Slashdot Mirror
Internet Co-inventor Vint Cerf Endorses Obama
SEAActionFund writes "Vint Cerf, Google's Chief Internet Evangelist who also happens to be credited with co-founding the Internet, submitted a video to our AVoteforScience YouTube challenge. In it he discusses the importance of net neutrality and endorses Barack Obama specifically because he supports net neutrality (John McCain does not.)
The AVoteForScience challenge calls upon scientists to upload videos to YouTube explaining who they are voting for and why. The first two videos were by Cerf and the 2008 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry Marty Chalfie. Any Slashdotters game for explaining who they are voting for and why?" Still waiting for one of the campaigns to ask for my endorsement, which is totally available to whichever campaign offers me the better cabinet seat.
...because no one is better qualified to make a decisiono on politics than someone whose expertise is in a completely unrelated field. I wonder who JaRule is indorsing.
A staggering number of people in this country dont believe results that these scientists / engineers come up with, I don't think the (Quoting Palin) *ahem* 'Joe Six Packs' of this nation care.
This election is going to come down to what it always does, who has: 'who's the candidate I can see having a beer with'
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17316144
I was under the impression that neither candidate has *defined* what they mean by NN. If either has defined it well and I've missed it, let me know. Until then, meh.
Reply to That ||
Subject says it all. Looks like smart people are going for Obama, shocking.
"Still waiting for one of the campaigns to ask for my endorsement, which is totally available to whichever campaign offers me the better cabinet seat." My, you sure do like the spoils system, huh?
Anyway, I'm voting for Obama - he doesn't believe in charging women to get rape exams; he is pro-choice; he is for net neutrality; he didn't pick his running mate based on tits and ovaries (And I don't mean McCain picked Palin because she has nice ones. I mean he picked her because she just HAS tits and ovaries); he doesn't support abstinence only education; his economic plan makes more sense to me.
Also, all these people who are like "OMG his name is Barack Hussein Obama, he's a terrorist!" really should go read about a) the muslim religion b) why he has that name.
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
I'm voting for Barr because neither one of the Republicrat candidates represent my views.
It is my belief that representing you views is the only reason you should vote for any candidate, but the voting population has been gamed for so long they are like Pavlov's dog.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Growing up, my parents had the same answer to the two following questions: 1. How much money do you make? 2. Who are you voting for? The answer? None of your damn business.
meh
Could someone explain in simple terms what net neutrality is? I mean, if you don't have net neutrality, is it the same as censorship? Or does it mean that no one should be able to control the internet in the way of shutting down/messing with vital parts?
I think a vote for or against someone because of a single view, be it abortion stance, environmental stance, or net neutrality stance is not exactly the best way to go about things. If you boil things down to one really narrow issue and vote solely on that you run the risk of voting in 9 evils for the 1 "good" idea you're passionate about.
Are there people who cast their vote based on crap like this? One one hand it's cool to know why someone is supporting someone, so this is somewhat different than the usual "I support Joe" stuff we see plastered all over. I'm tired of all the signs everywhere showing me who the sign owner is supporting. You drive down the street and see signs for every candidate and it does absolutely nothing to further any particular candidate. It serves only as an eyesore. This is why I don't plaster my car with bumper stickers supporting anyone or anything. I live several sports teams but I don't need to announce that to the world on my bumper. In this race I once again can't stand either candidate (the last candidate I really supported in a presidential race was Reagan) and just wish we could get this over so the bloody signs will get taken down.
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
From someone who co-founded the Internet with Al Gore, who else would you expect him to endorse?
Because Obama has a middle name that is middle eastern he is a terrorist? When Bush Sr. gives Bin Laden power because he gives him weapons and money to fight the Russians in Afghanistan or when Rumsfeld is seen shaking hands with Saddam because they are good friends that's OK. Obama was once on a school board with a guy who was a terrorist and he's paling around with terrorists. What should we say about the McBush group then?
http://www.nsm88nj.com/images/saddam_rumsfeld.jpg
I hear Obama uses Windows and McCain uses Linux and a Mac AT THE SAME TIME!!!
I live in Virginia in the Washington D.C. metro area. I've been exposed to avid fans from both sides and have decided I won't be voting for McCain. Why? Read the fifth paragraph down in this article to get an idea of what one sometimes has to deal with. And all I need to do is peruse factcheck.org to see who's lying about what.
Call me stupid & naive for desiring a non-manipulative president but I've been nonplussed with the McCain campaign (and Fox News for that matter). Both candidates twisted each others words but I haven't been exposed to many negative ads against McCain. I wish I didn't have to vote for either of them, we'll still be at war four years from now regardless of who wins--it's probably just a matter of how many countries we'll be at war with.
My work here is dung.
hes only doing this because Obama is allreay going to win.
According to this site (not a bs-site) it is currently as 96% change for Obama
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Well that does it, I will give up my benighted plans to vote for Bob Barr. I will embrace the pure hope and change that is Obama. I can already feel the tingling in my body as the pure love of Obama flows into it. I can also feel the cold, hard, floor as I bow in worship to His Hopefulness.
I really liked the last 8 years of Bush rule, so I'm going to vote for Nader again.
Al Gore did
No joke but I'm planning to write in Ron Paul. I don't like either of the major party candidates.
I like Obama's stance on Net Neutrality and the War. But I am pro-gun and anti-taxes and the Democrats historically as a party don't agree with my positions.
On the other hand, I've never cared for McCain (even in 2000). I don't like the statement he made during the primary campaign about leaving troops in Iraq for 100 years. He would be more likely to support my gun and tax positions but I think it would pretty much end there. He's not a true fiscal conservative nor does he seem to be a defender of individual liberties and I believe we'd get another 4 years of intrusive huge government.
I've been considering voting for Bob Barr but I think the Ron Paul write-in sends a better message.
So am I. I mean, Sarah Palin claims to understand foreign policy because she can see Russia from Alaska. I've actually lived in a couple of other countries -- even one where (gasp!) they don't speak English. So I certainly should be Secretary of State -- or Ambassador to the UN, at the very least.
Or maybe I can be Secretary of Agriculture. After all, I know how to ride a horse, and I milked a cow once.
Vote for Chthulu!!!
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
"Us" being the news media. Quite simply, he needs to create a more compelling narrative on change and get angry about something. Our ratings depend on it. Attack ads! Push polls! We need material!
We need the argument that this is an election with two choices - not just one popular dynamic guy and one old past-it guy. That's not a compelling media narrative!
Obama's 2:1 advantage in the Electoral College is far too confusing for our viewers. We need to re-run polls until we get one with a 1% change, never mind the 3% error margin. It's sooo close! Experts say it's a wake-up call! Better keep your eyes glued to the screen! Oh my goodness!
If Obama can just pull ahead between now and November 4, he may become President Barack Obama ... Or not! Who knows? You need to keep watching! Right here! Stay tuned!
http://rocknerd.co.uk
The upside of Endless War is that the more gullible of our rural tax-consuming citizens will offer their lives to a government that doesn't care about them.
The downside is the cost, death and destruction.
But given the 'salt of the earth' I've been hearing at McCain/Palin rallies...which is the lesser of the two weevils?
Blar.
so 'we' don't look too bad all at once. however, that dough is disappearing as fast as they can put it in. as though just closing the betting parlors (even temporarily) is unthinkable, whilst pi**ing away our dwindling resources is the right thing to do, leaving US with yet another unrepayable debt. better days ahead?
Now you're telling me that Al Gore and Vint Cerf invented the internet!?
Net neutrality is around #75 on my priority list of important issues to consider when electing a president.
Besides, net neutrality would be legislated by the congress, not the president. The next president will have very little impact on net neutrality.
appointing someone who ran an Equestrian center to run FEMA was a smart decision..
You don't have to be an expert in every field to know whether someone is competent or not. You just need to surround yourself with smart people who well verse in their own fields... rather political ass suckers..
And this is just another example in a long line of a non-choice elections between 2 duds.
And the MSM coverage of the third parties seems to be the lowest ever. Just at a time we need real choices, not this phony dog and pony show.
Even Frontline's "The Choice" (ha!) was a steaming load. I rarely agree with Frontline's left tilt, but they always go real deep to put you into the middle of a problem in an attempt to give real insight. And they failed to mention there are more than 2 people running.
Will their next iraq show fail to mention the sunni or shia because it might get too confusing for the viewers?
1) Declare a major in veterinary science or animal husbandry.
2) Flunk freshman biology.
3) Transfer.
4) Declare a major in business/finance.
5) Flunk introductory economics.
6) Transfer.
7) Declare a major in communications.
8) Flunk English composition.
9) Transfer.
10) Declare a major in political science.
11) Flunk introductory government.
12) Transfer to a really easy low-tuition college.
13) Declare a major in journalism.
14) Flunk Intro to journalism.
15) Start sleeping with the department chair.
16) Graduate with journalism degree (2.1 GPA)
In the UK, in 1992, the Conservatives ran an election campaign with the slogan 'New Labour, New Danger' with Tony Blair portrayed as the devil. This was widely credited with losing them the election. I can only hope that the 'Obama is a terrorist' campaign will have the same effect in the USA.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
So Cerf having invented something of value, years ago, makes him a reliable commentator on things political?
This cuts to the core of our problems: responsible exercise of the franchise can't be left to the uninformed. I'm not speaking of Cerf, but of those who would change their minds simply because of his -- or any other -- endorsement.
--- Bill
but that doesn't matter
what matters is i VOTE
anyone reading this who is not going to vote, i have nothing for you but the most withering disgust i can muster
there are many arguments as to why it is important for you to vote, but here's probably the best one i can think of right now:
2,912,790 to 2,912,253
it gave us the last 8 years of fail
in these numbers, are those responsible for our worst president ever
next election, don't let the source of our failure be you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Why does non-news crap like this get posted to /. ?
Maybe Digg was down?
Last year I was convinced he was worse than NIXON.
He's easily worse than HARDING and COOLIDGE.
And I think he just beat BUCHANAN.
He is . . . the Worst President of All Time. Bush talks about the tax and spend Democrats, but he spends like a hallucinating-drunk Democrat. After spending all that money, he--like Obama and McCain--talk about tax cuts. And what does Bush have to show for it? Zipoleum. Any president would look good after him.
McCain would be 76 years old should he finish his term. Palin stands in the wings. This is a time of crisis, and all they chant is Drill, Drill, Drill. Substitute heroin for oil and it makes a pretty picture.
Gotta vote Obama. No real choice.
The only advice I can give to any voter without trying to endorse anyone, Do not cast a punishment vote (vote for A because B from the other party did X). Think what offer each one, think what is doable and what is a complete lie or impossible promise, and vote for the one you think will do the best
You know, I couldn't care who endorses who. When I go into the voting booth, I'm going to vote for who I think will do the best job. I've always thought that who you vote for is a personal decision between you and the lever that you pull down. Of course, maybe this is because I'm sick of listening to hollywood types and intellectuals telling me how I should vote. They're either pushing their agenda or stroking their ego. Which, in turn, makes them less qualified to make MY decision.
Except there really isn't an "Obama is a terrorist" campaign outside of some idiotic right-of-center types. McCain hasn't been harping on how he isn't from around here, he's been poorly harping on Obama's economics mostly. Frankly, after the encounter with the plumber the other day, McCain has some PERFECT fodder for getting small businesspeople on his side.
Just toe the party line like a good little debt slave^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hconsumer and be thankful.
Deleted
I would have thought he would endorse something more technologically sophisticated, like a web-based government.
If that's his key reason for voting, shouldn't he support Bob Barr? I could be wrong, but wouldn't choosing a libertarian for president be equivalent to taking the "Net Neutrality" principal and applying it to the rest of the political issues? Decentralize.
Vint Cerf hasn't read Obama's technology page. Or slashdot for that matter. There was a posting here a couple weeks ago displaying the MASSIVE changes in Obama's page before and AFTER picking Joe Biden. Biden is an even bigger opponent of Net Neutrality than McCain might be.
God dammit, doesn't anyone pay attention to this shit? I mean, NO politician is going to back Net Neutrality with the money the Telcos willpump into their campaigns. We're screwed her in America, we're losing (if not lost) our Superpower status because these fuckers in Washington AND the big Telecoms are holding us back in the digital dark ages all for the sake of squeezing every last bloody dime from our pockets.
This country is no longer about innovation, it's about strangulation.
Pax Vobiscum
Stoopid Linn County Democrats still won't put an Obama/Biden yardsign in my yard. The situation is downright noticeable here in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Folks are actually making their own yard signs because they can't get the snazzy official ones.
In my case, I can sort of understand it. I'm more of a Susan Eisenhower Republicrat who has to swallow galling pride and admit I made a damnable mistake in 2000 when I voted for Bush 43. This time, it's Obama.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
ACM link
(shamelessly stolen from the Wikipedia article on Vint Cerf)
Based on the record, it's pretty clear that Obama and the Democrats are bigger supporters of government funding of scientific research than are the Republicans, who believe in leaving it to the "market". That market-oriented view, of course, has a negative impact on such things as funding the development of drugs for rare diseases where it would be impossible for a private company to make a profit on their investment in the needed R&D and clinical trials.
Personally, I think that we should also reverse the policy that now forces top foreign science and engineering students who come to the US for their Ph.D. and M.D. studies to return to their home countries. Making that change is at odds with the Republican platform stance of tightening the borders.
Without wanting to seem elitist about all of this, McCain and Palin probably aren't smarter than 5th graders when it comes to science. McCain graduated 894th out of 899 in his class at the Naval Academy and Palin's undergraduate degree in journalism was earned at 5 different universities.
While I commend Vint Cerf for his public endorsement of Obama (and strongly share his preference), the US is faced with a slew of critical geopolitical and economic issues. Whoever wins, scientific research isn't likely to be a top priority in the new Administration. All we can do is hope that it has strong supporters in the White House.
My name is Austerity Empowers and I approve of this message.
apparently you've never heard of john quincy adams or jimmy carter... a lot of stuff really did happen before george w bush...
But he supports net neutrality THIS WEEK.
He's so much into change, he happens to change his stance on issues weekly. I can see that he's a smooth talker, but it's hard for me to rally behind anyone whose convictions waffle around seemingly at random.
What happens if he is elected and then some lobbyist comes along with an agenda, convinces Obama that net neutrality is the devil, and all of a sudden Obama reneges?
The short answer? I'll believe it when I see it.
The problem is, our election system (called either "majority rule", "plurality rule", or "first past the post") is algorithmically incapable of expressing an opinion involving more than two options. Until this flaw is fixed, the only way a third-party can come to power is through a rapid and enormous shift that replaces one of the existing major parties (which has happened, what, three times in our 200+ year history?), an act that, I assure you, has the strongest bi-partisan opposition of any in the country.
The only way out is to change the game; we have to start using a preferential voting system to escape this. It's starting to happen. Instant Runoff Voting is starting to be used in some districts; I personally hate IRV and would much prefer any Condorcet-based system, but it's a start.
Any Libertarian, any Green, any Constitution--hell, anyone who would have preferred Clinton or Romney over the current options--should devote all their political effort to advocating for these systems. Start locally, and work up.
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
most partisan passions, that drive people to vote, have nothing to do with being informed at all. more like indoctrinated
and usually, the most impartial observer has the cleanest and clearest perspective on the issues. but the most impartial observer is also likely the least passionate observer and therefore less likely to vote
i actually prefer a democratic system like brazil, where voting is compulsory. you get a receipt when you vote that you need to produce whenever renewing a license, etc.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm confused. You're saying you would PREFER to be at war with more countries? Because McCain is poking at Iran and Russia. He's fixing for a fight. With Obama, maybe we could avoid getting into those wars.
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
You mean like McCain's VP candidate?
You mean like those fools I see on television every morning here during the commercial breaks while I'm trying to watch the news here in Ohio?
Don't paint these people as some sort of "extreme" Republicans. They're not. They're the new face of the Republican party, full stop.
I was a Republican until the 2003 stupidity (Iraq), and I even voted for McCain in the 2000 primaries as I'm a centrist with libertarian leanings. I'm now firmly entrenched in the Obama camp as it is the side that will do the "least" damage over the next four years.
You have yourselves to thank for alienating people like me, fuck you very much.
No scientist should vote for a man who puts a creationist (ie Palin) as his second in command.
My web domain.
1. most partisan passions, that drive people to vote, have nothing to do with being informed at all. more like indoctrinated
2. the impartial observer has the cleanest and clearest perspective on the issues. but the most impartial observer is also likely the least passionate observer and therefore less likely to vote
a superior democracy than ours (for many reasons, not least of which the idiotic aristocratic hedge bet the founding fathers foisted on us called the electoral college) is a system like brazil. in brazil, voting is compulsory. you get a receipt when you vote that you need to produce whenever renewing a license, etc
this is absolutely a superior approach to democracy than the united states. the united states might have led the world in adopting democracy, but the democracies since then have adopted policies that are superior to the early adopter's approach. the united states needs a democracy overhaul. the debacle of 2000 is the biggest case for this
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"This just proves the Internets are a creation of the liberal elite! The Internets does not respect traditional Judeo-Christian values! It's time we declared war on the Internets!"
>Any Slashdotters game for explaining who they are voting for and why?
Mickey Mouse. The jackass and elephant are equally responsible for the mess we are in and both need to go because they are self serving, bandaid applying panderers who don't give a shit about this country, just their own political career.
Obama, McCain, Palin and Biden are all the same. Sad but true... Not one wants to dismantle the IRS and give us a fair flat tax. None want to shrink the size of the government and all are socialists (Either little guy or corporate socialism).
Nazi Germany and the USSR were also socialist countries. The floodgates started cracking during the new deal; now they are crumbling and that socialist kool-aid is flooding the valley.
Keep on drinking it and watch what happens... Anyone with a brain should vote against the incumbents. Washington needs an enema.
-Viz
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
but george w really is worse than them, on a whole range of issues. from invading iraq to ignoring katrina to advancing ignorance (pro creationism, anti stem cell) to the wall street meltdown, george w really is our worst president ever
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Obama has a dark past, and has all the media backing him.
It must be that Harvard connection...
Or perhaps he's in league with the zombie of Al Capone back in Chicago.
He's a secret member of the mafia of the undead.
If we break into his house mebbe we will see a big white reprinted copy of "Chicago Mobs of the 20s" copyrighted in 1992.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
..to Youtube to take it down. Then we can have Obama suddenly join the "Hey, DMCA sucks" side too.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Conservatives won in '92, New Labour won in '97.
At this point does it really matter. For that matter there is no difference between political canidates. They are both just a couple of used car salesment
there really isn't an "Obama is a terrorist" campaign outside of some idiotic right-of-center types
You mean Sarah Palin?
JaRule is supporting Obama because of his plans for universal singing lessons.
Great inventions without long-term planning are the hallmark of Obama's party.
The Internet, the machine gun, and the internal combustion engine: three great inventions that have both helped and killed millions of people due to poor planning or regulation.
The last thing we need is another Machine (as in "the Machine" which has ruined Illinois, Crook County, and Chicago) making things worse in DC and around the world.
McCain will be surrounded by the same cronies Bush is.
McCain does not show any desire to understand technology.
Palin Is a crazy zealot who want's to force her religious into policy.
Let me know when actual republicans take back their party.
Fiscal Conservative, Social Liberal.
Remember Tax and spend is a lot better then Borrow and Spend.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I hope the McCain will win this year because 1) he has a long record of Accomplishments. Obama gives great speeches, but we're not voting for White House Press Secretary. I've asked Obama supporters to name one significant accomplishment that can genuinely be credited to Obama - I'm still waiting. 2) So we're going to replace a bad season of one-party rule with more one-party rule, just a 'D' instead of an 'R'? Yea, that's a great plan.
They are different, and these 'used car salesmen' need to deal with foreign policy. This impacts you.
Obama has a grasp on science and technology. McCain and Palin do not.
Palin would force her religious beliefs onto you.
The economy will depend on congress more then the president so to me that's a secondary issue.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
but it is a tweak on the value of your vote, not a nullification of it
you are not disenfranchised by the system, you are merely looking for an excuse not to care
you're an asshole. you really are, for saying those words
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What relevance does this have to our election? We all know the socialist Europeans looooovvve Obama. How, exactly, is this news worthy?
For the life of me I can't understand how that could happen.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Why I will not vote for McCain, from his own mouth:
"I would rather have a clean government than one...where 'First Amendment rights' are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice I'd rather have a clean government."
source
OK, so a clean government is, to McCain, far more important than our first amendment rights. Odd, to say the least, but possibly understandable.
Or at least it is until you look a little closer. Charles Keating. A campaign staffed and run by lobbyists. An affair with a lobbyist. The pick of Palin, who abused her position as governor for personal ends.
Alone, his stated position that a clean government is more important than our first amendment rights gives me great pause. Combined with his actions, which make it seem that he doesn't really give a damn about clean government, i find it rather frightening.
How can you vote for someone who sneers at the first amendment?
the united states is a nation of laws; badly written and randomly enforced -- frank zappa
I am voting for McCain precisely because science and computer nerds are voting against him. I just can't stand their condescending, I-am-smarter-than-you attitude. Their insufferable pomposity is legendary. Stephen Hawking's first wife said that her duty as Hawking's wife was to remind him everyday that he was not God. That was before the wheelchair. The man believes in the possibility of time travel, for crying out loud!
Like most nerds, Obama believes that humans evolved from apes via natural selection and random mutation and he has the gall to call himself a Christian. He ain't getting my vote, that's for sure. As someone who has played with GA, I can tell you that random mutation and natural selection look silly compared to a million monkeys banging on a typewriter.
Science nerds seem to think that their shit don't stink but as Paul Feyrabend once wrote, "the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest position in society." Stinky is an understatement.
I have to wonder what Cerf thinks of Obama changing his stance on telecom immunity after the primary. No candidate that supports anything like retroactive telecom immunity will ever get a dime, let alone a vote from me.
Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
Many cultures have predicted something major bad happening in December 2012 (which is just weeks after the next election). What is up with that?
If they are right then whoever gets elected this time seems like they are going to play some pivotal role.
Of course if it's the poles of the Earth reversing or something they probably wouldn't be a direct cause but they would have to run things or set things up prior to and possibly during the event.
The statistical likelyhood of a man of Mr McCain's age and having his medical history surviving for even FOUR, let alone 8, years is well under 50%.
Just because Ronny Raygun lived to age X has no bearing on John McCain living to the same age beyond being an existence proof, and we really needed proof that people CAN live to be 80? Besides, the last 6 years of Reagan's presidency he was pretty much out of it. That's exactly what we need, a senile president and a fool for a VP. Yeah, I'll go for that.
Honestly I'm sorry, but even if I supported John McCain I think it would be irresponsible to vote for him under the present circumstances.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
Our Prime Minister won another minority government, which in my opinion is about as bad as the U.S. voting Bush in again (electronic voting issues aside). Stephen Harper has been lock-step wish G.W. Bush the whole way, destroying our identity while caving in to big business interests. Looks like we have another 3-5 years of going down the wrong road ahead of us.
If only we had some sort of proportional representation system like all other democracies outside of this continent..
If it didn't help for Cerf to say "No, really, without Al Gore, we wouldn't have an Internet"^ in the middle of all the laughing about Gore having make the claim in the 2000 election, then how is his support going to help Obama?
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
I just want justices who read the Constitution literally, and who favor the rights of the individual whenever something isn't explicitly spelled out in the Consititution. There shouldn't need to be "interpretation" or "incorporation" as has been practiced.
If you want to change what the Constitution says, there are things called Amendments. Get Congress to propose one, and get the states to ratify it, and you have your change. But "even though it clearly says this, it really doesn't mean that any more because we don't like it" shouldn't fly.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
After seeing this lead in:
Vint Cerf, Google's Chief Internet Evangelist who also happens to be credited with co-founding the Internet...
I had to read the comments in chronological order to see how long it would take for somebody to make the obligatory Al Gore joke. It took 8 whole minutes. Get it together, people!
Since Vint Cerf is supporting Obama I guess I can't support the internet anymore.
It's been fun.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
It is simply not correct to say that a candidate's position on abortion does not affect/change things in an 8 year period. One of the first things that Bush did when he got in was to withdraw or limit funding to NGO's that provided planned parenting services. Ask Marie Stopes. This policy has proved devastating to many countries in Africa.
anyone reading this who is not going to vote, i have nothing for you but the most withering disgust i can muster
I always vote, but your vast and tiresome self righteousness has inspired me to not only NOT vote, but to send you complete video documentation of me failing to voting just to disgust you. :-)
2,912,790 to 2,912,253
Yeah, well, I'm in California where McCain would be lucky to even get voted off the island. And your numbers there don't explain 2004. I'm just sayin'.
O'Reilly or Coulter, or whoever the left-wing equivalents are (I have trouble choosing a left wing figure who stands out the same way: they tend to be bland).
In this country they are bland, but how about any other petty religious dictator? Not that they usually want a warmongering religious nutcase in the Whitehouse, but they do share the same viewpoint and goals, and they can be quite, um, colourful about it.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
"I endorse the candidate that wins. Thank you. Get my autograph and a free Cerf for Congress sticker from my secretary. I shall now retreat and build Internet 2.0"
Why do you Americans vote on what politicians say they will do, rather than on a track record of what they have actually done?
Is it common, in America, to be able to walk up to some stranger and have them agree in writing that they will be ruled by you for four years? And all you have to do in return is give them an oral, unenforceable promise that you will do various things that they like the sound of? I come from a former Soviet bloc country and I'd laugh if someone tried that to me, whether a stranger in the street or a face on the television - unless, perhaps, they'd shown themselves to act as they speak. With conviction and consistency. For decades.
Of all the places where you could get information about who a good choice was - TV, papers, radio, Internet, the pulpit - why would you want to reject talking about it with your friends, family, neighbors? They're the people who have the concerns you do, and the motivations you do. They're not censored, staged.
In my head, "none of your damn business" is the answer of someone who has a bias and doesn't want to disclose it because they know it's indefensible.
Don't throw away your vote! Throw away the politicians instead.
You have a lot to learn about socialism if you think Obama is anywhere near it.
For those of us in the reality-based community, Obama is center-right, McCain slightly more right, though you need a 2D representation à la politicalcompass.org to do it justice. I'm pretty sure the politicalcompass people have already plotted the candidates for your edification.
Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it.
i have the power to prevent mccain voters from voting
fucking cool
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Only in the sense that McCain is much closer to TCM than, say, Attila the Hun.
Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it.
who is not a Reagan democrat or neo-con
Ooops. Yes, I meant 1997. On a related note, Obama's speeches about 'change' sound to me a lot like Tony Bliar's speeches before the 1997 election.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I'm in Ohio, so I know exactly what you mean. I'll also be voting for Obama, who I see as the lesser of two evils.
I PASSIONATELY HATE people who knowingly distort the truth in an argument. Or repeat known BS to strengthen their position. The McCain campaign has released three or four odious character attack ads designed specifically to mislead voters. For example, claiming Obama wanted to teach sex-ed to kindergarten students. Trying to trick me? I don't want you to lead my country.
Unfortunately Obama is not blameless when it comes to misleading ads, either. (check factcheck.org) But he's no John McCain. sigh So he gets my vote.
i've written comments where i have subconsciously capitalized correctly, then gone back and converted it to lower case before hitting submit. a refined anti-grammar, if you will
I am fully capable of exercising a perfect adherence to modern rules of grammar. Strunck and White's little handbook is something I am completely familiar with. So why do I purposely do a comment.toLowerCase(); in everything I write?
it is precisely because of replies like yours. i purposefully go out of my way to ignore grammar, in order to drive people exactly like you crazy. it works, so i will always adhere to this path, as it is very rewarding
i enjoy pissing off mediocre minds. and, by all means, do not get it wrong: overemphasis on grammar is the sign of a brittle mind. i only gain a better audiecen for my comments, consisting of more supple minds, by driving away people such as yourself
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If you haven't studied the world's most barbaric religion (aka islam), you should start yourself.
Begin with the Koran.
Now, work your way through the Hadith - that is, the various collections. The Sunni swear by six collections as "authentic", the Shi'a have four different ones THEY swear by, and then you can get through the various other splinter groups like the Deobandi and Ibadi.
Now work your way through the various pronouncements made by various "Clerics" based on Koran, Hadith, and whatever backwards 7th-century tribal customs they're trying to justify at the time. You know, shit like the 10001 ways to blame a woman for "causing" men to rape her. Because, you know, apparently Arab men are all a bunch of barbaric horndogs who'll rape a woman if they catch sight of an ankle... and heavens, they can't actually be held responsible for their own actions when those evil, vile, temptresses are around. Remember, in the Islamic religion, it's all the woman's fault, and if you want to prove rape you'd better have 4 male witnesses to the penetration in order to prove it in court, or else the woman's guilty of adultery for being raped and should be put to death by stoning.
Done yet? I thought not. You don't know shit about the real Islam, but you dare to claim other people should "study" it. Well, I have, and it is NOT a "religion of peace."
Make sure you have a REAL good understanding of nasikh and mansukh, as well. Half the Koran is actually "abrogated" by the other half. It works not by which order they go in, but by the chronological order in which they were written - which will seriously confuse you about the time you realize that Sura 9 (of 112), the most violent and racist/hate-filled part, was the LAST part written.
As for whether Barack Obama was/is Muslim? I couldn't tell you that. I know he went to a muslim school, because by his own words his mother was told he "made faces during koranic study."
I CAN, however, tell you that it takes a seriously fucked-up mind to decide you adore the polygamist misogynist asswipe who dumped you and your mother on the side of the road and decide he's the object of your adoration, and then decide you hate the race of your mother's family(all based on reading his FIRST autobiography... you know, the one he wrote before he was trying to clean up his image for political reasons) who actually, you know, stood by and raised you. And the last thing I need in the Presidency is a head case.
But why hear it from me? I can back it up with quotes directly from "the savior" himself after all.
"In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school, two years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies." -- Barack Obama
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors ...
But this strategy alone couldn't provide the distance I wanted, from Joyce or my past. After all, there were thousands of so-called campus radicals, most of them white and tenured and happily tolerant. No, it remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names." -- Barack Obama
"That's just how white folks will do you. -- Barack Obama
People who vote for Obama don't know economics or anything about national security. Economics: If unemployment is high, you don't put a larger tax burden on business. They won't have the money to expand (or in some cases stay the same size). Therefore the companies won't create new jobs and people will still be unemployed... just taxed less on the money they're NOT making. And Obama says that most small business don't make $250,000 a year. Do some math. $250,000 / 365 = $684.93 a day. That's a couple of new tires for an auto business or 50 customers for a restaraunt or 1 cake for "Ace of Cakes". I think a LOT of small business take in more than $250,000 a year! They're the ones who are gonna get hit HARD by Obama. National Security: First, you don't tell people we're trying to work with that if you don't help us, we'll just invade your country anyway. That was dumb, Obama! Second, you don't tell your enemy the date you're leaving. They'll just go hide until that date, building themselves up and once we're gone all of our work will be for nothing. Third, you don't have your leader talk to leaders of terrorist groups as if they are on equal footing without some conditions. That just legitimizes them. Would you take a misbehaving student into the teacher's lounge and offer him a cup of coffee to 'talk about his issues', or do you send him to the principal's office to give him a good talking to? Oh... and who do the scientists think pay THEIR paychecks? Big business. So if they're just voting for 'Change', the change they may get is that THEY are the ones on the unemployment lines.
ZOMG!!! I bet tuttley righting in Teh Lunis Torvballz for Teh Pretzlenit!!! Teh Lunis he give us Teh Lunix, an he be teh kool, an he be not teh Bill Gatez!!! Bill Gatez be teh EVEL, jus liek Teh MiKKKr0$$$l0th lolz!!!!11!!
ZOMG, ifn teh LUnis wher teh pretzlenit, He cud force all teh skoolz to maek kidz use Teh Lunix, an dey wud liek totally liek Teh Lunix, an liek totally maek it suksessful an stuff, an maek it liek teh year of teh Lunix on Teh Desktop an stuff!!! An teh Stallmanz cud liek tuttley eat teh kidz hoo wud ruther b usin teh MiKKKr0$$$l0th!!! ZOMG IT WUD BE TEH AEWSUMZ!!!!11!
Sincerely,
Joe Slashdot
So long as you really are interpreting it strictly, and not just selectively. Like how wingnuts bitch about the unconstitutionality of Social Security but not the Air Force.
You don't have to vote for either of them. Obviously one of them is going to win (unfortunately), and I know my vote isn't going to matter in the grand scheme of things; I suppose I am doing it purely for my own personal satisfaction.
Besides, net neutrality would be legislated by the congress, not the president. The next president will have very little impact on net neutrality.
/. where the outcome of a common-sensical issue is left to a judge.
As far as legislation goes, you're absolutely right; the problem with having a president who supports such an idea is that he will be appointing supreme court justices. More than likely, he'll appoint ones who share like-minded views. That's what's troubling, I mean, just look at how many posts there are on
For those who say that who he has associated with in the past doesn't come into play at this point, I just told you exactly why is is important to call into question who he has associations with. Chances are, you look at who he has surrounded himself with in the past, you'll be looking at who will be surrounding him in the white house. Just sayin'.
I'm voting for Barr because he's the only cadidate who opposes the Wall Street give-away. Now, queue up the /.ers who are going to tell me "A vote for Barr is a vote for McCain" or "A vote for Barr is a vote for Obama". www.bobbarr2008.com
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Statistics absolutely do apply. That's ridiculous.
Here, here's a simple reductio ad absurdum for you...
Statistics don't apply to single data points. Just because a die comes up 6 1/6th of the time has no bearing on the chance that it will come up 6 this time.
You using some o' that 'new statistics' or something? lol. I bet there are some Casino's that will find that funny too.
Now, the argument about health care might carry some weight, but I could just as easily point out that the man would be spending the next 4-8 years in a highly stressful job, probably about as stressful as any job one can imagine, and THAT is certainly a factor as well.
Another point is that the probability of John McCain dying is not based on some random statistics about the whole population. It is based on statistics about people LIKE HIM, who have had 3 bouts of a very serious form of skin cancer, and are 72 years old.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
> Science is all about the truth.
Except most scientists aren't. Remember your basic RAH, "Most scientists are button sorters and bottle washers." And science today is more politicized than at any point in history. Sorry, the same new deal nostrums delivered by some twit in a lab coat don't do it for me.
Scientists are people too, and subject to all the defects that come with it. Plus the all too common defect of thinking expertise in a narror area is applicable to topics far outside. Mr. Cerf is a good tech guy, but if he is actually voting based purely on net neutrality (which I don't believe for a femtosecond) he is a bigger fool than the single issue pro lifers.
> As Colbert said, they make facts based on decisions.
You mean like politicized scientists do? AIDS is going to break out into the general population any day now, you just wait! Breand name scientists told us that fairly tale back in the 1980s when you could at least argue they were just being cautious but they haven't stopped to this day to flog that story to keep the FUD levels up and keep the funding flowing. The best science available tells us the population of the polar bear has never been higher, but 'scientists' insisted it be classified as threatened for purely political reasons having nothing whatsoever with the polar bear. Riddle me this; if the polar bear is threatened by having record population what ovjective criteria will be used to determine it is no longer threatened? Yea, now the picture comes into focus.
> So we hear people saying that science is just another religion, and they say that like they really believe it.
Science by itself isn't a religion, but too many scientists seem to believe it is. Listen, science can't answer any of the important questions, life the universe and everything, WHY? etc. By definition it can't probe beyond the big bang, as far as science is conserned, beyond here be dragons is as good an answer any. It can't answer a single moral question. So why do scientists think otherwise? Why do they think being 'men of science' makes them qualified to expound of matters their training has left them totally unequipped to deal with? Once you try to extend 'science' to a total worldview that offers answers to "why" you have a religion. Religions don't have to have a "God" you know.
> And we can only speculate on what medical advances we could be benefiting from right now if only stem cell research hadn't been suppressed.
By suppressed you mean no government funding. Kinda says volumes about your world view now doesn't it. Private entities are unfettered in what they can do in this area, and the lack of federal funding for embyronic stem cell research has driven a multitude of new interesting options. You might not have a moral problem with it but millions and millions of taxpayers did. You might believe they are all ignorant hicks but in our Republic they do still get a vote. It would be just as wrong to seize their money and use it for things they consider an abomination than it would be to seize yours to build churches. You inability to see that makes you unfit to hold any public office.
Now since this topic is about our choices, here's mine:
McCain/Palin with a clothspin on my nose. But no money. Bad Republican, no check. Not only do I have the usual Republican objections to McCain for his RINO traits, McCain Feingold is the deal breaker for me. Void the 1st Amendment and I remember it forever. If he needed to atone for his minor role in the Keating Five he could have resigned or hell, go out back and shoot yerself if that is what ya gotta do but damned if I can see how totally violating one's Oath of Office redeems your Honor. So I can never vote FOR McCain.
Even though I have an unbroken record of voting for Republicans going back to Reagan in '84 I would have considered a Democrat vs McCain had they picked a sensible one. But the progression isn't promising now is it. Arkansas Horndog, Green Pope, Traitor and
Democrat delenda est
Fine, argue the semantics of a "medical procedure", but you obviously know what I meant. A rape kit is not intended to improve the health or cure a problem in the patient, nor is it medically necessary for the patient. Its only purpose is to gather evidence, which is a process which is clearly the responsibility of the state. Since you asked for specifics, the state pays for fingerprints, DNA testing, autopsies, crime scene photos, interviewing witnesses, and collecting related personal belongings when investigating felonies. Why is a rape kit some special case?
And I'm sorry you had to hide behind the "too stupid" argument, as it drastically weakens your case.
E pluribus unum
I was military deployed overseas. My West-Florida county threw out all absentee ballots that "didn't have a postmark on them"...guess what? Military ballots don't have a post mark on them...and this is in a military-heavy county. Didn't vote for Bush either; as a matter of fact, I didn't know too many of my deployed brethren and sistren who were, actually...
A.) What was it again that Ayers was convicted of? And what was his sentence?
B.) Here is Bill Ayers CV: http://cryptome.org/ayers-vita.doc - It's 49 pages long. Sounds like he might be a good person to know.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
Now, now... According to conventional wisdom, you're not supposed to throw away your vote on a third party.
You're supposed to throw away your vote on someone you don't like.
Otherwise, the wrong lizard gets in.
That's how we effect change.
You savvy? ;-)
are you going to vote for the other things up for consideration?
if not, you are exactly the asshole i think you are
if so, you will purposefully avoid making the 3 seconds more of effort to vote in the presidential election?
and let's say for the sake of argument thatyour rationale is 100% correct. i live in new york, and i am voting obama. but if your rationale sways me, i shouldn't vote, because someone else will
so if enough people think like you, obama won't even get new york. this is what you want? this is your position. do you stand by your opinion to that point? or do you back off your opinion of that becomes a possibility, revealing the intellectual bankruptcy of your words. that riding off the back of others is not a defensible position in the end
it is course absurd that mccain will carry new york, because more people will vote for obama in new york. then why do they do it? why don't they think like you?
BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY CARE, unlike you. they realize everything you do, and they still schlep to the polls and vote. why? BECAUSE THEY CARE. you don't!
they vote for obama in new york, and california, because, unlike you, they do not ride on the backs of others. they believe what they say, and they act on it. unlike you, who will complain and whine and moan AND NEVER ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT
you are a genuine 100% asshole. a loser. name calling? i can't get into what i would do to you if i met you in person, so undeserving you are of any respect
in this world, are those do, and those who whine. democracy is a wonderful government because it allows you to make your opinion heard without bloodshed, without much effort
but if that's still too much effort for you, if you have rationalized whatever bullshit reason to think you don't matter (you do, despite your bullshit rationalization), you are not deserving of respect, you are deserving of being spit in the face. because you, and the way you think, represents the downfall of our country: those who don't care about it
and you do NOT care what happens to this coutnry if you do not vote, you really don't. in fact, if you do not vote, you deserve to do only one thing: shut up, and never speak of the taxes that taxed you, of troops in iraq, of the gas prices you pay, of anything that involves the decision of governments and its effects on your life. because you were given a chance to make your opinion mean something, and you chose not to, out of bullshit rationalization of it being too much effort, of your right not to care
i'm glad you don't care enough, good for you asshole
now shut the fuck up, you've given up your right to speak
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I typically vote republican, and I was a delegate to the republican county convention here in Nevada this year, but I've decided to vote Obama this year.
Maybe the man hasn't been in politics long enough, but there isn't any real dirt on the man. He really is a good honest man with a loving family. Contrast that with McCain. When McCain returned from Vietnam, both he and his (former) wife were vastly different people. No one would have blamed him for calling it quits on their marriage. Instead of caring for his crippled wife, he choose to live a fast life chasing any blond tail he could get his hands on. John McCain's moral compass points too far off true north for my vote. He even choose a running mate who is oblivious to her ethical shortcomings.
When I look at party platforms, I don't agree with a lot of Democratic ideals, but when I look at the man running for president, I see a man who has values that reflect my own.
that obama has the support of the humor deprived
it's the funniest of ironies to be accused of being too serious and not getting a joke, in the context of the accuser doing exactly that! ;-)
thanks for the smile,
a fucking idiot
(snicker)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Howard Stern makes fun of Obama voters, ahahaha...
Harlem Voters
Howard Stern makes fun of Obama voters, ahahaha...
Harlem Voters
Or you just weren't funny.
but i'm apparently more funny than the self-appointed humor police
see? that's funny
(rolls eyes)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Here's why you want to vote McCain:
He will act as a (slight) brake on the Pelosi/Reid nutcrew intent on dragging us all into the socialist morass. Obama will only step on the accelerator of the parade to disaster.
McCain is not Bush, no matter what the Obama campaign spinners tell you. He's not even a very good conservative -- which is why conservative-minded voters have to hold their noses to vote for him. He has bought into way too much of the left-wing agenda. It is unlikely that McCain will be a "good" President and America will likely deteriorate under his administration; it just won't go downhill as fast as it would under Obama.
If you are a productive tax-paying citizen, or aspire to be one someday, and Obama gets elected with strong Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress -- prepare to kiss it all goodbye. Welcome to the People's Republic of America.
And a vote for Obama is a vote for socialism to the extreme.
I think that you'll find that Obama is centre right; these are socialists. Besides it seems to me that when you have a president as far to the right as GWB nationalising your banking system, the left would sit back and watch happily, not campaign on a slogan of "change".
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Hey! No cracks about The Book!
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
That is it will tell us what actually happens. Right now, statistics are what we have, and they do predict that if you are a betting man, you'd bet against Mr McCain. Don't put too vast a faith in medical science. No matter how good your health care is it is far from guaranteeing anything, as you'll find out soon enough about the time you hit 40 or so.
Now, if McCain was running for a Senate seat, I'd not consider his age a big deal, worst case he doesn't finish his term. But right now I can think of few things worse than a dying president and a lunatic no nothing VP running things. Not my idea of a wise choice anyway.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
It's not what he was convicted of so much as what he's admitted to doing.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
McCain famously told Iowans during their caucus he was anti-ethanol. Or if he didn't announce it, it was highly publicized at the time.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
So, that would put Bush and Obama and McCain in the same lot? Last I checked, the "experts" are the ones that are benefiting from billions of dollars in bailout money, because apparently, they weren't so intelligent. The same thing happens when war is waged - the "labor force" fights and dies, while the chickenhawks and their associates collect money from the safety of their offices.
I agree that there needs to be personal responsibility, but the main recipients of federal dollars are not poor people. For more information, look at any federal budget since 1950.
You want real change? Remove the corporate veil of protection for all companies, so the next time they declare bankruptcy, they lose everything. Oh, but that might force them to follow the same rules they demand for their workers...
> Archaeology [Science?] is the search for fact... not truth.
Oh damn! How did I miss that one. Thank you for catching that obvious one.
Democrat delenda est
and don't eat any meat from certain butchers
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
For anyone interested, FactCheck.org gives the real deal on this issue. Their short summary: "Q: Did Sarah Palin make rape victims pay for their own rape kits? A: Palin's police chief in Wasilla did that. Whether Palin supported this is not certain."
The slightly longer story is that woman in Wasilla were having their insurance charged for rape kits while Palin was mayor there. After she'd been mayor for four years, the state passed a law banning the practice. The Wasilla police chief spoke out in defense of the practice. Palin is not on record as taking a stand on the issue at the time. Since being the vice presidential candidate, Palin's spokesperson said, "the governor 'does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test.' [The spokesperson] declined to answer questions about when Palin found out about the practice and what, if anything, she tried to do about it." So the bottom line is that this did happen in Wasilla while Palin was mayor and she did not stop it (or stop the police chief from supporting it), but there's no evidence that she actively encouraged it either.
In my view it's still a strike against her, but it's definitely been distorted. Then again, the idea of any politician who cannot name a single news publication she reads is all I need to see her as a liability.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
I'd certainly take McCain over Obama, but I don't like the either of them.
My suggestion is to vote out all incumbents if you want serious change. Washington is messed up!
Just because he's in favor of "net neutrality" doesn't mean it will happen, that decision's in the hands of Congress. So it makes more sense to keep him there and not in the Executive branch.
Anyway, Obama is a Marxist, a philosophy not conducive to a healthy Internet in the long run.
Trading nebulous support for "net neutrality" for support of a guy whose core philosophy works against the interests he claims to support is not a good tradeoff.
I could give a fuck who you are voting for and why. Please stop trying to use your notoriety to get people to vote like you. I don't care if you are Madonna, Cerf, or anyone else for that matter, you are no more intelligent or enlightened than I am, and probably less so since you feel the need to push your agenda on others. The very act of pushing your agenda on others makes you unqualified to do so. Please do not feel the urge to explain your political position to me as its highly unlikely you've actually bothered to look at their voting record or history and more likely you're just parroting something you read or heard from someone else, and no the stupid commercials they do are not an indication of what either canidate is going to do, that is unless you are so stupid that you believe they both are suddenly going to do something different than they have in the past. No one other than the canidate knows what they are going to do in the future, and most of the time they don't even know since once they become fully aware of everything involved in actually BEING the president they have a different perspective which changes their priorities, most likely this is a good thing believe it or not.
In short, please keep your political preferences to your damn self.
Dear slashdot editors,
Stop throwing this political bullshit on a website I come to for tech info, not political info. Again, I am far more capable of making my own political decisions than you are, I certainly don't need you trying to sway my vote based on some person who has a completely different set of priorities than I do.
Please note: I am not endorsing either canidate, I just want you (everyone who does so) to stop trying to tell me your guy is better. He isn't. Their both self centered greedy assholes, I'm sorry, the politically correct term for that is 'politician'. I will vote based on thier voting history (which is public record) for the canidate that matchs my priorities the best, not anyone elses. Anyone who doesn't do this is a problem for the system, including all those people who are swayed by this sort of crap from public figures.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Whatever lip-service Obama has paid the idea of 'net neutrality' falls by the wayside in the face of overwhelming Dem support for the so-called 'fairness doctrine'. Couple this with his team's attempts to threaten opponents with litigation, wholesale attempt at ballot-box stuffing via his pals at Acorn, 20 years of worshipping and supporting racist hate at the heels of Rev. Wright, close friendship and affinity with unrepentant native terrorists intellectuals (Ayres) and background 'experience' of nothing but 'community organizing' (radical agitating by any other name) does not indicate to me that Obama is by any stretch of imagination the free speech candidate.
In his dreams the net is 'open' only to those who support him and his dreams of the ultimate Tellytubby state, making all of your choices and spending all of your money for you.
You think this is fine, perhaps, so long as your side wins. Whatever. Good luck to all of us.
We'll see how this turns out. Until then,
BIIIIG HUUUUG!
**>>BELCH
I think it's very sad that people are arguing over whether the government, which includes law enforcement, should be paying for rape kits which cost $1200 when they must be used. I challenge somebody who is arguing that the government should not bear the cost to add up how much is spent on rape kits in the US per year and divide it by the number of taxpayers.
Do these people have the slightest idea how immeasurably tiny that amount is in the grand scheme of things (taxes)? This isn't just sad, it's disgusting. Does human greed know no bounds?
Cue dirty commie accusations in 3,2,1...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
you don't care. ok, fine. now put your money with your mouth is, and shut the fuck up
or do you enjoying whining about problems you will never be part of the solution to?
your vote matters. that's not an opinion of mine, that's a fact. despite all of the bullshit rationalization you feed yourself, it rings hollow outside the confines of your head. if you disagree with me on the FACT your vote counts, you are not registering an alternative valid opinion, you are registering your stupidity and your lack of caring
your'e an asshole, and a moron
now prove you don't care about the vote, and shut the fuck up, or reveal yourself to be a hypocrite. because if you actually cared, YOU WOULD VOTE. fucking ignorant loser
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
you would vote, as any obvious understanding of the issue would lead you to vote
since you don't, you forfeit your right to have an opinion. voting is the means by which you turn your opinion into action in the white house. since you don't care to do that, or have some incredibly retarded and false bullshit for thinking your vote can't do that, you forfeit your right to have an opinion, because you have told us loudly and clearly you don't care enough to do the slightest of effort to make your opinion count
you think you have the choice to not vote, and still expect people who know you don't vote to give serious consideration to your words. no: when you choose not to vote, you've announced to me that your opinions are not worthy of respect, since you yourself do not respect yourself enough to vote
you're a moron. clear and through. there is no respecting you, there is only name calling, as it is the only consideration you deserve, for having such a fucking retarded way of thinking
if you want me to respect you and stop calling you names, you will vote. if you don't vote, i have nothing for you but my spit on your face, and that is exactly what you deserve from anyone for not voting
fucking ignorant turd
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
that creationism is just as valid as natural evolution, and you disregarded me, based on logic and reason, i would reply as you are replying: "oh so you think only your opinion counts"
actually, yes, only one person's "opinion" counts on issues of fact and logic. because the real issue is of course, logic and reason, not opinion. my "opinion" that creationism is true is an opinio indeed completely invalid and worthy of derision, because it abandons logic and reason, and deserves to be disrespected
in exactly the same way, your bullshit rationalization for not voting is equally flawed, and you have tagged yourself as a low iq ignorant worthy of derision as much as a creationist lecturing at the museum of natural history
my opinion counts no more than your opinion, in general. but on issues of fact, logic, and reason, my opinion is instantly 100% true and yours 100% false, or yours is 100% true and mine 100% false, depending upon how much we deviate from fact and logic. my "opinion" that water is not really wet, or that the tides do not rise and fall, is worthy of nothing but quizzical expression, not equal consideration and respect. all that matters is logic. in which case, your "opinion" that your vote has no value deserves to be utterly disregarded, since it is outside the realm of logic and reason
your vote counts. if you don't understand that, or have some alternative "proof" that it doesn't count, you have a pile of steaming shit in your head equivalent to what a creationist has in their head when trying to talk about evolution. and both you and the creationist deserve nothing but name calling, disrespect, and saliva in the face for being so fucking retarded
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yes, that is always the argument made. Here's what you do.
Find someone IN YOUR STATE whom you trust and who is planning to vote for the candidate you believe is the greater of two evils.
Thus, here is the situation:
1) You are voting for who you believe is the lesser of the two evils.
2) The person you trust is voting for who you believe is the greater of two evils.
You both promise NOT to vote for that candidate and instead vote for the 3rd party candidate of your choosing.
Therefore, your non-votes cancel each other out, and you are free to vote for whom you please WITHOUT hurting the chances of your "lesser of two evils" choice of winning.
because there isn't a person on this planet that can't be connected to an unsavory person in one or two steps.
And just so we here at slashdot don't feel holier than thou, most of us have used reiserfs. I've read his articles describing reiser4, and I was quite looking forward to it. One the face of it, he seems like a competent fs dev. There's the start of our connection to a not-one-of-the-best-human-beings-around.
(and before going off on a tanget, I _have_ read the best-selling trilogy Where Hans Went Wrong, Some More of Hans's Mistakes, and Who Is This Hans Fellow Anyways?)
I really liked the last 8 years of Bush rule, so I'm going to vote for Nader again.
I just can't wait to see how badly the Democrats are going to screw things up, so I too am going to vote for Nader again.
In case you hadn't been paying attention, banks - even the solvent ones - had essentially stopped lending to each other, and to companies, because they didn't have confidence that the debt would be repaid.
Even the most soundly managed companies usually depend on access to debt to manage their cash flows, including payrolls. One tool they use for that is called commercial paper. A couple of weeks ago, buyers for that essentially disappeared, leaving the Fed to have to step into the market. If that market had stayed frozen, millions of Americans' paychecks wouldn't have arrived. Hello 1930s all over again.
Might I suggest that it is you who needs to get a better grip on reality, however unpleasant it might be.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
make believe the electoral college was completely wiped away. make believe every other flaw you see in the voting process were wiped away. it's one direct vote for the president, no modifications or tweaks that you currently hide behind
now, in such a system, you encounter someone who says "i'm not going to vote, because so many people are going to vote for obama anyways, he's going to win anyways, so my vote doesn't matter"
what would you say to such a person?
logic and reason have come
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Socailism to the extreme", LOL at that.
You simply do not have a socialist candidate, you have what most civilised countries would define as a right wing candidate and a far right wing candidate.
Palin never made any woman pay for any rape test. No one did. It's all bullshit.
Good job repeating the talking point, but that's a strawman, I'm afraid.
I'm quite sure you're correct that Mayor Palin never sat at her desk stuffing envelopes with bills for post-assault exam/evidence collection kits. She also didn't send out any water bills, right?
It doesn't work that way. It works this way: the city provides the kits to the hospital, or reimburses the hospital on a regular basis.
When the city *stops* doing that (and there is absolutely no disagreement from anyone that the city of Wassila did just that, and that the Mayor signed off on the budget changes that implemented it), then the hospital bills the patient instead.
Here's a thorough debunking of the debunking.
I suggest reading the following story at rollingstone.com for some additional reasons not to vote for McCain: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain
I'm SHOCKED! Someone at Google is voting for a Democrat.
...of whomever should win in November, I think we can expect that Johnson & Johnson will have a banner year afterwards.
I vote for Bob Barr, because science is too important to be dictated by silly politicians. Bob believes this as a philosophy because he believes in the government getting out of American citizen's way and letting them decide...not them.
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
Sorry, but I've had enough socialism, enough encroachment on my rights, and enough taxes.
I'm voting for a Libertarian, because FREEDOM made this country great, not a huge oppressive government.
Obama and McCain differ only slightly, neither one is any different than those that came before. They will continue to whore themselves to the highest bidder at our expensive, and run this country into the ground.
belittling a guy who had the vision enough to co-found what you are using to post that crappy comment of yours - the internet. the biggest invention, the culmination of all mankind's inventions of all time, something which brings everyone sitting in their living rooms together regardless of race, gender or age and allows them to engage in zillions of activities ranging from economic, scientific to entertainment.
you should straighten up yourself first, because you yourself definitely lack the vision and the level of judgment to judge someone who had those enough to create something like this. such a person with such judgment and vision is far more qualified than any 'pundit' on the face of the earth to make a judgment on this.
Read radical news here
And Obama says that most small business don't make $250,000 a year. Do some math. $250,000 / 365 = $684.93 a day. That's a couple of new tires for an auto business or 50 customers for a restaraunt or 1 cake for "Ace of Cakes". I think a LOT of small business take in more than $250,000 a year!
If you're going to lecture on economics, perhaps you should learn the difference between sales and income. You can have 10,000,000/year or 10,000,000,000/year in sales and LOSE money, and therefore owe no income tax. You gotta know the expense side.
Obama is right, the majority of small business owners clear much less than $250,000 a year.
Further, if a business hires workers or purchases goods/invests, that reduces their taxable income. You can avoid taxes, and increase future income by hiring. So it's not at all clear that higher taxes discourages investment. It depends highly on the structure of the tax and the situation of the business, as any accountant or economist can tell you.
And yes, I have degrees and experience in both disciplines.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
Then explain the math on how Obama can cut taxes on 95% of the people AND fund major new programs AND give tax credits to small business for hiring and insurance AND invest in new energy technology while penalizing energy companies AND balance the budget? Maybe he's been using the calculator that guy made in Little Big Planet. Not to mention he keeps saying that the last 8 years have been horrible for the economy. Actually... I think it's only been the last couple, since the democrats took over the house. Housing and stock market were going pretty good until that happened. And what happened with all the people who in 2000 and 2004 claimed that if Bush won, they were moving to Canada? Have they moved back? Is that why Obama's in the lead? I'm just tired of people falling for Obama's Socialist BS... But this has happened before after a tough economic time. In the 1930's in Germany.