly Rhandi Rhodes and Mike Malloy. Like them or not, their radio presence is commanding and they know what they're doing. The interaction they have with their callers reflects this. The network's most promoted hosts are total amatures - Al Franken is slowly learning the ropes, but Janeane Garofalo does not belong behind the mic, period. Theres just nothing appealing or worthwhile about her Majority Report program. It's like being at a green party rally on a shitty college campus.

    4. Re:right flop like air america radio by jdgreen7 · · Score: 1
      Jerry Springer just got a radio spot that replaced Unfiltered. It's pretty good so far. And, yes, I like to switch back and forth between America Left and America Right on XM.

    5. Re:right flop like air america radio by scupper · · Score: 1


      If you're a hardcore lefty, what are you going to listen to?

      Pacifica network perhaps?
      "Democracy Now?"
      They've been on the air "for over 50 yrs.".

      They regularly have Zinn and Chomsky on, as well as a host of other real left vs the
      latte left-I wear a slogan t-shirt to visually name drop to co-opt legitimacy in the absence of holding real values and beliefs themselves people.

  84. air america failed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How so? They are still on the air and making money.

  85. Interesting fella... by bar-agent · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Al Gore is an interesting fellow. Let's take a look at what he's done, shall we?
    • Advanced the Internet
    • Guest-starred multiple times on Futurama
    • Was Vice-President
    • On the Apple Board of Directors
    • Now going into...um...network television.
    I gotta tell you, I respect the guy. And this is only what I know about!
    --
    i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    1. Re:Interesting fella... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guest-starred multiple times on Futurama

      His daughter was a writer on the show at the time. That's how they got him.

    2. Re:Interesting fella... by wrecked · · Score: 1

      Don't forget his Saturday Night Live appearance... he was actually really good, just like his Futurama guest spots. It's too bad his sense of humour never came across when he was campaigning.

    3. Re:Interesting fella... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which version of that SNL appearance did you watch and can you post a torrent? The one I saw had a very wooden Al Gore and lacked basically anything funny. It was rather sad, actually.

      He has no sense of humor. Bush has a better sense of humor than Gore. Hell, Bush is a better speaker than Gore. Bush is more educated than Gore. (No, really, he is, if you ever bother to investigate. The liberal media just likes to pretend that he's an idiot redneck from Texas, and he likes to play the part because he thinks it plays well with his core supporters.)

      Seriously, Gore isn't anywhere near as smart or intelligent as the liberal whiners on Slashdot would have you believe, nor is Bush anywhere near as stupid.

    4. Re:Interesting fella... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go figure...his daughter was a writer for Futurama

    5. Re:Interesting fella... by pjp6259 · · Score: 1

      ...he's an idiot redneck from Texas, and he likes to play the part because he thinks it plays well with his core supporters.

      And what does that say about his core supporters?

      --
      Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
    6. Re:Interesting fella... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're better people than you are?

  86. founder of Air America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The founder of Air America also runs this investment fund - http://www.paradigmventure.com/past_investments.ht m

    200% IRR between 95-99
    81% IRR in 2003

    I think they know what they are doing.

  87. Al Gore invented mathematics... by n0rr1s · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...that's why they're called Al-Gore-ithms.

    1. Re:Al Gore invented mathematics... by Peer · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're not far off; the word algorithm comes from the name of the 9th-century Persian mathematician Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Musa al-Khwarizmi, and Al Gore is actually his granddaughter.

  88. Also Known As... by eomnimedia · · Score: 1

    A Yawning Festival.

    I think my remote control will be broken anywhere near this channel.

  89. Re:Did he? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, for a literal interpertation:
    "took the initiative in creating the internet."

    taking initiative
    to start, to begin, to initialize..

    create
    form, build, construct, develop, engineer..

    One can disern that he was trying to take credit for the internet.

  90. Please read Sarah Vowell's book by The+I+Shing · · Score: 1

    Sarah Vowell's book The Partly Cloudy Patriot has a chapter in it about how a remark that Al Gore made while speaking at a public school got misquoted by a single word and then blown up by the supposedly "liberal" media into a frenzy that took on a life of its own, and effectively, however unfairly and undeservedly, tarred Gore as a self-aggrandizing liar. I won't recount the story here... go borrow the book-on-cd from your local library. It's read by the author, so it'll be like having a defense of Al Gore read to you by Violet of The Incredibles.

    From the book:
    "[Gore] was widely perceived as arrogant. If you know something, you're not smart. You're a smarty-pants. It's annoying. People get annoyed with your knowledge. It goes back to high school, to not doing your homework ... 'There's something I should know, I don't know why I should know it but someone knows it and I don't. So I'm going to have to make fun of him now.'"

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
  91. Re: My name is Rush and I am a drug addict by craXORjack · · Score: 1
    If your going to compete with the likes of Rush, Hannity, and the right you need to deliver facts and keep the slant off.

    But then you wouldn't really be competing, now would you?

    --
    Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
  92. It is wrong of you to say Gore invented it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ' In this sense, Al Gore, and any and every other politician involved (depending on the degree of their involvement in allocating funds, etc.) are also creators of the present Internet. '

    That is entirely incorrect. The Internet was around before Gore got involved with it. He did not invent it.

    1. Re:It is wrong of you to say Gore invented it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posted in part in three places by necessity. Read the actual definitions of words from a dictionary written by a University. This issue has formerly been forced away from being rationally discussed and into partisan bickering that has no productive function, but should be settled to reduce the idiocy that develops from misinterpretation of the English language (fewer and fewer people in the US seem to actually understand it).

  93. Since when is Al Gore right wing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ' You're just parroting right wing talking points '

    The quote is from Al Gore's interview in CNN. It is found there in context. The right wing has nothing to do with it.

    ' We could care less what you think about what Al Gore meant when he said that... '

    Who cares what he meant. He clearly laid a huge whopper when he said he created something that was really around for a long time before he was on the scene. Gore's own words, not the right wing's.

  94. Gore lied. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ' Read the actual definitions of words from a dictionary written by a University '

    If you do this, you will see that Gore was telling a big ol fibbie. If Quayle had lied like this, the liberals would be tearing him a new one for it. Gore's statement is no more a lie if Quayle said it: neither man had anything to do with creating the Internet.

    1. Re:Gore lied. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reference the Webster 1913 definition quoted in this thread (not from a university but a better dictionary for the words in includes than has been privately published outside of a university in almost one hundred years), it has a different meaning than inferred by many for the word "creating" and also the description of political use. Apart from that, I recommend that you study the English language so that you will be able to more fully comprehend it in the future.

    2. Re:Gore lied. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one is disputing that the internet was created. What is in dispute is someone's claim that they took the "initiative" in creating it. What does your precious 1913 dictionary say about "initiative"?

    3. Re:Gore lied. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      One of the entries for initiative:


      The right or power to introduce a new measure or course of action, as in legislation; as, the initiative in respect to revenue bills is in the House of Representatives.

  95. You try and get out of it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No matter how you try to twist it, if you say you created something that others really created before you are around, you are telling a lie. It is a gross misinterpretation of the English language to claim otherwise: just because you like the politics of the particular liar in question.

    1. Re:You try and get out of it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Politics do not matter here. Gore did not win the US presidential election. The objection is to the perpetuation of a false or at best inaccurate interpretation of a comment he made. Reference the Webster 1913 definition quoted in this thread (it is not from a university but it is a better dictionary for the words in includes than has been privately published outside of a university in almost one hundred years), it has a different meaning than inferred by many for the word "creating" and also the description of political use. Apart from that, I recommend that you study the English language so that you will be able to more fully comprehend it in the future.

    2. Re:You try and get out of it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ' it has a different meaning than inferred by many for the word "creating" '

      The thread is convoluted. Can you repost this definition? I am interested in finding out this obscure version of "create" which can justify Mr. Gore saying he made something he never made. Applied to Genesis, would "God creating the heaven and earth" mean that it was all done by someone before and God just colored the plants green?

    3. Re:You try and get out of it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      One of the definitions from the Webster 1913 Dictionary for creating:

      To effect by the agency, and under the laws, of causation; to be the occasion of; to cause; to produce; to form or fashion; to renew.

      Meaning in the political sense, as described before, that he, having as another described it a "pet project" to ensure the allocation of necessary funds and spur action deciding the course of the development of the systems that formerly composed the Internet into the commercial entity that it now is by development of the protocols and systems that are now what are thought of by many when hearing the word "Internet."

    4. Re:You try and get out of it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, it is the "renew" clause that lets Gore off the hook for his whopper? This must mean that Spamford Wallace also created the Internet. Like Gore, Spamford helped changed it into something else.

    5. Re:You try and get out of it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is the "to form or fashion" clause, where fashion means according to the same dictionary the following: To fit; to adapt; to accommodate; -- with to. In this sense the adaptation for commercial utility and widespread usage was Gore's creating of the Internet (meaning itself that he reshaped it for a purpose apart from its original) and that grants him historical importance as it has altered significant aspects of societies around the globe.

    6. Re:You try and get out of it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      '"No, it is the "to form or fashion" clause" '

      He does not meet that, because the Internet was formed and fashioned by others prior to his involvement.

      '"To fit; to adapt; to accommodate; -- with to"'

      Do you think he really this in mind? A usage of "create" whereby a tailor "creates" the pants you bring to him by altering the cuffs to fit?

      ' meaning itself that he reshaped it for a purpose apart from its original)'

      There is a big difference between creating something and reshaping it down the road. Carly did a lot to change Hewlett-Packard, but she did not have anything to do with creating the company.

      ' and that grants him historical importance as it has altered significant aspects of societies around the globe. '

      His work changing and funding the Internet grants him this. His work creating it does not: he did no work creating it.

    7. Re:You try and get out of it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Review the uses of the semicolon in the English language. The separated aspects related to varied definitions-the adaptation aspect from work altering the funding qualifies and spurring support does qualify for the definition of creating described in the 1913 Webster dictionary. Dispute this if you wish to, or are unable to acknowledge the inferred meaning that supports his statement. I only attempted to incite discussion clarifying these matters less to convince you but to convince those who would read this and in an logical manner investigate a figure who has, by even your own description, historical significance. This is a primarily a question of semantics: I have by inference traced a possible meaning and explanation for his use of creating in the quote, you disagree. It is as well.

  96. Clinton? by elucido · · Score: 1

    Are you out of your mind? Who would vote for Clinton?

    Gore on the other hand could win.

  97. They are going about it the wrong way. by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    You make some excellent points. I think the reason that the "counter-Limbaughs" are not doing very well after many years of trying is that they are going about it all wrong.

    They are going about it in a "Vast Left Wing Conspiracy" fashion: a group of guys get together and think "let's get left-wing talk radio out there.": They are overthinking it, and such plans usually do not work.

    Why not look at how Rush Limbaugh came about? No VRWC created him: he was just a talented radio personality who happened to be very conservative. If the conservatives did the "VRWC" thing, they would fail at it too: radio programs by Dennis Miller, Gingrich and P.J. O'Rourke would be fizzling oddities. This is what the "VRLC" did with non radio guys like Cuomo, Hightower, and Franken.

    The key is for a very talented radio personality who happens to be left-wing to rise on his own talents and his own audience appeal. When this happens, you'll have your Rush-crusher. The guys who created "Air America" would be much better off if they ditched their no-radio-talent roster headliners and replaced them with rising stars in talk radio who are left wing who have built shows on their own merits. They already have some of this on their schedule.

    They'd also do better if their marketing focus was "good radio programs" rather than "radio programs you will only listen to out of duty because you think that doing so will stick it to Rush and Hannity".

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  98. You are excelent at misinterpretation by gumbi+west · · Score: 1
    For clarification:

    1. Al Gore's point in that quote is obviously that he championed the research that was going on in DOD to generate the internet.
    2. The parent's point is that the above is obvious and you must be obstinant to not see that.
  99. You are not excellent at interpretation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ' Al Gore's point in that quote is obviously that he championed the research that was going on in DOD to generate the internet. '

    He did not say this. He merely said he created it. It should also be pointed out that your interepretation is not even correct: the Internet was "generated" prior to Gore's arrival on the Congressional floor.

    1. Re:You are not excellent at interpretation by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      He said, " During my service in the United States Congress." You are now attributing to him that he was hacking in the back row of the senate floor? Obviously he was talking about what senators do 'durring [...] service" which is take initiative and make sure the money is there for creating the internet.

  100. Thats because by elucido · · Score: 1

    Air America are liberals, liberals arent always progressives. Liberals have a cultural agenda while progressives have a policy agenda. So while one group wants to legalize gay marriage, the other group wants universal healthcare, and often theres war between the factions of the far left and the Democrats.

    Air America sucks because they do it all wrong. No ones going to listen to the government controlled radio to get their news, at least not if they are the progressive left or the far left, Air America is centerist left. Center left is actually right.

    Think of it this way, how many people on Air America would agree to fighting for corporate responsibility? Have they suggested the corporations arent people? Air America is not the left. Al Franken? Who is he? They also have hosts no ones ever heard of or who don't deserve the right to be hosts. Instead of hollywood hosts you need to select some professors. Professors are the real leaders of the left, not the hollywood liberals. The professors are the ones who can talk about the real issues, ask the real questions. The hosts on Air America just react to the news.

    1. Re:Thats because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are suggesting that Air America is not loony enough? You think replacing Al Franken with Noam Chomsky would improve the situation? Amazing.

  101. They are news channels. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ' Right, that's why it's called the Fox Commentary Channel. O'Reilly et al make no effort to distance their own commentary from the news, but then they hide behind this "Oh, I'm just a commentator" defense. I don't buy it.'

    They make every attempt. First, O'Reilly frequently says he is a commentator. Second, most the news part of Fox News is a distinct segment every half hour. O'Reilly and the other commentators even refer to these, often saying they "will be back after the news".

    This is little different from CNN, which never called itself The Cable Style Network just because they ran "Style with Elsa Klensch" sometimes between their news updates.

  102. the current? by craigske · · Score: 1

    I guess Al's research capabilities aren't that great. There is a CBC http://cbc.ca/ radio show called "The Current" http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/ that has been doing what he is talking about for a long time.
    Except the inane google search voyerism. Those are bound to be rife with quality crap. How about we slashdot goolge during a show and search for "golfing in alaska"

  103. He lied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ' Look at the context of the quote though. It's obvious he's talking about a legislative accomplishment '

    Yes, he is talking about an acccomplishment that was not his. His accomplishments helped fund and expand the Internet during its ongoing growth. They had absolutely nothing to do with creating it. A lie is just a lie even if you preface it with "While in Congress."

  104. Other examples? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you have other examples where someone rightly takes credit for "creating" when others had brought it into being previously? These have to be similar to Gore's quotation. No alterations such as "creating a New...." or "creating a different version of....".

    1. Re:Other examples? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Panama Canal
      Hover Dam
      The Great Wall of China
      The Hanging Gardens of Babylon
      The Great Pyramid

      Political leadership is real. It shapes the world. It makes what would otherwise not happen, happen. Al Gore might not have Charisma, or a lot great ideas. But he had one, and he united a lot of disinterested people in getting behind a very few interested people that made it a reality.

  105. funding something which is long done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ' which is take initiative and make sure the money is there for creating the internet. '

    How can this happen? The Internet had already been created years prior to this. How could he fund an action which was already paid for and done? How can this be?

    1. Re:funding something which is long done? by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Gore was a legislator between 1978 and 1992. However, my wording was bad and it makes it sould like funding the internet is the only thing they can do while this is just one example.

  106. Tap in! by kuzb · · Score: 1
    Current will also air segments every half hour showing TV viewers what Google searchers are tapping into at that moment.

    So, it's going to be a show about porn?

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  107. I think you mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    53 *listeners*

    1. Re:I think you mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as measured by tunes in once a week for 15 seconds
      I'll bet most AA listeners are Righties looking for echoes and material to goof on their blogs

  108. continued by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

    ...like the worst security failure in US history...

  109. No taxpayer funds. by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "I think banning all private funds in campaigns would be a good start too."

    This is one of the reforms I dislike the most. IMHO, it is a violation of my political rights to be forced to pay money political candidate campaigns that I do not like or agree with. Come on now, do you really want to be forced to give money to Pat Buchanan's campaign?

    "Make all campaigns tax supported, give every candidate an equal ammount of money."

    This also puts a big wound in the side of Democracy: now you have government choosing who will be in government by running the campaigns (when I think that federal funding should be eliminated, not increased). It is a big step toward the Soviet election situation.

    "I think banning all private funds in campaigns would be a good start too. I say if you want to support a candidate you take out a commercial or ad space in the newspaper"

    An interesting idea, but as we saw in the last election, the "independent" supporters tend to secretly collaborate (and thus become a part of) the campaign. The Move On, Swift Boaties, Soros, etc.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  110. Let him have his fun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least he's not president :)

  111. Vinton the Serf by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

    Not sure about that...

    I do know Vinton Cerf was the first person on the 'Net. He was the second PC. Before that it wasn't a network.

    Or so he explained.

  112. All journalism is opinion by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "Right wing or left wing bias in news media is unwelcome to anyone who actually thinks. The only job that jounralism has is to present the basic information and let people form their own opinions"

    There is something to the realization that there is bias in all news media: bias in what they choose to report, what they do not choose to report, how they say it, how they don't say it, where they place it in the show, and so-on.

    Of course, there is bias, and then there is BIAS. The ones who are respected as "the best journalists" are the ones who have a "bias" toward being "fair" to a degree that most others think they are fair, or they are good at selling their bias with a warm friendly voice.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  113. Gore not the first by Kaffein · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Gore not the first by catdevnull · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you can really appreciate the irony of the story's title, then?

      "Al Gore Invents Intenet TV" ;-)

      --

      I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
  114. I love it! by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

    I love the smell of self-immolating grammar-Nazis in the morning, don't you?

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  115. R.I.P. CBC Newsworld Int'l on US cable/sat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BTW, to do what they're doing, Gore and Hyatt bought the American distribution service providing "CBC Newsworld International". It looks a bit like we're in for another G4-TechTV-style switcheroo. With DirecTV having already dropped CNN International (shared channel with CNNfn), it's now going to become even more difficult for USA viewers to get any TV news with any detachment from a total USA-centric perspective (USA-bashing left or the flag-humping right)...

  116. Re:Did he? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Still a poor choice of words, but you are spouting the same falsehoods as you see on TV/Slashdot.

    It's funny how such a liberal crowd as Slashdotters and TV writers keep repeating the Republican-created meme that Gore "invented" the Internet. Does this make you fools, tools, or both? You could at least give the Republican party credit for knowing how to play you.

  117. Check the ratings jack, by Rooktoven · · Score: 1

    There's a reason they've grown to 53 so quickly.

    --

    Acquiescence leads to obliteration
  118. Guy with search engine belt buckle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last year, Slashdot featured an article about
    a guy who made a belt buckle that would show
    search phrases from a certan search engine (damn,
    I can't remember which one) that showed everyone
    what other users typed. It wasn't real time; he
    used a pre-recorded screen grab; probaly so
    he could edit out such phrases as "I am a dork,
    kick my ass girl". :)

  119. Re:Did he? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love reading that article. It's really funny. Paraphrased:

    Myth: Al Gore said he invented the Internet.
    Reality: Al Gore said he created the Internet.

    It says the myth was false, and then goes on to prove it's true. I always find it funny.

  120. MoveOn is nasty? Air America mean spirited? by godless+dave · · Score: 1

    I think you're in that parallel universe where Spock had a beard. Air America's problem is that it isn't mean spirited enough. As for MoveOn, they do great work and are by no means "nasty". Telling the truth isn't "nasty".

    --
    "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
    1. Re:MoveOn is nasty? Air America mean spirited? by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
      "Air America's problem is that it isn't mean spirited enough."

      The audience for screaming "Hate Radio" is rather limited. There is an audience for mean, but it is small. In fact, the meaner you are, the smaller your audience.

      "As for MoveOn, they do great work and are by no means "nasty". Telling the truth isn't "nasty"."

      Sometimes they tell the truth, sometimes they do not. Actually, they are as truthful as the typical Madison Avenue advertising company. They are not in the truth business: they are in the business of trying to sell a political agenda. My statement has nothing to do with their political agenda: just with the fact that they are a glorified campaign commercial outfit. Plenty of these exist on the right as well. Those who buy into party promotion organs will always say that these organs are the Real Truth.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    2. Re:MoveOn is nasty? Air America mean spirited? by godless+dave · · Score: 1

      In fact, the meaner you are, the smaller your audience.

      Tell that to Rush Limbaugh. Being mean, nasty, and simplistic works. I wish it didn't, but it does. Bush didn't win beat Kerry, Gore, or McCain by being honest and straightforward.

      --
      "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
  121. "Current". Not only is it a stupid name... by godless+dave · · Score: 1

    ...it's a stupid name that's already been taken: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/radio/services/th ecurrent/

    Good radio station though. Maybe I should warn them that I slashdotted the site with their web feed...

    --
    "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
  122. You made my friends list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posting as AC, but I added you to my friends list. You know firsthand how the Karma-bombs fall when the COnservatives speak here.
    sithkhan

  123. broadcatching by ashot · · Score: 1

    It all sounds promising, but the challenge will be selling a new independent network in a crowded field to the handful of cable companies that control distribution, and to advertisers.

    Perhaps someone needs to tell them about broadcatching. If that takes off (which I think it will), we won't really need a central institution for this kind of content anymore.

    --
    -ashot
  124. Hmmm... by vitaly.friedman · · Score: 1

    Hmm... an interesting idea... however, It'd be interesting to see how it is actually being realized... It's a pity that there is nothing similar in Europe so far... Or am I wrong?

    With best regards, Vitaly Friedman, Germany,
    http://www.alvit.de/vf/

  125. dude by C0d1ngM0nk3y · · Score: 1


    Al Gore is so damn 1337!

    First he invents the interweb, now this.

    Next... he's going to cure cancer bring about world peace and make it so that toast falls butter side up when you drop it.

    Awesome.

  126. PLUS 5 FUNNY PLUS INFINITY BEST POST EVER JAJAHAHA by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 0, Troll






  127. Reason to stop using Google by Rolfje · · Score: 1
    "Current will also air segments every half hour showing TV viewers what Google searchers are tapping into at that moment"

    Do you want your serach queries to be on (inter)national television? Think not. Small step to adding ip-addresses to it:

    "The people in L.A. are searching for Banananas, whereas people in Amsterdam are searching for Strawberries. Detailed street statistics follow."

    1. Re:Reason to stop using Google by anno1602 · · Score: 1

      Banananas

      "Granny knew how to start spelling 'banana', she just didn't know when to stop" - Terry Pratchett.
  128. Endless Twisted Loop by nz17 · · Score: 0, Troll

    You sick bastard!

    The usual Slaskdot workings:

    Slashdot story -> Comments -> Highly modded comments -> Such comments with links -> Those links get followed -> Sites' servers get Slashdotted

    This scenario is basically the same, but with a horrible twist:

    Slashdot story -> Comments -> Highly modded comments -> Comment links to Slashdot -> That link gets followed -> Slashdot -> back to Slashdot story -> Endless loop kills Slashdot!

    For the sake of my fellow nerds who want to read news that matters, I hope a very hungry grue is near you and that a power outage there is imminent.

    --
    Most men are not thought unwise until they speak.
  129. Pure Flamebait - top to bottom. . by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

    That anyone moderated this as "insightful" is an endictment of the moderating on Slashdot. It's pure flamebait....is this entire thread is. Guess the advice from the Slashdot folks not to impose your own political views when moderating falls on deaf ears.

    --
    Only boring people are ever bored.
    1. Re:Pure Flamebait - top to bottom. . by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Guess the advice from the Slashdot folks not to impose your own political views when moderating falls on deaf ears.

      Dear idiot,

      Apparently you are too lazy, or too dumb, to read several of the other responses I added in this thread, instead jumping to your own idiotic, partisan conclusion and fervently posting your ignorance.

      The greatest thing this thread is an indictment of is how tiny-minded and defensive so many people are about their political views.

    2. Re:Pure Flamebait - top to bottom. . by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      Your anti-social tendencies are noted. Flame away.....this thread was flame-bait anyway.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    3. Re:Pure Flamebait - top to bottom. . by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Your anti-social tendencies are noted.

      I'm not anti-social, just anti-you.

      Thank you.

    4. Re:Pure Flamebait - top to bottom. . by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      Forgive me for seeing no difference. ...and your persistence in abusing me despite knowing nothing about me is more than enough evidence to support my conclusion. Respond again in a similar vein....and my case for your anti-social tendencies will be air-tight.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
  130. Re:Heil Hitler ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Uhu, congratulations, you have just mixed together a lot of history in a few sentences. The Israel and Palestine conflict is much more complex and nobody can reduce it to "Terrorists killing Jews", a lot of innocent people on both sides are dying and all of them have the right to live on that soil.
    The "Arab Nations"-Israel conflict is also very complicated and when it began, it had nothing to do with terrorism.
    Every Al Quada expert they asked told the commision that there couldn't be a link between Al Quada and the Saddam because they had only one thing in common: the USA were their enemy. But Saddam had nothing to do with religion. He has used religion to manipulate his people (even leaders in democratic countries still do that) and he prosecuted religious groups in iraq, because he didn't want them to get influence.
    After 9/11 the US government needed a real target and therefore they designed the 9/11 connection of Iraq.

    BTW, what exactley has that to do with Internet TV?

  131. Actually, by 72beetle · · Score: 1

    Mudvayne IS pretty cool and exciting and original. Not that that lends any credibility to MTV or TRL or the public's general tastes in music, of course.

    --
    -Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
  132. Smart man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch Microsoft buy him out ;-)

  133. It wasn't just the internet thingy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Al Gore also claimed to have "discovered" love canal (he didn't). He also claimed the book "Love Story" was inspired by he and tipper (it wasn't).

    Not to mention that his wife was a key public figure in trying to censor "dirty" lyrics in music.

    Not to mention that he was the vice-president of a very popular president during good economic times and he *still* lost the election.

    It wasn't that GW Bush was so *good* at running, its just that Gore was so *bad* at running.

    I blame him for the stupid mess GW Bush has gotten us into economically and politically. Its a real mess and Gore is to blame. Idiot.

    1. Re:It wasn't just the internet thingy by rico23 · · Score: 1

      Claim #1 (Love Canal) - lie. Thoroughly debunked. Gave the claim to a schoolgirl in Tennessee.

      Claim #2 (Love Story) - lie. Thoroughly debunked. Al & Tommy Lee Jones were inspirations for the male character, but Al never made that claim - it came from a screwed-up quote from the author himself, who vaily tried to correct it. No luck with buffoons like you.

      If anyone's to blame (besides Bush himself) for Bush's screwups, it's people like you who, five years later, are still spreading COMPLETE LIES.

      --
      "It was me against the world, I was sure that I'd win.... but the world fought back, punished me for my sins" - Social D
  134. Humor version 2.0 by hey! · · Score: 1

    Jeeze you people -- read the friggen' release notes.

    In Humor 1.0, you got a surprise that tweaked your way of looking at things.

    In version 2.0 you get something which reaffirms your existing world view, while not-so-subtly pandering to your pathetic desire to feel superior.

    The word is that marketing was concerned that not enough people were getting the version 1, so the product manager borrowed the team responsible for the popular "blandish" feature of the Bamboozle project. Of course fans of the old Humor are unhappy and refusing to upgrade, but that's been more than offset by the throngs of new users who just couldn't manage version 1.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  135. Re:Did he? by hey! · · Score: 1

    When somebody comes up with a better counter strategy to repeat-the-lie-until-everybody-believes-its-true, then I'll be completely with you.

    Until then, I'll stick with the pointing-out-your-shameless-lies-until-normal-peop le-scream-for-mercy -when-you-bring-them-up strategy.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  136. Re: keep mocking him. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you and then you win.;-)

  137. yo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't we just be happy that someone with a little tiny bit of clout is throwing money at an interesting new idea! This whole thread has been a giant lampoon at Al Gore. But in reality we finally have someone with some serious money and serious high profile-ness and is taking a leap in the right direction.

    Why don't we support him instead of making fun of one misquoted comment he made 10 years ago.
    Grow up...and...
    LET IT GO!

    I guess the main thing he has working against him is the fact that he will be competing with Google, so the odds aren't in his favor.

    1. Re:yo by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
      "Why don't we support him instead of making fun of one misquoted comment he made 10 years ago."

      The problem is not that it is misquoted. It is accurately quoted and paraphrased. However, it is that it is a misstatement, and Gore admitted that it was.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  138. AlGore by ravee · · Score: 1

    After losing the presidential election, he has moved into newer pastures to make a killing. :)

    good luck with your new enterprise Mr Gore. And make sure it has support for linux. heh heh

    --
    http://linuxhelp.blogspot.com/

    --
    Linux Help
    for all things on Linux
  139. Already forgotten by OSXexpert · · Score: 1

    Much ado about nothing, like his inventing the Inet blobbling I have forgotten about Al's latest attempt to shake the scruffy looking professorship image and his slow but rightful slide into American oblivion

    --
    --- Old Time NeXThead
  140. Al Gore is ghey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eom

  141. YOUR GORE!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *POINTS WITH FINGER*!!!!!

    1. Re:YOUR GORE!!!!! by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      Aww, you figured it out!

      Or...did you?!

      Muaha-ha-ha!

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  142. Air America's only chance at success. by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "Still, they do have a couple of talented radio personalities who have been working at the format for 15-20 years. Mainly Rhandi Rhodes and Mike Malloy"

    These two are Air America's only chance at success: put them and others like them at the front. They are experienced radio personalities who happen to be liberal. Others in this thread said to save Air America by bringing in Chomsky and Carville. This would only compound the mistake of relying on non-radio people.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  143. Only acceptible by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "A better method is Public Campaign Financing [caclean.org], where politicians who can get enough signatures and $5 token donations become eligible for public campaign funding. "

    I think this might be fine only if the public contributions were voluntary. A checkoff on the tax form, like some states have done. No one should be forced to give money to candidates that go against their interest. This still does not take care of the other problem with it: it increases government control of the campaigns.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  144. Al Gore = Big Brother... by Robotron23 · · Score: 1

    In a couple of decades he'll be telling us he invented the steam engine!

  145. Is #2 a problem? by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "Claim #2 (Love Story) - lie. Thoroughly debunked"

    I don't find this one to be problematic, since, even if Mr. Gore had made this claim, it would have still been true.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  146. compare to the guy he lost too by peter303 · · Score: 1

    The other guy stumbles when he tries to ennuciate a multi-syllable word like InterNet.

  147. We will have to see, won't we? by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "Jerry Springer just got a radio spot that replaced Unfiltered. It's pretty good so far."

    The audience will learn to appreciate Springer's serious side. Naked lesbian dwarves spitting at each other just does not fly on radio.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:We will have to see, won't we? by jdgreen7 · · Score: 1
      Naked lesbian dwarves spitting at each other just does not fly on radio.

      Tell that to the millions of Howard Stern listeners... :-)

  148. Oh, the suspense! by mwood · · Score: 1

    "Current will also air segments every half hour showing TV viewers what Google searchers are tapping into at that moment -- everything from current events to tourist destinations."

    Wow, that sounds almost as interesting as watching paint dry.

  149. NPR by Yanray · · Score: 1

    While you are busy knocking every bit of talk radio would you mind mentioning the fact that in the last three years NPR and regional affiliates have developed a left leaning slant that makes CNN look like Pat Buchaneon.

    --
    --"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
    DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
  150. Aaahhh ha ha ha ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, seriously, aaaah ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    Yeah, I'm laughing at you, not with you.

  151. Re:Remember QUBE? Heck yeah I do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I definitely remember QUBE. My grandma had that. One of the things that stands out in my mind was those little plastic inserts that Warner sent out each month as channels changed. Oh and I remember being told to never push the buttons on the right third of the box, as those were the Pay channels. Everyone who had QUBE back then was on the bleeding edge of technology, but naturally I could never convince my parents to get QUBE, let alone just ordinary cable.

  152. It is sort of amusing by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "I don't understand why you and people like you are treating this like a religious issue. The fervency of the rebuttals approaches fanaticism."

    It is sort of amusing. Let's look at what happened:

    1. In the heat of an unrehearsed interview, Gore likely meant to speak proudly of his "early adopter" Internet-related initiatives. However, what came out was a historically incorrect claim that he actually created the thing instead of just helped it along.
    2. Later Gore says that the "creation" statement was a mistake, and he did not really mean to say that.

    By insisting that the statement in #1 was really true, these "fanatics" are calling Gore a liar on #2.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  153. You are right until.... by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    You are right up until the point you say he created it. You'd have a great message if we left the last paragraph off ot it. Saying he "created" it just by expanding something someone else created is like saying that Carly Fiorina created Hewlett-Packard by buying COMPAQ.

    Mr. Gore did a lot of great things for the 'Net. He deserves plenty of laud 'n' kudos for doing what he really did. We don't have to add to his resume something he actually did not do (and even said he did not do: Gore said that his create statement was a mistake.)

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:You are right until.... by IPFreely · · Score: 1
      And you were mostly right up until you said "You are right up until the point you say he created it." Because I didn't say that. You're trying to twist and reword my sentences too?

      I said it comes close, and I left the definition of "create" up to you.

      Hey, you like to get pedantic on words, right? Here's one for you. English sentences go like {subject} {verb} {object}, as in
      I {subject}
      Took {verb}
      the Initiative {object}
      The rest is filler. And initiative means he tried to do something, started doing something. It doesn't mean he succeeded, and it doesn't mean he what he attempted to do was not already done before. So on the purely rhetorical basis of his sentences, he is still correct. Alas, English is so flexable once you get used to it. You can make it do almost anything.

      Have a nice day.

      --
      There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
    2. Re:You are right until.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Carly had the faintest idea what she was doing, and did transform HP into a monster technology services giant generating explosive returns for shareholders, people would be saying that.

      Point in fact, remember all those covers of financial periodicals with Enron on the cover? How do you think it got there, and who got the credit. And that's what Al Gore did for the internet. And you know what, he was right, and it gets better every week, if not every day. That's what leadership is. But the republicans have had another decade of uninterupted failures, but they talk about families, and how Jesus keeps them from doing blow, and out of Texas charm bracelets, so they think that's what leadership is.

      Not that critisisms of Al Gore, and how he'd have been a crappy president are off the mark. He probably would have been. He was uncharismatic (extraordinarily so), and politically naive. But he did have one great idea which he fought for, and saw to great fruition. Which is much more than ANY Republican has done following their bullshit Contract with America.

  154. Thanks by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "But the republicans have had another decade of uninterupted failures"

    Thanks for coming at it from a purely partisan "my party is good, the other party is evil" point of view.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The democrats almost entirely suck too. The difference is that what makes them weak is what keeps them occasionally able to do some good. Like what Al Gore did with the internet. They, unlike the republicans, are a party of individuals. In excecution of their policy the republicans are extremely homogenious. Even McCain, and Bob Barr, who are frequent "dissenters," always play the good soldier.

      The fact is, since the excecution of The Contract With America, they haven't had a SINGLE success that made America a better, stronger country.

      Did they repeal Title IX? No. Did they make Affirmative Action more merit and economically based? No. They did pass trade aggrements which had effects opposite of what was advertised. The consolidation of energy, communications, financial, and industrial concerns has reduced employment, increased the inflation, the price of goods, and destroyed TRILLIONS in GDP. They also cancled weapons systems and drastically reduced the size of the military, and maintainence of infrastructure. But they have frequently tried to enforce puritanism on the internet, unsuccessfully, every. freaking. time. And I could go on. At some extensive length. It's cost me, money, not just in wages, but in investment growth. Fortunately, I hedged my bets with investments in Asia, and Europe. The growth of those gains don't quite offset what I should have made from North America. But what can you do.

      At least my house has appreciated tremendously, but since I plan to live in it for quite a while, the coming crash (5 years, and still predicted) is going to sting quite a bit if I don't have enough equity put in.

  155. It is Gore's statement, not the Republicans by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "Republicans.... Republicans...."

    What do they have to do with his statement? Nothing. When I first heard about the controversy, I went to the CNN web site and found Gore's own statement... one in which "invent" is an accurate paraphrase. Don't blame the Republicans for Gore's misstatement.

    "The vision that Gore articulated during his congressional service was of an Internet that did not yet exist"

    The same is true of Spamford Wallace's dream of an internet full of spam. Did Spamford end up inventing the Internet too?

    "Actually, it is. They are the ones who coined the phrase "invented the internet""

    It is an accurate paraphrase, and the words mean the exact same thing in the context Gore used them. You are splitting hairs that are too thin for splitting, and again, the Republicans had nothing to do with this. (just as the Democrats did not force GWB to make his "wings take dream" speech)

    "Why are you wasting your time discussing it here? Write to Cerf and Kahn and tell them how wrong they are"

    I've read Cerf's statements. They are correct. They thank Gore for helping expand the Internet. Cerf does not anywhere claim that Gore had anything to do with creating it. If Cerf did this, he would be misspeaking as well.

    "Politicians take credit for their legislative creations all the time, without having words like "invent" misattributed to them"

    If you apply "invent" to the creation of a singular technological entity, it is not a misattribution. The Internet is just such an entity that the word "invent" perfectly applies to the creation of it.

    Gore misspoke. He said so later.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:It is Gore's statement, not the Republicans by Rufus88 · · Score: 1

      What do they [the Republicans] have to do with his statement? Nothing.

      Correct. They have nothing to do with HIS STATEMENT. They have everything to do with thenon-existant statement that they misattributed to him.

      I went to the CNN web site and found Gore's own statement... one in which "invent" is an accurate paraphrase.

      We all know Gore's own statement, and "invent" is not an accurate paraphrase.

      The same is true of Spamford Wallace's dream of an internet full of spam. Did Spamford end up inventing the Internet too?

      Your question would be almost apprpriate if I were claiming that Gore *did* in fact *invent* the internet. I'm not. And he didn't either.

      It is an accurate paraphrase, and the words mean the exact same thing in the context Gore used them

      B.S. I've already demonstrated otherwise. It's obvious to anyone with two little gray cells to rub together that he was not claiming a technical innovation on his own part. But the Republicans (yes, they are the ones who first used that term) wouldn't have a case without distorting his words and misquoting him.

      (just as the Democrats did not force GWB to make his "wings take dream" speech)

      And you'll note that those words were not MISattributed to him.

      Cerf does not anywhere claim that Gore had anything to do with creating it.

      You need to read their statement again. They clearly discredit the Republican-led spin and misquotation, and they give him credit in many ways, numerous times throughout the letter, for exactly the things that he was claiming credit for.

      If you apply "invent" to the creation of a singular technological entity, it is not a misattribution

      Sure it is. "Creation", even of a single entity, involves much more than "invention". It involves communicating the vision, getting support, allocating funds, setting policy, manufacturing components, deploying components, laying down cable, etc. He never claimed to have done the whole thing single-handedly, from start to finish. And if the words meant the same thing, you wouldn't feel the need to use the one that he never uttered. And if one wanted to be really pedantic, he never even said "I created the internet". He said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". He took the initiative. That initiative turned the Internet of yesterday into the Internet of today. Gore's statement was right on the mark, and the Republican use of the word "invent" is clearly inappropriate, just as Cerf and Kahn indicated when they said, "We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet". At no point do Cerf and Kahn state, or even suggest, that he misspoke.

    2. Re:It is Gore's statement, not the Republicans by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
      "Correct. They have nothing to do with HIS STATEMENT. They have everything to do with thenon-existant statement that they misattributed to him."

      If you are referring to the "invented" paraphrasing, this is a perfectly accurate paraphrasing. They did nothing more than attribute to him what he actually said, so they still do not matter in this.

      "Your question would be almost apprpriate if I were claiming that Gore *did* in fact *invent* the internet. I'm not. And he didn't either"

      He did make this claim. However, he admitted it was a mistake to say this.

      "It's obvious to anyone with two little gray cells to rub together that he was not claiming a technical innovation on his own part"

      Technical innovation? That is almost off topic. He did, however, claim to have created it.

      "And you'll note that those words were not MISattributed to him."

      Nothing is misattributed to Gore by accurately paraphrasing him.

      "You need to read their statement again. They clearly discredit the Republican-led spin and misquotation"

      It is not misquotating to say that Gore said he invented the Internet. It is an accurate paraphrasing. You are the one injecting partisan spin into this. If there is any "Republican spin" here, it is not in their accurate summary of what Gore said. The "spin" is in their use of this along with some fake quotes as part of a case that Gore went around intentionally lying about his accomplishments.

      Actually? No.

      "[Create] involves communicating the vision, getting support, allocating funds, setting policy, manufacturing components, deploying components, laying down cable, etc"

      We are talking about definitions, and you throw this in. There is no dictionary anywhere that mentions cables in the definition of create.

      "He never claimed to have done the whole thing single-handedly, from start to finish."/

      That is correct. He merely claimed to have been the leader (taking the initiative) in starting it ("create"): a claim that is not true at all.

      "he never even said "I created the internet". He said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". He took the initiative."

      His "took the initiative" makes his claim even more false: it makes it look like his own idea.

      "initiative turned the Internet of yesterday into the Internet of today."

      So? No matter how much you give Gore deserved kudos for improving the Internet, that still does not give him a role in something that happened at the end of the 1960s and early 1970s (creation).

      "Gore's statement was right on the mark,"

      Yet, we have shown how it is factually false. Gore himself said it was a misstatement.

      "and the Republican use of the word "invent" is clearly inappropriate"

      Both "create" and "invent" are equally wrong. The Republicans have nothing to do with this. You yourself added another paraphrase word: "start" which is accurate as well. You must be an evil Republican for referring to Gore starting it!

      ""We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet". "

      Nor do I, nor does Al Gore himself. Gore said it was a mistake. In my view, he slipped up in the heat of an interview. I have said so elsewhere. I also criticized those who call Gore a liar, or claim that Gore intended to mislead.

      "At no point do Cerf and Kahn state, or even suggest, that he misspoke."

      They don't say he was right, either. Their goal in their piece was to give Gore praise for what actually did, not rake him over the coals for an incorrect statement that they "[did not think] Gore intended" to say in the first place.

      Remember President Jerry Ford? He got on film a few times bumping his head. This "but his wrong statement is true!" defense would be like a Ford man insisting "but Jerry intended to bump his head on the helicopter door!"

      Gore stumbled in his interview. His stumble is not, as Democrats claim, an actual true statement. It is not, as Republicans claim, part of a pathological liar syndrome.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    3. Re:It is Gore's statement, not the Republicans by Rufus88 · · Score: 1

      They did nothing more than attribute to him what he actually said

      If you are going to continue to lie by claiming that "invent" is "what he actually said", when the central point of this discussion is the difference between "invent" and what he actually said, then we are at a stalemate.

    4. Re:It is Gore's statement, not the Republicans by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
      "If you are going to continue to lie by claiming that "invent" is "what he actually said""

      "Gore said that he invented the Internet" is an accurate paraphrase. Compare this to Gore said "I invented the Internet". The second is an incorrect quotation. As long as those Republicans only do the first, they are in no trouble at all.

      As for the "difference" between invent and create, here are some definitions for you:

      To cause to exist; bring into being.
      To produce or contrive (something previously unknown) by the use of ingenuity or imagination.
      To give rise to; produce
      To produce through artistic or imaginative effort

      (I left off the ones to do with appointing a person or engaging in deception)

      Tell me: which of these apply to Gore's Internet efforts?

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  156. Re:Heil Hitler ! by rp · · Score: 1

    What is more, at one point the USA and Saddam were (politically) best friends, and Bush and Bin Laden stem from circles with close business relationships. It's easy to make things appear black-and-white on TV (even on color TV) but the real situation is a little more complicated.

    What these people have in common is that they are/were fueled by oil wealth.

  157. I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An insightful post about politics, actually modded as insightful?

    I ran into your comment while meta-modding, so who knows if you'll ever read this, but I like the cut of your jib.

    That said, I take issuewith you on the majority of your post. The electoral college is around specifically so that the small states have some say in elections. Yes, the senate provides 2 legislators per state, but that doesn't mean anything come vote counting time. As paltry "flyover countries" per state electoral vote number is, they add up, and precisely as intended. If it weren't for the electoral college, the party which controls new york and california would win every go round. As it is, democrats need to get florida to make it a contest, which is why the state is so contested.

    Electoral college: Don't like it, wouldn't change it.