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'm more interested in a recorded version, since I'll be busy during the actual debate... :/
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I tried during the last debate to watch it on CNN.com/live but it appeared their video player didn't allow Ubuntu/Firefox to connect. After further research, they use some vbscript in their code. I'll definitely watch it, just not with CNN.
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.
This is why Multicast would have been so nice, one feed goes out to anyone who wanted it. The current point to point way of distributing video is a quick and dirty solution, where multicast is eligant.
They don't have "analysts" telling me what my reaction is.
C-SPAN
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?
I'm an American living abroad and Hulu has region restrictions, so it doesn't work for me. Bastards.
Anyone ballsy enough to stream using a more widely available, non-Flash codec?
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Try C-SPAN
The Acorn thing isnt that big of a deal, because "Mickey Mouse" is not actually going to show up to vote. Having your vote manipulated in some blackbox voting machine IS a big deal.
mod me funny
I didn't want to install some stupid plugins and codecs for other networks, so I just hopped over to the BBC for their live streaming web broadcasts. The little screen is not going to be confused for HD but there were no hiccups or dropouts for the other three debates so far. Why depend on US broadcasters when all eyes around the world are paying attention to the high-stakes face off of US political elections?
[
I only "have" TV because my roommate has TV (because of his addiction to "Deal Or No Deal"). It's generally not worth having because it's content controlled by big corporations, not real people.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
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.
Sure, I am. Just hook me up with a few dozen OC-192 connections at each of the largest 100 cities in the country, and set me up with 1000 computers at each site, and I'll stream it in OGG Theora format. Oh, and I'll also need a satellite dish and receiver tuned to the C-SPAN channel.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
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.
go to the movie theater. The Alamo Drafthouse Cinema in Austin has been showing the debates. There really is no better way to watch them than to have a burger and knock back pitcher of beer.
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?!
It shouldn't be that hard to determine. People without a TV can't seem to go 2 sentences without mentioning the fact. I almost want to buy these people a TV to get them to STFU and reduce their smug levels a bit.
I know more than you drink.
If you're going to avoid things that are controlled by huge corporations, then make sure not to use any electricity, fill your car up with gas, or fly on a commercial airplane. Maybe your best option would be to dig a hole, jump in it, and wait for the apocalypse.
Current does a 'Hack the Debate' live mashup of the debates with users' tweets. Anyone can tweet with #current in the message & current puts as many as possible on-screen during the live debate broadcast. I haven't watched it live, yet, but saw some vid of it and it looks really cool.
http://current.com/topics/88834922_hack_the_debate
Speaking as a non USian, living outside the US, I have to say that the American presidential election is all over the news feeds here as well.
There are two reasons for this. Firstly, newsfeeds and syndication. Whatever the American media decides to talk about, the entire anglosphere usually ends up talking about as well. If there's a bus crash or school shooting in the middle of nowhere in, say, Nebraska, its gets on the Irish, and usually English, national 9 o'clock news. This is a symptom of an increasingly monopolised and centralised media in the western world.
Secondly, the US presidential elections are actually very important. I see Slashdotters posting comments to the effect that both parties are equally bad and it doesn't matter which way you vote and excuses, excuses, excuses. I can tell you from the point of view of someone who is very much affected by the results of your national elections, this is a pretty depressing thing to hear. It's clear to anyone who has half a clue that there are very wide and deep differences between the two main candidates, and it's quite irritating to find out just how flippantly many Americans go about voting, or not voting, for their president.
Your election affects me. It affects people around me. My nation's economy, policies, laws, and culture, yes culture, are significantly affected by your selection of a president, through his administration's policies. When the choices made by religious southern fundamentalists end up slowly eroding my way of life because people who should have known better were too apathetic to vote, I get a little irritated. So in my view the more coverage this election gets, the better.
So in short, I would rather these stories on the Slashdot front page rather than have this site ignore or only pay lip service to the issue. This is "Stuff That Matters" to me.
May the Maths Be with you!
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?
I don't know that you can necessarily make the jump between having Linux run their intranet server and the political candidate being a steward to open source in government. I know the /. community as a whole think's Mr. Obama is the FSM incarnate, but come on now.
Join the fight in the preservation of your right to bear arms. www.righttokeepandbeararms.com
You can get it to work: just use VLC media player
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
and open the video stream:
File->Open Network Stream
check HTTP/HTTPS/FTP/MSS and put in the url http://www.cnn.com/video/live/cnnlive_1.asx
then watch and try not to vomit!
Deconstruct the State
Awesome, I spotted the links I wanted @ the bottom, I didn't see that the first few times I searched.
thanks again!
Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
I can't think of a better use for streaming the presidential debates online than enabling all us expats who can't see it live on our local stations. Which is why I found it really annoying when I logged on to Hulu for debate #2 that I got a big fat denial message stating they can only serve content to people in the US. Thankfully, the BBC had it live and uninterrupted.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
You do understand that the chance of the president getting involved in the choice of what operating system to use in the white house is about as likely as the CEO of IBM getting involved in the choice of what brand of toilet paper to use in their office in Bangalore, don't you?
Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
ACORN is bothering to check. The problem is that once someone hands in a bogus registration form to them, they are legally obliged to hand it in. What they do, which is absolutely the right thing to do, is mark it as likely problematic.
A couple of good links on the subject: This explains what's going on in detail, in terms of ACORN's responsibilities. And this is a memo from ACORN that explains their side in detail. The bottom line is that ACORN has absolutely no incentive to hand in bogus registrations. They will not (without an enormous amount of effort at disguise rarely seen outside of Hollywood) enable people to vote illegally. They undermine the ability of voter registration offices to process legitimate registrations, which the vast majority of ACORN-processed registrations are. ACORN's reputation is tarnished despite the fact they're legally required to hand in the registrations despite not originating them. And ACORN's own efforts to flag suspect registrations pretty much sink the "ACORN is involved in a conspiracy" meme - why the hell flag them if you want them accepted?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Why drive out and cast a meaningless vote when the swing voters have decided for me?
Guess what? When you're trying to influence an election where the person with the majority of votes is the winner, removing one vote from the vote pool has the effect of giving the other votes more sway. You are literally giving the ignorant voters more say over the course of this nation because you don't want to 'reward' the candidate with your vote. Instead you'd rather reward the candidate by making other votes count more. If you're really pissed off, vote third-party. Will they win? Hell no. But, it will detract from the percentage of people who voted for party 1 or 2, and those percentages are what determines how much public funding third party candidates get to campaign with.
Grow some balls and stand for something. Don't rationalize your own apathy to me; you just enable the current system we have. I'm trying to actually change something.
Nooo, "American" *also* means "of the Americas." It *also* means "a native or inhabitant of the United States." USian is a made-up derogatory term that is no more accurate than "UKian" or "UAEian."
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
Well, we're still missing some of the ACORN story. For one thing, the problem is because they pay people per registration. So some people like to add a bunch of phony registrations to get paid more.
ACORN knows this, so they look for it and fire those people. They also separate the probably fraudulent registrations. But they are required by law to give ALL of the registrations to the elections officials, so they also include a note saying, "These are probably fraudulent, please check. And here are the details of the guy who came up with these probably fraudulent registrations so you can prosecute them."
They've done this for a long time now. Remember that scandal over the illegal firing of US Attorneys? That was because they refused to prosecute ACORN for this years ago because they did not believe that they were doing anything illegal. But Bush's people fired all the people who said it was legal and stacked the deck with hardcore Republicans. So now they're prosecuting.
Even though ACORN is being defrauded by bad workers. Even though ACORN is obeying the law. Even though ACORN verifies the registrations and separates the bad ones in spite of having no legal obligation to do so.
This is just politically motivated nonsense. Yes, there will probably be convictions, but they'll be of people ACORN turned in and recommended for prosecution.
Oh sure, great rules, we'll all be flat on our asses in about 20 minutes.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
I'm a 46 year-old American citizen. My ancestors came over from Europe 400 years ago. I have been actively interested/involved in politics since I watched Bobby Kennedy get shot on TV when I was 6. I can honestly tell you that there is very little difference between the two candidates other than the color of their skin and their age. The Democratic and Republican parties have become one and the same. If our media, which dominates your airwaves would cover the "other" parties' candidates you would see the lack of difference between the two leading candidates.
Do you honestly believe that the world would be exactly the same as it is now, if Al Gore had won in 2000?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Man I just posted this in another thread, but it fits here too.
Lets look at some policies. Iraq war, pretty much the same. We'll take the troops out of Iraq when the conditions on the ground allow it, and put them in Afghanistan. Domestic wiretapping? Obama voted for the Bush plan. Economic bailout? Both of them voted for it.
I don't see either of them talking about fundamental change in the way our system works. I don't see either of them talking about cracking down on corporate crime. I don't see either of them talking about returning federal power to its constitutional limits. I don't see either of them talking about Instant Runoff Voting. I don't see either of them talking about ending the war on drugs, or stopping the new war on copyright infringers.
Where are the significant differences on all these issues that matter? You complain about the monopolistic, centralized nature of the media. You should know that both Obama and McCain are against the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine. If you care about responsible and balanced journalism you simply don't have a choice in this election.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
why is it better to hear no debate
Because the average voter may just as well listen to an hours worth of candidate commercials. That's what they are getting. They are making decisions based on commercials. That's a **bad** decision making model. This group lays the problem out nicely. http://www.opendebates.org/theissue/
Some slightly modified version of the following would be better. Let's get the candidates campaign people on stage too. They'll end up in powerful positions within the Administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_forum_debate
Sadly, I'm no troll.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
"American" means "of the Americas". Anybody living on the continents of North or South America could rightly call themselves "American".
"USian" is probably not the best term to use, but it's a damn sight more accurate than "American".
In my country (Uruguay), we regularly do refer to ourselves as "Americanos" (American in Spanish).
:)
When somebody calls himself an "American" in English we understand what they mean, but in Spanish we call them "Estadounidenses" - which should be translated to USian
and even then it could be a bit of a misnomer (Brazil for example is United States of Brazil, etc...)
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
They're 90% the same, as said before.
Foreign policy: both parties support the War in Iraq, 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.
Business regulation: both parties support deregulation of the financial markets, leading to our current mess. The Graham act which overturned Glass-Steagal was passed in 1999, and signed by Clinton, a Democrat. This paved the way for our current troubles. Graham is now McCain's economic advisor, a Republican.
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.
Spending: both parties support massive spending on things which aren't important: bridges to nowhere, etc. Neither party is interested in actually reducing spending. They only differ in how they want to pay for the spending, whether through more taxes, or higher deficits.
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.
Law enforcement: how do they differ here? Neither is against it. What a strange thing to say.
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.
Immigration: neither party favors reforming immigration laws and securing the border. Illegal immigration is too profitable for business owners.
Drugs: neither party favors legalizing any drugs, even harmless marijuana or even industrial hemp. There's too much drug money invested in Wall Street to allow legalization, and too many bribes from those who profit from the illegal drug trade to our politicians.
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
This is exactly the kind of attitude the OP was talking about. I find it ironic that there are engaged and interested people all over the world who would love to have your vote, yet you refuse to apply your brain and engage in the political process because the candidates don't differ on your pet issues.
From the perspective of the rest of the world, Barak "Let's Talk to Both Our Friends and Our Enemies" Obama is a lot less of a worry than John "Bomb-bomb-bomb, Bomb-bomb-Iran" McCain. Obama has had to talk tough during the campaign to avoid a smear campaign, but it's clear that he favours engagement and multilateralism. McCain appears to favour the 'Bush Doctrine'.
From a domestic perspective, I would have thought that Obama's consistent view, expressed both before and after the current financial crisis, that the Federal Government has a significant role to play in regulating financial markets would be dramatically more appealing than McCain's consistent view that the free market should be left to its own devices at all times, no matter how compelling the evidence to the contrary.
There is also the fact that McCain has shown himself ready and willing to cater to absolute lunatics on the religious right who are anti-science, anti-liberal democracy, and just generally scare the hell out of most sane people. I have seen no evidence that Obama will be similarly beholden. I do not want a person who will tolerate the assertion by their running mate that dinosaurs and humans coexisted in charge of a nuclear arsenal.
Finally, and probably most singificantly, the next President will probably replace three of the most liberal judges on the Supreme Court. Do you want men like Scalia and Roberts to dominate the Court, or do you want moderate/progressive judges to provide a counterbalance to the extreme conservatives on the bench at present? In practical terms, if McCain wins, Roe v Wade is gone, gun control laws are gone, separation of church and state is gone, limits on executive power are gone, and any form of affirmative action is gone. Those things seem pretty significant to me.
There's no doubt Obama has engaged in plenty of compromising. As you would be well aware, the nature of your political system is such that there are plenty of times when a vote is going to pass anyway so moderates on either side of the aisle will vote for it. It's stupid and it shouldn't be that way, but it also means that voting records are not an accurate reflection of ideology.
Read Pynchon.