Slashdot Mirror
Watching Tonight's Presidential Debate Online
farkinga writes "For those of us that no longer have a television, live TV events can be a challenge to watch. Fortunately, tonight's Presidential Debate has attracted the attention of most US broadcasters, many of whom will provide online viewing options. Leading the way is Hulu, a joint venture between NBC Universal and News Corp, who will stream the Fox-branded feed tonight — assuming they worked out the bandwidth issues that came up during the second debate!"
I have TV. I still set my MythTV to record it, and started watching about an hour in.
Why ? So I could use time-stretch to watch it at 1.5X speed. They take forever to say the simplest thing.
Time stretch is amazing. Get done in less time, without everyone sounding like chipmunks.
I for one have a High Definition TV receiver plugin for my laptop and it coincidentally can also record and time shift. So I can comfortably place it aside and let it record the thing for me to watch later when I have the time and its in high definition to boot. Online viewing right now just plain sucks.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
My challenge with anything video online is my ISP's bandwidth caps. I am capped at 60GB per month combined download and upload. Streaming video can add up fast! My issues with Firefox only showing a black box for CNN's streaming video was solved. I do not know who solved it...CNN or Firefox folks. But it's good news nonetheless.
I will probably be on the road while the debate is going on...but have Mythbuntu programmed to record the show, including all the pundits' takes after the debate.
The trouble is, MythBuntu creates huge files (2.2 GB for just 1 hr), making disk space run fast. I just wish my man success. Can you guess who it is?
Anyone ballsy enough to stream using a more widely available, non-Flash codec?
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Hulu should offer a streaming bittorrent feed as an alternative. We discussed the technology here earlier. The client's interface could be better, but at least it's something which might help with the bandwidth issues.
Barack Obama supports Linux. I did some freelance work for his North Carolina campaign headquarters, settting up a gentoo box for use as their intranet server. I met BO and talked about linux and modernizing the Federal Government, access to information, etc. He'll probably be a very linux-friendly administration. It may not be year of the linux desktop yet, but it will be year of the linux whitehouse.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Why bother watching? Your vote doesn't count anyway. It's the "swing voters" who decide elections, the uninformed nitwits who don't even look at the policies of each candidate. They're the ones who re-elected Bush. They're the ones who are going to hand the Democrats a supermajority next year, even though the Democrats encouraged the high-risk loans that lead to the financial crisis, ignored the public's wishes for offshore drilling, and voted for the government bailout that the public didn't want. Democrats are on the left side of the political spectrum that dictates an investment of trust and power in the government, which means we're going to get more of the same one-party legislation, big government, big spending, and little oversight that we've already had during the Bush Administration.
Government works best when there is a spread of power between the branches, forcing them to clash with each other constantly until the public overwhelmingly demands something that they're forced to agree on. This keeps them all in check--they don't do things for their party; they only do them for us. However, as I said, swing voters are nitwits, so the current financial news means they blame whichever party currently has the presidency. Thus, Obama and the Congress Democrats have shot up in the polls despite encouraging the very loans that caused the crisis and adjourning the Congress before the offshore drilling problem could be addressed. Hell, top Democrats ran Fannie Mae, and Barney Frank even blocked Bush's and McCain's warnings about Fannie Mae back in 2003! And I'm sure you all saw the news a while back that Obama was the biggest recipient of donations from those companies.
We are screwed. So do what I'm doing. Stay home and don't vote. Why contribute to another supermajority administration that's going to mess everything up? If there was a chance of a Democrat for president but a Republican house, or a Republican for president with a Democrat house, I'd show up. But we're not going to get that. We're getting a supermajority so big that the minority party won't even have enough seats to launch investigations when the inevitable administration scandals come up (as they always do for every President). Swing voters are going to reward the same people who have screwed us over by giving them a one-party government--a party that believes in bigger government and bigger spending. This is the same shit we hated about Bush. We're going to get an EVEN BIGGER government. So screw 'em. Stay home and have nothing to do with it.
I'm very disillusioned with the election and with the press in particular. I say let the media obsess over the debates--all they care about is who "gaffes" so they can have some goofy clip to run the rest of the week for higher ratings, and they're actually disappointed when a debate comes out as a draw. Let each party try to steal the election--for instance, like ACORN is doing by registering thousands of dead people. Let the uninformed nitwits show up on election day and contribute to our country's downfall. Reasonable people don't have a choice.
Just my political rant for the day. Interested in your thoughts, counterarguments, and so on.
George Carlin - I Don't Vote
Mickey increases the number of registered voters without increasing the number of actual voters. This provides an opportunity for disguising vote fraud by adding votes at the end of the night, but staying under the registered total.
It's not separate from the black box machine, it's complementary to it.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Second, This being Slashdot you are going to get a lot of libertarian views, mostly siding with democratic policies.
Third, The presidential seat is merely a face that the world gets to see and blame. The real direction of the country come from the cabinet, the house, and unfortunately, the bench as of late.
for instance, the current economic crisis effecting you wasnt due to a president, (that didnt help the situation), it was a whole slew of issues from Democrats handing out freebees to lower class, and Republicans being irresponsible with Financial institutions.
Besides, if you take a good hard look at the US electoral process, we as citizens really don't get much say in the matter. It is much more important to vote for your local representatives and pay attention to voting matters that you can control.
Yes I vote, yes I am independent, and yes I am disappointed with the state we are in. Economically you had better hope for something around here, or start studying chinese.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
Foreign policy: both parties support the War in Iraq
Correction: Elements of both parties support the War in Iraq but you'll find far more people who oppose it on the Democratic side of the aisle (including the nominee for President) than you will on the Republican side (Ron Paul and who else?)
and foreign interventionism in general. Both parties support an oversized military, based in hundreds of bases around the world, rather than concentrating on protecting our borders. Neither party believes in not being the global policeman.
Americans as a whole have supported foreign interventionism since WW2. You can argue about whether or not that's in our best interests but the results of our last flirtation with isolationism weren't very encouraging.
Wall Street Bailout: both parties supported this, the Democrats slightly more than the Republicans, though the plan was concocted and pushed by Bush and Paulsen, Republicans. The Democrats, under Pelosi, were instrumental in getting this passed.
I don't view it as a 'bailout' -- I view it was a rescue plan -- so I'd imagine that you and I will never see eye to eye on this. I would say that you are painting with a broad brush here though -- there were lots of Democrats and Republicans that opposed the plan. Most of the opposition seemed to come from the far-right and far-left -- the very same people that place ideology ahead of reality.
Spending: both parties support massive spending on things which aren't important: bridges to nowhere, etc.
Define "things that aren't important". I've commented on this many times in the past. It's only unimportant if it's not in your hometown. If it's in your hometown it's "economic development" -- if it's in mine it's "pork".
Abortion, gay marriage: these are distractions for the two parties to make noise about, to distract people from the issues above which affect them far more.
I'm guessing you wouldn't view them as a distraction if you were gay or a rape victim.
Law enforcement: how do they differ here? Neither is against it. What a strange thing to say.
The two parties differ in their approaches to fighting crime. Democrats tend to come down on the side of individual rights and Republicans tend to come down on the side of law and order. Now I'm painting with a broad brush (because our parties aren't as monolithic as the ones in other Democracies) but I think you get my drift.
Gun control: definitely a difference here, but Bush was in favor of extending the idiotic Assault Weapons Ban. Neither party is all that great in being against gun control.
Maybe because the Democratic big-city base is in FAVOR of gun control? I'm personally opposed to it (one of many disagreements that I have with my party) but at least you admit that there is a difference between the two parties.
Immigration: neither party favors reforming immigration laws and securing the border. Illegal immigration is too profitable for business owners.
I find it interesting that you are calling abortion and gay marriage a distraction but wouldn't view illegal immigration the same way? How does an illegal immigrant harm me? I'll grant you that this is one issue that both parties have failed us on -- the Dems are afraid of being called racists and the Republicans like cheap labor -- but I find it interesting that this is an important issue to you while you dismissed the ones I brought up. I guess everybody has their own priorities.
Drugs: neither party favors legalizing any drugs, even harmless marijuana or even industrial hemp.
Well, if this issue is more important to you than any of the differences I've highlighted feel free to vote for a third-party candidate. I happen to be a regular user of cannabis and feel your pain
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Correction: Elements of both parties support the War in Iraq but you'll find far more people who oppose it on the Democratic side of the aisle (including the nominee for President) than you will on the Republican side (Ron Paul and who else?)
While it's true that there's always people in both parties who are exceptions to the rule (on any issue), generalizing is worthwhile. So, generally, the Democrats support the war, as when they grabbed power in '06, they did absolutely nothing to pull out. There might be a few Democrats who want to, but the party as a whole, under the leadership of Pelosi, has done nothing to pull out of Iraq.
Similarly, the party under Pelosi has done nothing to pursue impeachment of Bush or Cheney, even though a few elements (Kucinich) have pushed for it.
Americans as a whole have supported foreign interventionism since WW2. You can argue about whether or not that's in our best interests but the results of our last flirtation with isolationism weren't very encouraging.
I've heard it argued that American involvement in WWI is what directly led to WWII, and that the world would have been better off if we had not gotten involved in WWI and just let Germany win. They didn't get really nasty until they were oppressed by the Allies after their WWI defeat, and turned to fascism and Hitler.
After WWII, all our foreign interventionism has been disastrous. Korea wasn't terribly successful, and Vietnam was a complete disaster (and there was never a reason for us to go there anyway). I can't point to very many other campaigns that had any real justification either.
I don't view it as a 'bailout' -- I view it was a rescue plan -- so I'd imagine that you and I will never see eye to eye on this. I would say that you are painting with a broad brush here though -- there were lots of Democrats and Republicans that opposed the plan. Most of the opposition seemed to come from the far-right and far-left -- the very same people that place ideology ahead of reality.
The people who weren't opposed to it were the ones who created the mess in the first place through their disastrous economic policies, such as overturning the Glass-Steagal act (which was authored by Graham, now McCain's economic advisor, and signed into law by Clinton). Having the government take ownership of the financial sector amounts to fascism, and is not a solution.
Define "things that aren't important". I've commented on this many times in the past. It's only unimportant if it's not in your hometown. If it's in your hometown it's "economic development" -- if it's in mine it's "pork".
Sorry, but it's all pork, regardless of where it is. The Federal government has no business funding projects in States, except for things like National Parks. Bridges and the like are things States need to pay for themselves. Does the Federal government pave the roads in your subdivision, in front of your house? Of course not, that's a local or state responsibility. So why should the Federal government be involved in bridges, or other projects of local interest? You might be able to make a case for interstate highway infrastructure, where there's a strategic interest, but bridges to islands with 50 people on them do not fall in this category. Research on wool is also not something in the national interest.
I'm guessing you wouldn't view them as a distraction if you were gay or a rape victim.
When the economy is on the verge of complete collapse, as ours may be, gay marriage is, I'm sorry to say, an unimportant issue. I support it, in fact, since I believe everyone should be equal under law and that the government shouldn't support an establishment of religion (which is the entire source of any opposition to gay marriage) but compared to things like the enormous amounts of money we're wasting on the military and give-aways to Wall Street and the oil companies, it ranks pretty far down. It's just an issue designed to rile up the religious conservatives and