Streaming Election Night Broadcast TV?

kakapo writes "A couple of years ago, we dumped our cable TV, and don't have much luck getting old-fashioned broadcast where we live. That's fine — we can download or netflix almost anything we want to see, and it is great not to pay the Comcast tax every month. Problem is, now I want to watch the election live, complete with talking heads, pundits, glitzy graphics and all the rest, rather than reading about it on a website. So, is there any way to download network TV / CNN / MSNBC in real time — I don't mind paying. And yes, we could visit friends, but ideally our kids would watch the first part and then go to bed — and a sitter would be expensive if we have to wait until late for the result."

Comments

Yes

[Thelasko]

Go here and click on "live video."

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll spoil the election for you: McCain wins.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

if that happens, it's not just the election that'll be spoiled

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

That would certainly spoil the election for me!

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Without a proprietary-based operating system, one cannot watch the train wr^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H elections (or any video) on CNN live. We're only entitled to non-live video, apparently.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.beelinetv.com/

It has links to newscasts from around the world, including some from England and CSPAN.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Dave Byrd, is that you?

Re:Yes

[negRo_slim]

Your local FOX, CBS, ABC, NCB and whatever UPN became.. Will all have local webpages, often times with news via video and perhaps more content.

For the larger your going to be best served by going directly to their webpage and look for Live, Streaming, and/or Video.

Other than that try the RSS feed for new videos at Hulu.com, a lot of news these days.

Re:Yes

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I'll spoil the election for you: McCain wins.

... and America loses ...

Re:Yes

[robinsonne]

I'll spoil the election for you: McCain wins.

... and America loses ...

I think we lose regardless of whichever of the two wins. (It would take a miracle for any of the 3rd party ones to win.)

Re:Yes

[dargon]

I think Canada would have to invade if that actually happened :D

Re:Yes

[corsec67]

The fact that there is more than one "3rd party" is in and of itself is bad.

Re:Yes

[Synthaxx]

Or put " http://www.cnn.com/video/live/cnnlive_1.asx " into your favorite opensource player.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Its like Aliens vs. Predator, or Freddie vs. Jason: Whoever wins, we lose.

Re:Yes

[fm6]

And given SP's executive skills, they'd probably win! Oh well, I guess it was time for us to rejoin the British Empire...

Re:Yes

[megamerican]

No matter who wins we all lose.

Do you really think the corporations who really run this country would allow an independent person be in charge of trillions of dollars? Not very likely.

On the big issues there isn't much difference between the two. They both supported the bailout. Both candidates top contributors are investment banks like Goldman Sachs. They both support more war, although they bicker over who can best protect you from Al-Qaeda! They both support redistribution of wealth, one to people who are already rich and don't deserve it and the other to people who simply don't deserve it.

Please see my signature for a simple analogy most slashdot readers can understand.

Re:Yes

[mongoose(!no)]

No, only winning move is not to play....

I was really excited to vote in this election (as I missed bing born early enough for the the last one by a few weeks), but both the canidates seem like incompetent panderers. I cast my vote hoping that my canidate will return to how he was before the primaries, and not pander to his party so much.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

"is in and of itself is bad" ... is that you Sarah Palin?

Re:Yes

[knorthern knight]

The magic incantation is...

mplayer -playlist http://www.cnn.com/video/live/cnnlive_1.asx

*WITHOUT* the "[cnn.com]" in brackets at the end (damn you Slashdot). I'm running it on linux, and watching CNN right now.

Re:Yes

[RMB2]

WOPR, is that you?

Re:Yes

[iocat]

huh... you say that like being protected from Al-Qaeda is a bad thing.

Re:Yes

[kakapo]

Original poster here:

We watched the debates on CNN's live feed. However, I think they just put the "raw" video on line (which was already in the public domain, I think, as lots of places streamed it in real time) -- any "added value" the network provided was not given away for free.

Re:Yes

[hansonc]

I agree. The real winners make "FAIL" jokes just like on digg.

Re:Yes

[Now.Imperfect]

Funny, she has more executive experience than either of the actual nominees!

Re:Yes

[MagusSlurpy]

"is in and of itself is bad" ... is that you Sarah Palin?

It can't be, she didn't say "Nookyooler."

Re:Yes

[caluml]

The magic incantation is...

mplayer -playlist http://www.cnn.com/video/live/cnnlive_1.asx

Well, I said it out loud a couple of times and nothing yet. Do I need bats' heads, or newts' tongues, or the like?

Re:Yes

[LordWoody]

mplayer -playlist http://www.cnn.com/video/live/cnnlive_1.asx

Re:Yes

[LostCluster]

That's not the CNN TV feed... that's window #1 out of CNN Pipeline, an internet-only service.

Re:Yes

[gurps_npc]

Unfortunately, I need to refer you to: "Douche and Turd", episode #119 of South Park. To summarize:

It's ALWAYS a choice between a Douche and Turd.

Honestly, this time around we have BETTER candidates on both sides than usual. At least this time we have a choice of two intelligent people, as compared to last time when the GOP picked a likeable idiot, while the Democracts picked an unlikeable man.

Re:Yes

[freeasinrealale]

thanx for the CNN url. I'm getting CNN news - watching now. I have it on KMplayer running on PClinuxOS.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

when it means giving up every freedom we enjoy then yes, its a very fucking bad thing.

Re:Yes

[Eskarel]

They both supported the bailout because the bailout had to happen. It should have had teeth the way the UK one did(everyone at the top of every bank the UK government socialized got fired) and it probably should have had a better plan than "we'll buy lot of your stock, but we're the government so we can't own a private corporation and so we despite owning the vast majority of your company we won't have voting rights", but the banks themselves needed to be bailed out even if the individuals didn't.

They don't both support the war(at least not identically, yes both support afghanistan, but Obama wants out of Iraq).

Redistribution of wealth depends an awful lot on how they do it. McCain will continue the usual republican model where they "create wealth" so that rich people can be richer making everyone else comparatively poorer. I'm not entirely sure what Obama will do in the end, a hand out to everyone doesn't work, but providing people with health care, protections at work, free education, and general assistance to ensure that rather than working hard to make someone else rich some of their hard work is rewarded by making them a little bit wealthier is a redistribution of wealth I can get behind.

The current system of wealth distribution is flawed. The folks who do the work get barely enough to get by, the folks who run the companies(even if they didn't build them and don't contribute to them) get paid bucketloads, and the scum sucking stock trading weasels make even more playing the market game at the expense of everyone else(including the companies that the stock market is supposed to provide investment captal for).

Re:Yes

[Overzeetop]

I'd be in your boat if Hillary had won and Palin weren't on the ticket. I can't stand either of them. It's amazing how similar they are, while holding diametrically opposed sociopolitical beliefs. I do agree with you that, in the event McCain wins, he goes back the man he was in 2000 and kicks some serious congressional butt and fixes the deficit and debt before he starts handing money back.

Re:Yes

[fm6]

Obama has run various small non-profits and used to be partner in a law firm. McCain was a commissioned officer in the Navy, which often requires one to supervise subordinates.

Palin's executive career seems to consist of managing the government of a city of 5,000 people (probably less than 100 city employees, not all of whom would report to her) and being governor of a state that has fewer citizens then the city where I live. You could maybe argue that her experience as governor outranks Obama's and McCain's in terms of total executive decision making. But none of them even begin to compare to running the government of a nation of 300 million people.

Besides, whatever her managerial experience, she's a total moron. When she was mayor, the city council had to vote on a prize for a local dogsled race. The other members tried to tell her she had to recuse herself, since her husband was likely to compete. Her response: he might not win, therefore no conflict of interest. Even if I totally agreed with her politics, and shared her contempt for the Bill of Rights (except, of course, for the Holy Second Amendment) I wouldn't vote for her unless every one of her opponents stood accused of a major war crime.

Re:Yes

[Jane Q. Public]

You call a man who has voted 95% of the time right along with the Bush ticket intelligent?

And you call a man with proven ties to leftist terrorists intelligent?

Jesus Christ! There are third-party candidates who are not communists, or fascists, nor even crazy! Hell, there was even a Republican candidate who has PROVEN himself trustworthy and reliable. No hypocrite him! Unlike both of the current "favorites". And you sit here and say that those two people are actually viable choices in comparison???

Amazing.

We have been SHOWN this year that there are vastly better choices. Yet the American Sheeple (or whoever was really responsible) have chosen from among them damned near the worst of the lot to run the final race.

I never thought it would get this bad. I had more faith in the American people.

Re:Yes

[mpeskett]

You appear to have been convinced by the negative side of both parties' campaigning, and hence come away hating both sides... interesting

Seriously though, don't you know you're only supposed to listen to one party? It makes it so much easier to decide who to love and who to hate, plus you end up voting for someone with a half-decent chance of winning, so you can pat yourself on the back if they do win, or have plenty of people to commiserate with if they don't

Re:Yes

[hedwards]

Yes, but we lose by a little less this time than before. Nobody ever wins, we just do a little better each time.

Re:Yes

[hedwards]

Umm, what precisely is wrong with that phrase? It's a legitimate idiom in much of the US. It's not like strategery.

Re:Yes

[Gavagai80]

If you look at the assortment of "third" party candidates, America would lose even worse if they won (with the possible exception of Nader if you're a socialist).

Re:Yes

[iocat]

Let;s see... Have my head hacked off by some religious lunatic versus an infintisimal chance some pencil pusher in Washington will write a database query that quickly looks at the fact that I checked out both Animal Architects and Freckle Juice from the Oakland Public Library... I'm gonna go with the security versus the privacy, thanks!

Re:Yes

[passion]

The only way that 3rd parties are going to get a foothold in this country is if we were to move to proportional representation model. Currently, 48 of the 50 states are binary win/lose points. This means that someone like Ross Perot could get nearly 19% of the popular vote, yet not collect a single electoral vote.

Let's say that your state had 10 electoral votes, and decided to adopt proportional voting - like Nebraska and Maine do currently, then Perot could have received 2, Bush 4, and Clinton 4 (depending on rounding and the opinions of your fellow statespeople).

However, if people thought they actually had a choice instead of tossing their vote away, you'd start to see viable 3rd party candidates, and they would need to build coalitions with the legislature in order to pass laws.

Re:Yes

[lilomar]

Have my head hacked off by some religious lunatic versus an infinitesimal chance[...]

You seem to be under the impression that having your head hacked off is guaranteed, in reality (you should visit some time) it's much less likely than someone in government looking at your private information.

(yes, yes, I know, you have nothing to hide... send me your passwords then, so I can watch your email)

Re:Yes

[Amorymeltzer]

No, only winning move is not to play....

Zugzwang - A relevant theory, methinks.

Re:Yes

[MightyYar]

You call a man who has voted 95% of the time right along with the Bush ticket intelligent?

You realize that most of what congress passes is pretty mundane, right? That 95% or whatever number you choose (it was 77% in 2006) is pretty meaningless unless you look at the content of those votes and see which ones you disagree with. Obama voted "with Bush" 40% of the time - does that make him an idiot 40% of the time? And Obama is actually MORE likely to vote with his party than McCain is to vote with his.

And you call a man with proven ties to leftist terrorists intelligent?

Former leftest terrorists, thank you. Obama can hardly be expected to know the complete background of everyone he ever attends a dinner party with or serves on a charitable board with. If you are referring to this latest junk about the PLO, you should probably remember that Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe that makes the Nobel committee dumb, but good luck with that assertion.

And you sit here and say that those two people are actually viable choices in comparison???

If you are a centrist, this election is almost a dream come true. The McCain took a turn for the worse around convention time, and Palin is a gimmick, but the candidates themselves are quite reasonable and respectable guys. Even Hillary wasn't, in practice, such a bad Senator. Ugly campaigner, but a decent Senator.

I never thought it would get this bad.

Really? You thought more highly of Bush or Gore? Or was it Kerry that tickled your fancy? This is without listing some pretty abysmal candidates along the way... Dukakis? Mondale? Ford? NIXON?

I had more faith in the American people.

You really need to spend more time at factcheck.com and less time watching negative ads on TV.

I'm glad you mentioned third parties - I've done a fair amount of third party voting. I'm wondering which third party candidate you are endorsing? None of them this time around has ever held a significant elected position of any kind. I certainly hope that your criticism of Palin or Obama does not include the word "inexperience".

Re:Yes

[Sebilrazen]

Hell, there was even a Republican candidate who has PROVEN himself trustworthy and reliable. No hypocrite him!

Which one?

Re:Yes

[electrictroy]

"____ is in and of itself is bad" is poor grammar, because the sentence has two verbs: "is" and "is".

"____, in and of itself, is bad" is proper grammar with punctuation added to improve readability.

Re:Yes

[gurps_npc]

The things you mention are not related to intelligence. As a side point, from what I can tell, I don't believe anything that you do. You seem to believe everything politicians pay someone to say. I have news for you. politicians LIE, and when they talk about their opponent, they lie MOST of the time. But that is irrelevant. Intelligent people do stupid things. They disagree with you. Cripes, some of them even disagree with ME. Believe it or not, there are actually intelligent terrorists and yes, they have intelligent friends. Both candidates are intelligent beyond a shadow of a doubt. As for vastly better choices, well NO. McCain was the only electable Republican on the ticket. Everyone else was totally unelectable, given the mess the republican president and congress made. I worked with Hillary's first Senate campaign. I met her personally. She probably would not recognize me in a crowded room, but I have a picture of her standing next to me at a Senate campaign event. She is a very smart woman, very capable of running the country. But Obama is a better candidate. He ran a better primary campaign, he picked better issues to focus on, and he is definitely capable of running this country a lot better than that idiot Bush.

Re:Yes

[cerberusss]

No brownie points for you, young man! AS ANY SYSADMIN KNOWS, for this incantation to work, you'll have to do the following:
- Penguin. Live one.
- Herrings. Lots of them.
- Datacenter (easy because you live there)

Then when the output of:

    $ printf "0x%X\n" `cat /proc/stat | grep btime | cut -f2 -d" "

is 0xDEADBEEF (or in summer, 0x00C0FFEE) feed a herring to the penguin and scream out the incantation.

Tip: don't let your boss catch you. In my case it caused a huge misunderstanding.

Re:Yes

[deuterium]

The central premise ignored in such arguments is wealth creation. It's fine to say that "we'll take $X from the top earners and give it to the poor," but it assumes that in this new system, there will be the same amount of wealth to divvy up. Changing the system changes the variables. It also punishes productive people, while rewarding unproductive ones. Productive people will tolerate this to a certain degree, but at some point there's no incentive for them to produce more, as their reward declines.

And what's your problem with brokers/traders? They make a lot of money? Then stop grousing and become one or appreciate the fact that it's just another job, demanding and risky. Salary for a job is commiserate with the difficulty of both doing the job, and finding people to do it. If you have a job anyone could do, and there are plenty of unemployed people, you're not special to your employer. Too many other bidders are driving the price down. The government provides guidance on future job skill growth and guaranteed loans to learn them. Some people take advantage of this and some sit idly on a sense of entitlement.

I may be jealous if a friend has a hotter/smarter girlfriend than I do, but he earned it. I don't want the government forcing her to see me once a week to make things more equitable.

Re:Yes

[Big Boss]

Given where we are, I'd guess the poster is referring to Ron Paul. I agree enough with Paul that I would vote for him in this election. I disagree with the D and R candidates enough that I will be voting third party this election. They both suck.

Hell, maybe I'll write in Paul. Not sure yet on Pres.

Re:Yes

[HardCase]

Presidential campaign discussion is a couple of topics up the page.

But I do get a kick out of watching the arguments between the Progressives and the Fascists. Just as much as the fights between the Patriots and the Socialists.

You all do realize that the majority of the people in the US are pretty much ever so slightly right of center, don't you? And that McCain will not drive the country into world war and a depression, nor will Obama create a new socialist order nor advance the cause of terrorists...deep down you all really know that, right?

Re:Yes

[saintlupus]

If you are a centrist, this election is almost a dream come true. The McCain took a turn for the worse around convention time, and Palin is a gimmick, but the candidates themselves are quite reasonable and respectable guys. Even Hillary wasn't, in practice, such a bad Senator. Ugly campaigner, but a decent Senator.

You're clearly not from Western New York. Senator Clinton is ignoring the vast majority of the state she represents. Hell, at least Chuckie Schumer shows up for a photo op more often than every-other-governor.

--saint

Re:Yes

[MightyYar]

Nope, I live in NYC so I'm represented quite well :)

Re:Yes

[djp928]

Redistribution of wealth depends an awful lot on how they do it. McCain will continue the usual republican model where they "create wealth" so that rich people can be richer making everyone else comparatively poorer.

You have a mistaken understanding of wealth creation. It's not a zero sum game, no matter what that guy in that movie said. You can create wealth without taking anything from anyone. Wealth is different from money.

You can take a block of wood, a knife, and some labor, and from those create something worth more than the sum of its parts. If you can buy a block of wood for $1, spend 6 hours carving it into something beautiful, and sell it for $50 on eBay, you just created wealth. You created something that someone was willing to pay $50 for out of $1 worth of material and six hours of labor (netting you a bit more than $8 an hour for your time, so you may not get rich this way, but you see the idea, right?)

But, you argue, you "took" $50 from someone else, that makes him $50 poorer. Well, no, you didn't. He freely gave you $50 in exchange for something he obviously values at at least $50, so it's a wash for him. He may even think he's getting a good deal if he thinks he could sell it himself for more than the $50 you are selling it to him for.

Wealth is not money. You can be very wealthy and not have any cash, if you own things of value. Likewise, you can have lots of cash and be poor (think hyper-inflationary times like Germany in the 20s and Argentina more recently). Similarly, wealth can be created. If it couldn't, capitalism wouldn't work at all. The equation that drives all of capitalism is basically "Raw Materials + Labor = Wealth". You can argue all day about exploitation of workers and whether or not they receive a "fair wage" for their labor under current implementations of capitalism, but to say that I can't grow rich without you growing poorer is a fallacy. The only way that would be true would be if I were growing rich by directly stealing things that belong to you--your possessions, your cash, or your labor (by making you a slave--and no, "wage slave" doesn't count. If you're getting a wage, you're being paid for your labor).

When does this happen? Under "wealth redistribution" schemes that socialists favor--only it goes in the other direction. Things of value are taken directly from more wealthy people and given to those less wealthy. In this case, someone *is* getting wealthier at the expense of someone else.

Re:Yes

[Oloryn]

This is why I want to see a 'None of the Above' entry on the ballot. If 'None of the Above' gets a sufficient number of votes, the election has to be re-run, with none of the current candidates eligible. This effectively gets voters out of having to make a choice between the lesser of two evils. And would probably do a number on negative campaigning, as if both candidates' negative campaigning is successful, they've just increased the vote for 'None of the Above'.

Re:Yes

[Jane Q. Public]

You realize that most of what congress passes is pretty mundane, right? That 95% or whatever number you choose (it was 77% in 2006) is pretty meaningless unless you look at the content of those votes and see which ones you disagree with. Obama voted "with Bush" 40% of the time - does that make him an idiot 40% of the time? And Obama is actually MORE likely to vote with his party than McCain is to vote with his.

Votes on Federal Laws are NEVER "mundane"! It is exactly that kind of attitude that has led us to this mess. Among other things, that is.

And no, that does not make Obama "an idiot 40% of the time". That makes him an idiot the other 40% of the time.

Former leftest terrorists, thank you. Obama can hardly be expected to know the complete background of everyone he ever attends a dinner party with or serves on a charitable board with.

Now you are taking me for an idiot. He was not "casually" associated with Ayers. They have an association that goes back many years. They have served on panels together, and even appeared on TV together! Over a spread of many years. This is NOT a casual acquaintance. If you think it is, you had better start doing your own research.

It doesn't matter whether you are a "Centrist", or Leftist or Rightist. The candidates for the "Big 2" are both disasters waiting to happen. Furthermore, that presumes that the traditional American definitions of "Left" and "Right" actually define a political spectrum with everything between. Not just false but foolishly false.

Really? You thought more highly of Bush or Gore? Or was it Kerry that tickled your fancy? This is without listing some pretty abysmal candidates along the way... Dukakis? Mondale? Ford? NIXON?

Gore, maybe just a little. But that is (if I can coin a phrase) a straw-man question. I did not think much of ANY of the people you mention. But what has that to do with THIS election, in which the choices are even worse?

You really need to spend more time at factcheck.com and less time watching negative ads on TV.

Nonsense. The fact is that I have not seen ANY ads for either of the "Big 2" candidates, negative or otherwise. Why would I want to watch that crap?

On the contrary, I have been doing a little fact checking of my own, thank you very much. And I do not rely on just one source when I do.

Re:Yes

[Eskarel]

My problem with wealth creation is not that it's fundamentally a bad idea. Certainly creating value is a good thing(ie making your knife).

My problem with wealth creation is that, in practice, under the kinds of system that the republicans run, the vast majority of that wealth goes the same group of people who have most of it now.

This means that due to fun things like inflation when their income increases by a greater percentage than yours does(through all this created wealth), that you get poorer.

If both increase at the same rate, nothing much happens at all(there's just more stuff).

What real wealth distribution is about, at least IMO, is ensuring that the regular schmoes personal wealth increases at a greater rate than the folks who already have everything. This can be done without taking anything away from anyone. It does however mean that while the vast majority get richer, the rich get overall poorer.

Re:Yes

[Eskarel]

Well, when I say that comparatively everyone got poorer, it's because of inflation.

If you split 1000 dollars between two people, give 100 dollars to one person and 900 dollars to the other, then your rich person has 90% of the wealth and your poor person has 10%.

Now lets say that you "create" an additional $2900 and you give $2700 to the rich person and $200 to the poor person. The poor person's wealth has now tripled, but he now only owns 7.6% of the wealth(300/3900). His wealth has tripled, but he's actually poorer than he used to be in real terms.

Re:Yes

[Eskarel]

My problem with brokers is that they while they create "wealth" they rarely create value.

These days stock brokers are more interested in making a quick buck at anyone's expense than they are in really investing.

Investment creates value because it allows companies and individuals to create more value, but playing the markets, short selling, and all the other things they get up to now doesn't even do that.

I patently dislike people making themselves rich without creating value because these are the scum sucking weasels who created the situation we're in now. Billions of dollars of worthlessness that we've had to bail out with billions of dollars of money the government doesn't have.

There's also nothing wrong with "wealth creation" per see, there's just something spectacularly wrong with focusing on wealth creation and not being at all concerned about where all that created wealth ends up.

Neo -liberal capitalism provides excessive reward to people who produce absolutely nothing whatever.

Re:Yes

[MightyYar]

Votes on Federal Laws are NEVER "mundane"!

That would be a matter of opinion, wouldn't it? I mean, I like trees and all but I'm not into forestry. When they start talking about management of the forests, I am frankly content to let the experts do their job. I have neither the time nor the inclination to learn about how to properly manage a forest. Or, let's say that they change some Senate procedural rule - do I really care? No. I mean, lordy, they vote on the administration of Washington, DC and on new turf for the National Mall. I REALLY don't care about most of this stuff. I'm sorry that you see this as a problem, but you are being completely unrealistic to expect people to consider this anything other than mundane.

Now you are taking me for an idiot.

Naive, perhaps, but not an idiot. I wouldn't bother with you if I thought you were an idiot.

Any politician with a few years under his belt is going to have dealt with shady characters - especially in Chicago. Frankly, Obama's dealings with Ayers don't bother me for a few reasons.
1. Calling Ayers a "terrorist" is a bit much. He never killed or injured anyone. At one point, he espoused terrorism in his writing... so he's a sick fuck, but not quite a terrorist. He wasn't even convicted of anything!
2. Obama did seem genuinely unaware of the guy's past. This is plausible, since he is not from Chicago and the events pre-date Obama's adult life. Ayers holds a professorship and is prominent in the Chicago community activist scene.
3. I don't expect a person to have a backround check done of every person that they associate with.
4. Once made aware of Ayer's past, he did seem to distance himself.

Again, if Arafat - who DID kill a lot of people - can get himself a Nobel Peace Prize, then surely this Obama-Ayers thing has gotten out of hand.

Furthermore, that presumes that the traditional American definitions of "Left" and "Right" actually define a political spectrum with everything between.

Since we are talking about American politics, it is safe to discuss "left" and "right" in the American context. True socialists and European-style conservatives don't have much of a following here.

But what has that to do with THIS election, in which the choices are even worse?

I just can't believe that you think Obama or McCain are worse than Nixon.

Nonsense. The fact is that I have not seen ANY ads for either of the "Big 2" candidates, negative or otherwise. Why would I want to watch that crap?

You sound like the two side's negative ads combined together - you should be aware of that. You could write copy for these guys. factcheck.com refutes nearly every assertion found in these ads.

On the contrary, I have been doing a little fact checking of my own, thank you very much.

Really? So you have access to the same kinds of original documents that factcheck does? When someone claims that Obama wasn't born in the USA, you can get your hands on his birth certificate? I'm not suggesting a single source - I'm suggesting a good starting point.

Hulu.com?

[sohmc]

Hulu had streaming live feeds of the debates. I'd think they'd have some sort of streaming feed come election day. Also, I know CNN has streaming feeds of some of their programs.

Re:Hulu.com?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately it's US only. I'd love to have access to an international venue.

Re:Hulu.com?

[joggle]

You can also watch it on C-SPAN's website.

Re:Hulu.com?

[Malangali]

They don't provide any earthly reason why they block anyone who is not logging in from a US IP address. Totally blocks off military service members living overseas, and other American expats. Annoying as all hell, and completely pointless.

Check the Cable feed

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you tried plugging a TV into the cable feed? A lot of times, the cable company won't bother implementing a cancellation, figuring that reclaiming the box is good enough and saving the cost of a truck roll. It's possible that you'll still have analog basic cable on that "disconnected" cable line. Alternately, you could sign up for one month of limited Analog Cable for $15.

Re:Check the Cable feed

[eln]

I lived in an apartment for almost a year with no TV, mostly because I didn't think it was worth it to spend the money on the TV when I couldn't afford a monthly cable bill. About two weeks before I was going to move out, I finally broke down and bought a TV. Plugged it in to the cable line just for kicks, and voila, cable TV. I could have been watching free cable TV the entire time I was there.

Of course, when I moved into the new place, I plugged the TV to the cable line there and...nothing. That really sucked.

Re:Check the Cable feed

[Hatta]

My last apartment, I smoked up the cable guy when he hooked up my internet. Guess he "forgot" to put the filter in the line after that. In my current home, I never saw the cable guy when I got internet.

OT, but I heard a story on the radio about Cox buying up spectrum, perhaps to compete with cell phone companies. I got a good laugh when the anchor mentioned "the privately held Cox".

Re:Check the Cable feed

[drpimp]

"smoked up" ??? I've heard of smoked OUT, but never UP. I know I am being picky but shit I had to read the post twice to realized you weren't talking about giving him a BJ!

Re:Check the Cable feed

[Abreu]

Heh, that's probably why my local cable provider throws in "basic digital" tv service in all packages.

Re:Check the Cable feed

[entrigant]

"smoked up" ... "forgot" ... gee, what could he _possibly_ be talking about?

Re:Check the Cable feed

[corbettw]

No no no, when you let someone smoke your weed, you're smoking them out. "Smoking up" just means you gave them a smoke cured ham. But don't worry, lots of people get confused on those two (especially with the memory loss that comes from all that ham).

Re:Check the Cable feed

[Sparr0]

I think that you are mistaken. Smoke up and smoke out can mean the same thing in this context, but smoke up is more specific (smoke out can imply smoking until you run out).

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=smoke+up
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=smoke+out

Re:Check the Cable feed

[Sparr0]

Unencrypted, yes. Delivered, no. There is nothing that says they have to give you the broadcast channels at all, just that if they do then they must be unencrypted. With the proper filter installed you won't receive any TV channels.

Re:Check the Cable feed

[skeeto]

I don't get cable television, nor do I own any television at all. However, when my fiance brought her TV over so she could play her XBox at my apartment, out of curiosity I plugged it into the cable outlet to see if anything was there. Yup, I get free basic cable. Camcast need not worry, though, as I am still not interested in it even when it's free.

Re:Check the Cable feed

[MagusSlurpy]

Have you tried plugging a TV into the cable feed? A lot of times, the cable company won't bother implementing a cancellation, figuring that reclaiming the box is good enough and saving the cost of a truck roll.

I actually had free cable through this method for most of a year, then I guess they did their annual checks or some such, as it was just gone one day. While I like saving the $45/month, it does depress me a little, to be constantly d/ling torrents of what I used to watch by just turning on the idiot box.

Plus, the real killer is that it takes away bandwidth from my porn acquisition.

Re:Check the Cable feed

[filthpickle]

I bought one of these because I had a crappy TV at the time that didn't have rca jacks

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103095

whenever I didn't pay the bill it would decode the signal when they turned it off at the company, but didn't disco it at the pole.

this was a long time ago, technology may have passed it by. (mine didn't look anything at all like that one)

Re:Check the Cable feed

[Kryten107]

*whoosh*

Re:Check the Cable feed

[mr_matticus]

Wrong. Cable providers are subject to a "must carry" rule. The FCC mandates that providers must provide local channels to their subscribers via the CATV connection. The cable companies eventually sued, probably hoping to compress the hell out of them to save bandwidth, and they lost. That's why your local channels in HD are substantially higher quality in terms of bitrate than Comcast's shiteous triple-packed HD channels.

The rule is part of 47 CFR 76--but I can't recall the exact citation.

Re:Check the Cable feed

[Sparr0]

You are correct, except for one detail... Someone who is only paying for cable internet is not a cable tv subscriber.

Re:Check the Cable feed

[mr_matticus]

Which has nothing to do with either the AC you responded to, nor does it have anything to do with your post, which said that cable TV providers don't have to provide local channels.

You are incorrect. Move on with your life.

Re:Check the Cable feed

[mr_matticus]

Wait. Are you referring to delivery of channels at all to non-subscribers, or delivery of local channels to cable subscribers?

If it is the former, I apologize.

Re:Check the Cable feed

[Sparr0]

The former. The AC that I responded to implied that any cable connection must have basic cable channels on it. That is incorrect, as plenty of people have cable connections with no cable tv subscription. The cable company is not required to deliver local channels at all, unencrypted or otherwise, to those people.

Really?

[psychicninja]

Google found this first thing: http://www.dvguru.com/2006/11/06/election-day-coverage-streaming-overload/ and that was just a quick search. Does this really need to be a front-page discussion?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

um...yeah, i'm sure the question is about the elections taking place in 2006. . .

LETS DO THE TIME WARP AGAAAIIIIINNNNNN!

Re:Really?

[bedroll]

Yes. You may immediately think "Google" and be able to type in the appropriate search, but not everyone is so astute. That's why we have /., and putting it on the front page does better to ensure that everyone who might think to ask will see it. There's also something to be said for the potential for variety of information you'll get here versus Google. Maybe not so much for the quality...

Re:Really?

[Digero]

Yeah, I did a quick Google search too, and found a very informative /. discussion as the third result: http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/08/10/29/1943231.shtml

Re:Really?

[Eil]

I'm sure that was a very useful link in 2006.

Anything for non americans?

[Splab]

This election is pretty much sealing the fate of the western world as we know it; we are quite a lot of people very very interested in the results.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[bjelkeman]

Subscribe to a VPN service with an exit (servers) in the UK and watch BBC's 6 hour coverage of the US election using iPlayer.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[LWATCDR]

No it isn't
Let me fill you in.
If McCain wins odds are that we will have a Democratic majority on congress.
The end result is that it should keep things somewhat in the center. Or very little will get done that doesn't have a universal support.
If Obama wins we will have a Democratic congress. Truth is that I would bet that it will also go more towards the center but if they start really messing up then in two years congress will shift back towards the Republicans and we will again have balance.
If Obama or McCain really mess up we fire them in four years and get a new president.
In the end it will not be the end of the world.
Geez I don't like Obama's energy policy since it is not as pro nuclear as I would like. I am not all that fond of McCain's tax plan. Or Obama's "Guess what folks. You can not give a tax cut to someone that already pays zero or gets more back than they pay in. That is called charity."
Truth is I doubt it matter much one way or the other. I don't think their is a great man running for president this year but I also don't think their is a monster running.
Chill out and relax.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Obama or McCain really mess up we fire them in four years and get a new president.

Like we did with George W Bush?

Re:Anything for non americans?

[LWATCDR]

Not really.
The president can only do what Congress allows. That is what I find so funny about people freaking out over the president.
There are checks and balances in the system one person can not mess it up that bad in just four years.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[LWATCDR]

You can reprocess the spent fuel just like France, the UK, and Japan do. It vastly decreases the amount you need to store and for how long.
Also yes Virgina I have a nuke plant in my home town. Love that carbon free power.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[MaxEmerika]

This analysis reminds me of discussions taking place around 2000, when the prevailing wisdom was that it would not make one bit of difference who got elected. We were wrong then, and you are wrong now.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[LWATCDR]

I have but again they have limited scope and abused then we impeach them.
Their are always checks and balances.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[fiannaFailMan]

I'd agree with most of what you say were it not for Sarah Palin. That woman puts the fear of God in me, and I'm an atheist! Can you imagine someone in the President's seat who doesn't even know what the Bush Doctrine is without having to phone a friend? We had a retard in the oval office for 8 years and it has been an unmitigated disaster. Lord help us if the American voters once again show disdain for educated people as 'elitists.'

Re:Anything for non americans?

[LWATCDR]

Yes I have. And yes most Americans have faith in checks and balances.
The invasion of Iraq passed with huge support from both Democrats and Republicans.
Also with a lot of support of other countries at the time.
The Economy? Not just Bush's fault. Take a look at all the other countries that have had the same thing happen to them at this time. We have been going from bubble to bubble since Clinton. No one was willing to deflate the bubble but bubbles don't last for ever.

If you think one person has that much power for good or evil you are just clueless.
Bush is just easy to blame since he is the president. The number of people involved is huge and isn't even limited to a single country.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[Obfuscant]

The Economy? Not just Bush's fault.

Let's be more explicit. It isn't Bush's fault to start with.

Bush has been trying to get Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulated with respect to poor risk loans for the last 8 years. He's been prevented by congressmen who are getting money from both organizations. Obama is just one of them. Frank is another.

The PROBLEM started back in Carter's presidency, with the CRA -- forcing banks to make loans to less qualified borrowers so they could continue to make loans to qualified ones. The problem got worse under Clinton, who strengthened the requirements for minority loans. This was supposed to be a good thing. Look up the word "redlining".

The recent democratic controlled congress has stood in the way of solving the problem. They were denying there was a problem. Now it's a catastrophe. Every one of the congressmen who denied there was a problem and refused to act to prevent it from getting worse is now pointing their finger at Bush, whose attempts they stopped.

Raising taxes on the people who create the jobs and pay most of the taxes already isn't going to solve it.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[penguin_dance]

Damn...someone needs to "smoke you up" (read earlier thread).

You're going to have an aneurism before the election's done.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[onkelonkel]

"Also with a lot of support of other countries at the time."

Um, No. You got Britain, Australia and Poland. Nobody else sent troops for the invasion.

A whole bunch of countries that count themselves as your friends told you invading Iraq would be a "Really Bad Idea". They warned you that Iraq, which was really three separate nations welded together by the iron fist of the Baathist dictatorship would come apart at the seams as soon as the regime was toppled. They also told you to look at what had just happened in Yugoslavia after the fall of Tito if you needed an example of why it was a bad idea. Of course George W and his neo-con advisers thought they didn't need to heed the good advice of friends and the lessons of history. We all know how well it turned out.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[LWATCDR]

Well for one thing it isn't over yet. I admit that it may be naive of me but I have to hope that the people of Iraq have a different choice than civil war or an iron fist dictator.

Second as I pointed out there was overwhelming support in congress both Democrats and Republicans.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[LWATCDR]

Okay for one thing Bush isn't a retard. I don't think he is a great or even a very good president but he is far from a retard. You don't go to Yale if you are retard and you don't fly F-102s and live being a retard.
Second I find Palin too conservative for my tastes. Heck my wife who is a registered Democrat and very Pro-Life finds her too conservative. But she is just going to be Vice President. The person you send when the former prime minister of Pango Pango dies.
The fear that McCain is going to croak I find amusing. Talk about FUD.
Your as bad as the idiot at my office that keeps saying Obama is a terrorist.
Frankly I am still undecided but I am leaning too McCain because in think both candidates are actually a lot more liberal they they are presenting in the campaign. Plus I like McCain's energy policy. But whom ever wins I wish them a lot of luck. Unlike a lot of people I don't treat this as a game. I am no cheerleader. I am a boss conducting a job interview. At this point I wish I could just put out a new ad. The two that showed up this time just don't thrill me.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[LWATCDR]

While I don't think recreational drug use is a good idea. That person might want to take some deep breaths and walk around the block a few times.
Funny thing is that my post was more for the terrified rabid McCain supporters. Obama has a good shot at winning. It isn't in the bag yet but he does have a good shot.
Frankly Obama's supporters scare me. No president should go into office with the level of worship that I am seeing among the Obama faithful.
I hope he is wise enough to know that they are fools and he is just a man. That level of adoration is a terrible thing for anyone to have to deal with.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[ancientt]

President Clinton was impeached by the House, but not by the Senate. So, we have recent history showing that impeachment doesn't end the effective term of a president.

I'm not exactly a Clinton fan, and I'm opposed to lying under oath, so despite my quiet opinion that it was a farce from the beginning, I believed he should have been impeached. If you get to the point where you've convicted the sitting president of lying under oath, regardless of the reasons, impeachment makes sense. I remember asking my favorite right wing pundit at the time, what happens if he is impeached by the Republican majority house but not by the majority Democratic senate? He told me that senators have a higher oath than the house and so would feel compelled to uphold it regardless of political affiliation. It did wonders for my faith in my country to hear that the senate would do their job even when it was against their party's political interest.

Looking back to the day they announced that Clinton was not impeached by the senate, I think that was the day that cynicism finally blotted out almost all the last few rays of idealism in my soul. The last few were crushed later when I read about the votes of the Republicans in congress on pork barrel spending. I voted for some of those clowns because I believe in fiscal conservatism. Won't happen again.

(Note: I may still vote for Republican or not, but it won't be because I think they will spend less. I already voted this election, and for the first time in my life "threw my vote away" with third party votes. I decided that some battles were worth fighting even when you expect to lose.)

Re:Anything for non americans?

[forceman130]

Not really. The president can only do what Congress allows. That is what I find so funny about people freaking out over the president. There are checks and balances in the system one person can not mess it up that bad in just four years.

Unless the same party controls both branches of government, which looks likely to happen.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[Snaller]

Like George bush didn't... *hah*

Re:Anything for non americans?

[chubs730]

Do you enjoy typing all those HTML tags? Usually there's the one space after a period group and the two spaces after a period group. You take it to a whole new level.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[Gavagai80]

You don't go to Yale if you are retard

You do if your daddy is one of the most influential people in the country and he wants you to.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[blhack]

Sir,
Your rational viewpoint on this matter is not welcome, nor appreciated. It is a FACT, sir, a FACT that his Holiness Master Barack the Obama is the direct descendant of Father Darwin himself. When was the last time you saw an astrologer? Or an herbalist? I suggest that you chew something natural immediately. Have you SEEN the videos on the youtube? Have you SEEN them? They are there and they prove beyond any reasonable ammount of suspicion what has been told by the great and merciful truth-teller Keith Olbermann: George BUSH, George BUSH IS THE DEVIL! He is evil. Pure Evil. GEORGE BUSH IS EVIL! Okay? That is a fact, a FACT that George Bush is EVIL! Why would you argue with that? Why would you argue with a FACT?! His Holiness Barack the Obama IS our savior. He is our savior. He is here...to SAVE US, TO SAVE US from the EVIL George bush. He is our savior.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[blhack]

You're either a brilliant troll, or you're got your head really REALLY far up your asshole.

Either way, good show.

Btw, in case it is the latter. The "checks and balances" you speak of disappear when one party controls the house, the senate, and the white house.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[Achromatic1978]

universal health care and how they are all VERY OLD ideas that have been tried and failed every time

You might want to tell that to EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE "FIRST WORLD". They generally seem to think their health care systems are running fine. "OHNOES! The Gub'mint will tell me what the doctor will and won't fix!". Are you high? It is utter insanity that in this country, it often will be an accountant or similar that will tell you what your doctor is or isn't allowed to fix and I have never met any one who could explain how that was "better". Don't give me "but you can change and choose, free market". Haha. Really? Two and a half words for you: "Pre-existing condition".

My background? I was born in the UK under the NHS. I spent most of my life in Australia using Medicare. Now I work in the US for a company that writes the software for the health insurance industry to determine what treatments you and can't receive. I know which system I detest.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[Lerxst Pratt]

Everybody blames Bush for the country's problems, but overlook the majority of Congress and Senate are Democrat. I haven't heard or seen any terrorist acts on our nation since 2001. Iraq has given the people the right to vote, we helped them learn to govern, and defend their own country, we captured Saddam Hussein. We have rescued American and foreign contract workers. We have assisted numerous countries after tsunamis, earthquakes, helped Georgia defend themselves against a Russian takeover. There are many good things that Bush has done for our country.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[LWATCDR]

Okay I think Clinton is the same way as something I would carfuly scrape off my shoe. I can think of nothing that he did good for this country. The economy was a bubble that he refused to deflate and so on.
But I think that not impeaching him was probably the correct move. He did lie under oath. He is scum for cheating on his wife. But it really was a witch hunt. How he got elected or re-elected I will never understand but he like JFK show that if you look good and provide Bread and Circus you will be loved.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[jefmes]

You forget the point though that not just Bush, but the people he surrounds himself with, had themselves so convinced that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and were planning a large scale attack against the US (oh, and all that black gold stuff too) that they sold the Iraq resolution to the House and Congress as a dire threat under false pretenses. No doubt there are plenty to blame for not using their checks and balances as they should have, but to think the current administration has nothing to do with the quagmire(s) we're in now is just as clueless.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[einer]

Not really.
The president can only do what Congress allows. That is what I find so funny about people freaking out over the president.
There are checks and balances in the system one person can not mess it up that bad in just four years.

Yeah really. Google bush signing statements. Perhaps our definitions of "mess it up that bad" are totally different. He's done a bang up job of consolidating executive power at the expense of personal liberty.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[LWATCDR]

"but to think the current administration has nothing to do with the quagmire(s) we're in now is just as clueless."
It would be. That is why I said "not just Bush's fault"
That is very different than to say nothing.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[sac13]

This analysis reminds me of discussions taking place around 2000, when the prevailing wisdom was that it would not make one bit of difference who got elected. We were wrong then, and you are wrong now.

Really? So, what did Gore do differently? Sure, he talks a different game now, but he's not the president. Everyone that takes that office tends to end up being a little different than what you thought they were going to be. I seriously doubt Gore would be the same in office as he is as an advocate. You have to be the president of the whole country, not just your specific special interests. Gore would have went to Afghanistan after 9/11. And the D's were just as eager to jump on the Iraq bandwagon after that as the R's. You can argue that Gore wouldn't have pushed the issue as hard, but the US was as a majority still blood-thirsty after Afghanistan because we still didn't feel like we'd been vindicated. Iraq was popular in 2003 and not that much can be attributed to Bush. The undercurrent was there. Gore might not have went to Iraq, but he'd have had to go somewhere because no politician is going to deny the people something like that because they know it gets them the votes they need.

And sure, you can argue that Bush was a big neo-con. But, he, along with the Republicans, did create the Medicare prescription drug benefit. That's hardly what the people that were voting for him on the Republican side were cheering for. In fact, he took a lot of criticism for that as well as his "no child left behind" programs from his side of the spectrum.

The fact is, no one governs completely from their side of the spectrum and gets 2 terms. The reality of being president is much different than the sales pitch you give when you're trying to get votes. Just watch how Obama does it after he takes office. If he pushes too hard to his side, the D's will lose Congress in 2 years. If he doesn't move to the center, he'll be out in 4.

We're in a 48%/48% country. The other 4% will react against anything they perceive as ideological blindfolds. That's what happened to Clinton in '94 and to Bush in '06. As much as people like to put their guy up on a pedestal, in the end, they're all politicians. All they really care about is getting and keeping power. So, watch how Obama handles things once he's got the keys.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[sac13]

We had a retard in the oval office for 8 years...

That says much more about the electorate than it does the president. Maybe we need to rethink just letting everyone vote because they're old enough and breathing? Maybe the ballots should include some test questions to see if you actually have a clue about what's going on in the world before your vote gets to count. Sure, I'll get the arguments that everyone should be able to vote because it's "fair". If you take that position, you have no right to bitch about Bush being president... or Obama if you're on the other side of the fence.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[elrous0]

Here's my prediction for next week: We'll get a new President who is part of the same old two-party machine and will deliver on very little, if any, of his campaign promises.

Re:Anything for non americans?

[elrous0]

Actually, Ivy League schools admit sub-par students all the time. All you need is a wealthy or powerful family (like Bush, various Kennedy's, etc.) or some sort of stardom (this is how ditzes like Brooke Shields get into Princeton) and they'll let you in no matter what your GPA or intellect (most of the Hollywood types don't even have high school transcripts). And it's no harder than any other college once you're in. And, if you need to, just hire some tutors with daddy's money or have daddy give some bribes to professors and administrators.

The only people who have to *work* at geting into an Ivy League school are us commoners.

Get cable temporarily

[GrumpyOldMan]

Sign up for cable today, and cancel after the election. Most cable companies in the US don't have contracts, and you can cancel service at any time. You might end up paying for a month of service and an installation fee, but it could be cheaper than a baby sitter.

Re:Get cable temporarily

[geekoid]

"Most cable companies in the US don't have contracts,"

wha?

Listen instead

[duffbeer703]

Any decent AM radio station will have full-time election coverage, and radio news is generally 1000% better than the swill that you see on TV.

Re:Listen instead

[Crazy Man on Fire]

AM or your local FM NPR station if you can pull it in. I've found NPR's live election coverage to be quite good.

Re:Listen instead

[Reece400]

But really,, who on slashdot can pay attention to the radio for hours? without pictures most of us will fall asleep!

Re:Listen instead

[pilgrim23]

I totally agree and plan on finding out what Americans do on Election Day via shortwave radio from BBC or Radio Sierra-Leon or some other non partisan source on my antique Halicrafters. I am by the way IN the US and a US citizen. Ever consider some other country could run a propaganda station? they might call it..oh I don't know... " Voice of America"...or something....

Re:Listen instead

[WMD_88]

Can you even pick up the VOA in the US? I'm in college in southwest Florida and have never been able to; ditto from my house on the east coast. Granted, I don't have the best radio; the only BBC feed I could pick up was the Caribbean one that they shut down this year (West Africa comes in but is faint).

Re:Listen instead

[Constantine XVI]

Also, most NPR stations (at least WFPL, our local station) have streams, so reception shouldn't be an issue for most /.ers

Re:Listen instead

[saskboy]

Good tip, and the networks and cable stations were part of the problem in 2000. Paying for their "service" would be doing America a disservice.

Michael Moore let CNN, and Fox TV have it in Fahrenheit 9/11. He suggested that it was the erroneous claim from Fox that Bush had beat Gore, that led to other stations in changing their opinion, which turned public opinion in favour of Bush Jr.

Re:Listen instead

[jemtallon]

Agreed. I have the same problem browsing slashdot in lynx. I always get halfway through a comment and fall asl

Re:Listen instead

[Dhar]

Plus, get off my lawn!

Re:Listen instead

[Abreu]

you mean this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Mart%C3%AD

I have access to US network news here in Mexico City, but I'll probably watch the local networks and the BBC instead, for a more unbiased angle.

Re:Listen instead

[daradib]

WBUR (Boston's NPR station) streams Ogg Vorbis. NPR's coverage is good as the parent commenter said; now you can get it with freedom.

Re:Listen instead

[Obfuscant]

He suggested that it was the erroneous claim from Fox that Bush had beat Gore,

Pssst. Here's a free clue: Bush did beat Gore. Even after all of Gore's judicial attempts at getting pro-Bush absentee ballots thrown out. Yeah, all anyone seems to remember is the SCOTUS decision overturning the Fla. Supremes for judicial activisism, but forget that it was Gore who was behind all the other court cases that lost.

But you are right in the long run, listening to the mainstream coverage will not help anything. They do what they can to mislead people and create "news". If Obama wins in the east, they will fall all over themselves issuing checkmarks to O', just to try to keep Reps from turning out in the west. If McCain is ahead anywhere, they'll delay calling the result until after all the polls close.

Don't bother listening that night. Wait until the morning. You won't miss anything.

Re:Listen instead

[fm6]

As does NPR.org itself. Which is also a good place to go to look for member station web sites, frequencies, and streams.

Still, there's a lot less drama when you can't see the talking heads.

Re:Listen instead

[NeutronCowboy]

I'll plug my favorite NPR station: kqed.org. Live streams right on the site. And by far the best of all the Public Radio stations I've come across.

Re:Listen instead

[Chirs]

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation usually has pretty decent election coverage. They have streaming radio from a number of timezones at cbc.ca.

Re:Listen instead

[Red Flayer]

I always get halfway through a comment and fall asl

18/f/ny [1]

I browse slashdot in lynx too, and my problem is that I only wake up for the last word of a comment.

[1] If you believe that, I have some penis pills to sell you.

Re:Listen instead

[eleuthero]

at least your subconscious can click "preview" and "submit" for you--I am pretty sure mine would only get as far as "preview"

Re:Listen instead

[vtcodger]

There's hardly anyplace in the lower 48 where you can't get some sort of signal from NPR.

MSNBC says that you can download some sort of widget for viewing their election night results at www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27227813 -- no idea what it is, if it is windows only, or how well it will work.

Re:Listen instead

[Pollardito]

partisan: 1: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially: one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

IMO the word partisan is almost worthless if it just means that you have a preference in an outcome, because the only subjects about which someone won't have a preferred outcome are things that aren't worth caring about. Being partisan is all about how your preference affects the things that you do. In my mind a media source is partisan if their preference for an outcome colors its reporting of related stories (such as if you bury or spotlight stories based on who they're about), or if they have a special vested interest that is coloring their choice of preferred outcome (their parent company benefiting from the outcome or their viewer niche being dependent on their taking a certain stance).

I don't watch or listen to the BBC enough to know if it meets my definition of partisan, but I don't agree that the fact that they may be pro-Obama means that they're necessarily partisan.

Re:Listen instead

[AnotherDaveB]

Well, I'd say their partisan preference colours their reporting. The stories they feature, the way they slant the editorial line, even the visual images they use.

Re:Listen instead

[treeves]

Yes. You should get a better radio.

Re:Listen instead

[pilgrim23]

No one in this thread before you mentioned a candidate. I think your post illistrates my point perfectly Thank you

Re:Listen instead

[Pollardito]

read again, the post I responded to mentioned a candidate

The BBC isn't a non-partisan source for the USA election. They're very much in the Obama for President camp. (I'm in the UK)

Hulu?

[Riot.ATL]

Does hulu.com provide live streaming or am I mistaken?

Re:Hulu?

[camperdave]

Hulu only serves the US.

Slingbox

[Thelasko]

If you have a friend with a slingbox you could use that.

Re:Slingbox

[Max Romantschuk]

I second that. I work for an IPTV operator, and slingboxes are quite amazing really. You can get a client plugin for almost anything, and all you need to do is find a video source to hook it up to with a decent network connection.

Of course, as with all high tech solutions, test before you go into production, as it were...

Why watch at home?

[cashman73]

While CNN, MSNBC, and Faux News, are all likely to have live streaming feeds of election results, it might be more worthwhile to head to your local sports bar. They'll very likely have the election results on, and they have a reasonable supply of alcohol as well, which will come in handy no matter who wins (if your candidate of choice wins, you celebrate; if the other guy wins, you drown away your sorrows),... ;-)

Re:Why watch at home?

[scubamage]

Multiple birds with one stone, I approve! :)

Re:Why watch at home?

[MazzThePianoman]

I guess you forgot the part where the poster said he had kids and did not want to get a sitter? Then again alcohol could quiet the kids well enough as well.

Re:Why watch at home?

[samkass]

And as for the baby sitter... Virginia's polls close at 7pm, and if/when Obama takes that state, the election is basically over, so you probably won't have to pay her/him much overtime this year.

Re:Why watch at home?

[Abreu]

Im not sure about watching the elections on a bar... it may lead to bar fights

Re:Why watch at home?

[corbettw]

If you're in the DFW area, the Tarrant County Libertarian Party is having an Election Watching party at the Cowboys Golf Club. Details here.

Re:Why watch at home?

[fm6]

it might be more worthwhile to head to your local sports bar.

Did you miss the part where they have kids?

Re:Why watch at home?

[crossmr]

are sitters really that expensive now? That requirement in the question just seemed a little out of place... this person said they'd pay for a feed but not a sitter... any feed access you're going to get would probably be for a minimum of a month on whatever service and probably cost the same as or more than a sitter.

Re:Why watch at home?

[moo083]

Um, why Virginia? You do realize that the last two elections hinged on Ohio and Florida, right? and that we really were NOT expecting that at all. So how do you say with such confidence that Virginia is THE key state this year?

Re:Why watch at home?

[danzona]

Um, why Virginia? You do realize that the last two elections hinged on Ohio and Florida, right? and that we really were NOT expecting that at all. So how do you say with such confidence that Virginia is THE key state this year?

It has been suggested that Obama has locked up 260 electoral votes. Which means that he needs 7 more from one of the states that is either traditionally Republican (like Virginia with 11 electoral votes) or a swing state (like Ohio with 20 or Florida with 27). If Obama does win Virginia, the rest of the swing states won't really matter.

Perhaps the original poster feels that Virginia will do a better job of reporting results than Ohio or Florida, or perhaps Obama has a larger lead in Virginia than he does in Ohio or Florida.

Polachek in 2008!

Re:Why watch at home?

[rfunches]

Virginia hasn't flipped blue in decades. If Obama wins Virginia it's a clear sign of historic voter turnout, and it could indicate that other states -- North Carolina, for instance -- that McCain should win, based on previous elections, could also fall into the Obama column on election night. Most of the electoral map projections indicate that McCain needs Virginia if he wants a chance at 270.

Re:Why watch at home?

[Pollardito]

And as for the baby sitter... Virginia's polls close at 7pm, and if/when Obama takes that state, the election is basically over, so you probably won't have to pay her/him much overtime this year.

exactly, I used this same strategy the year that Dewey defeated Truman. I got a great night's sleep while all the suckers stayed up witnessing the inevitable

Re:Why watch at home?

[Fred Ferrigno]

You must not be following the polls. Obama is ahead in every state Kerry won, mostly by margins considered insurmountable. That gets him to 251 practically automatically. Winning Virginia (as he is currently projected to do) would bring him to 264, meaning he'd only need one of OH, FL, CO, NC, IN, or (NV+NM) to win. He can win even if he loses both Ohio and Florida, but he happens to be leading in all of the states I mentioned. (Colorado in particular looks very good for Obama.) He may not sweep them, but he's unlikely to lose them all.

Virginia is also important because it will be our first indicator of the how the night will play out. If Obama wins a state that went to Bush by 9% in 2004, it will signal that the polls were right and Obama is likely to win the election handily. If Obama loses Virginia, then that means the polling has been significantly off and the night will be much tougher for Obama.

I would direct you to take a look at FiveThirtyEight.com, particularly their Tipping Point States sidebar. It reflects the odds that a state will prove to be one of the closest states that would tip the election in the other direction if they were decided differently. You'll notice that Virginia is currently #1.

Re:Why watch at home?

[samkass]

Perhaps the original poster feels that Virginia will do a better job of reporting results than Ohio or Florida, or perhaps Obama has a larger lead in Virginia than he does in Ohio or Florida.

Neither... merely that Virginia's polls close an hour before Florida and two hours before Ohio. By the time Florida's polls close, the entire state's results could be irrelevant.

Obama can win without Ohio or Florida, but McCain needs Ohio, Florida, AND Virginia if the current polls are anywhere close to accurate.

Re:Why watch at home?

[Sun.Jedi]

Then again alcohol could quiet the kids well enough as well.

Benadryl and duct tape. ::nods::

C-SPAN streams live

[NevDull]

For the things you want to watch which are covered on C-SPAN, you can see C-SPAN 1, 2, and 3, and C-SPAN Radio here.

Re:C-SPAN streams live

[vivek7006]

C-SPAN uses real-player feeds which suck big time.

Screw that...

[R2.0]

I think I'm going to take a sleeping pill right after work and try to sleep through the whole thing. There's no point in watching it "unfold" - the next day my guy will either be President Elect or not, and my watching breathless talking heads constantly reanalyzing the same data isn't going to change it one way or another.

Re:Screw that...

[starglider29a]

That was true of Decision 2000 also, except the "next day" part. It's called 'history'. We should look into it while we still have it.

Re:Screw that...

[gardyloo]

Nah. Ignoring history just means we'll be doomed to relive it. We can catch it when it comes around the next time.

Re:Screw that...

[Snaller]

Yeah its quicker to read a review than watch the actual movie ;)

Re:Screw that...

[Reziac]

Great, I'm living in a rerun of a reality show!!

p2pTV

[flynt]

I don't know the legal issues of P2PTV, but I think TVants does exactly what you're looking for. It does work under Wine, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVants

Re:Same thing with the World Series

[TubeSteak]

I am wondering the same thing about tonight's World Series game on Fox. Anyone answer that question?

Baseball/Football/Basketball jealously guard their broadcast rights.
The only way to stream those things live is off the official website or through a premium membership (aol/msn/real networks/i'm not sure who anymore) after paying for it.

CNN is a lot easier. It's on their website for free.

Antenna

[jmichaelg]

Depending on where you live, you might be able to make do with an antenna.

Admittedly, very retro in this day of ubiquitous cable but the photons are still out there in the ether.

Speaking of antennas, the last half of this segment from last night's NOVA broadcast has a sidebar on the application of fractals in shrinking antenna designs.

Re:Antenna

[geekoid]

Make your own antenna.
I used a board wire hangers and some screws and I get better reception then I have ever seen, and I have it indoors.

Re:Antenna

[Control-Z]

I agree, I'd pay $40 or so for an amplified indoor antenna like this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Terk-Amplified-High-Definition-Antenna-Reception/dp/B0007MXZB2/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1225385236&sr=8-1

Then you're set up for the future, like when there's a hurricane or snowstorm and your Internet goes out. Also, over-the-air HDTV is the highest quality picture you can get for those networks that broadcast their programming. I can even watch golf!

Re:Same thing with the World Series

[TheLostSamurai]

I think I found a helpful link for you here.

Local sports bar?

[whitelabrat]

I say head on over to one of those kinds of sports bars will all the TV's an see if they're broadcasting it. Stream the beer instead.

Comcast Tax?

[geekoid]

I mean seriously. If you were to go to McDonalds and buy a Big Mac would you be paying an Big Mac tax?

It's a price.

Re:Comcast Tax?

[Abreu]

I think he means that he doesn't feel like he has an option when it comes to service providers. Therefore, paying Comcast feels like paying taxes to him.

Re:Comcast Tax?

[DragonWriter]

I mean seriously. If you were to go to McDonalds and buy a Big Mac would you be paying an Big Mac tax?

If McDonald's had a monopoly granted by the local government, the way cable companies often do, that might be a fair analogy.

Re:Comcast Tax?

[StormReaver]

"If you were to go to McDonalds and buy a Big Mac would you be paying an Big Mac tax?"

Yes, but with his health instead of his money.

Re:Comcast Tax?

[KeepQuiet]

Not really.. If Comcast is the monopoly in your area, then yes it feels like tax. If you want broadband you get their crappy service.

Re:Comcast Tax?

[AKAImBatman]

If you were to go to McDonalds and buy a Big Mac would you be paying an Big Mac tax?

If I went to McDonald's and the only way to get a Big Mac was with Fries, a Coke, and a Sundae (with wonderful "extra" options like salad, milk, and coffee available only if I purchase a "base" value meal), you sure as hell can bet I'd see it as a "tax".

Of course, the solution is to not go to McDonald's. Right up until I realize that McDonald's has been granted a monopoly in my area. Going to Burger King requires that I MOVE 30 miles away because they can only serve local residents. Worse yet, nice restaurants have all been driven out of business by a government-sponsored monopoly. So my options are currently go to McDonald's and pay the McTax, or don't go out to eat.

THAT is how Comcast is a tax.

Re:Comcast Tax?

[HoppyChris]

While in high school there was a struggling Burger King that always had regular whoppers for 99c. One of my friends would always order a whopper with cheese and pay with a dollar. When it was pointed out to him that he was paying neither for his cheese nor the tax, he then started passing a dollar forward when passing money to the driver and loudly stating CHEESETAX. Maybe the Big Mac Tax is like that.

C-SPAN, Hulu, Justin.tv

[Blackknight]

C-SPAN has a live feed, URL is rtsp://rx-wes-sea74.rbn.com/farm/pull/tx-rbn-sea001:2459/farm/cspan/g2cspan/live/cspan1-g2.rm for real media. I'm sure Hulu and justin.tv will have streams running as well.

Re:C-SPAN, Hulu, Justin.tv

[Blackknight]

Really? Have you even tried the latest builds? I'm running Real Player 10 on OpenSolaris and haven't had any issues with it, Real Alternative also works great on Windows.

this is some sort of archetype

[circletimessquare]

the "i don't own a tv and i have to tell everyone about it" guy

in answer to your question: who cares? why do you feel the need to tell everyone you don't own a tv? that's the real subtext of your question

and if you think that's a smarmy answer, well then i have a real answer for you: GO BUY A TV. GET CABLE OR SATELLITE. END OF STORY. your brain will not melt, you will not be contributing to the downfall of western civilization. really. or, go ahead and listen to the various unnecessary technical gymanstics you must perform offered in this thead. instead of simply going and getting yourself a simple, harmless television

the onion was prescient: Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television

this is some sort of genuine subculture. and if not owning a television turns one into a vainglorious buffoon, then please, everyone should own a television, for the sake of a healthy sense of humility. sheesh

Re:this is some sort of archetype

[Jerry Rivers]

Your advice is probably good. Assuming he can actually afford to purchase a tv then pay the monthly fee for service. Since he apparently has children, maybe that's an important consideration.

Re:this is some sort of archetype

[Etcetera]

I'd give you mod-points, but instead I can only give you props.

That's exactly what I thought when I first read it. "Yay. Another pretentious whiner who boasts about how above television he is and then realizes that there are some events where being plugged in to the popular culture is useful."

Break down and get cable, dolt.

Re:this is some sort of archetype

[somenickname]

Being a pompous ass isn't the only reason to not own a TV. I don't own a TV but I do own a laptop and a small USB TV tuner card. I don't have a fundamental problem with actual televisions but, I enjoy moving around a lot (different countries, not neighborhoods) and it's difficult to fit a TV in my backpack.

Watching TV is good. Owning a television is a pain in the ass.

Re:this is some sort of archetype

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said he doesn't own a TV? He just doesn't have cable tv.

I don't have cable tv, but most of my entertainment I watch on my TV. Just like he mentioned (Netflix/downloads).

Re:this is some sort of archetype

[SarekOfVulcan]

I have a TV, I just don't have the money to pay the cable bill right now, and I don't particularly want to pay for an antenna that's just going to be uselessly taking up room after I restore service.

(Besides, it's nice not being able to park in front of the TV all prime time anymore. :-) )

Re:this is some sort of archetype

[elrous0]

I used to be like you. I refused to own a TV and read exclusively. And then one day I had an epiphany and realized two things:

a) Just because you watch TV doesn't mean you lose the ability to think critically or choose intelligent content, and

b) My farts do, in fact, stink

Re:this is some sort of archetype

[LordActon]

I don't understand. How does one say "I don't own a TV" in such a way as you won't interpret the meaning as "I'm proud to announce I'm not one of those TV-swilling low-lifes like you probably are"?

I read this thread because I have the same question. I haven't had a TV for 13 years. I guess that makes me high falutin, too?

Re:this is some sort of archetype

[justinlee37]

or, go ahead and listen to the various unnecessary technical gymanstics you must perform offered in this thead.

You mean, "technical gymnastics" like typing in southparkstudios.com, clicking on the episode I want to watch, and clicking "play?"

You're either ignorant or stupid.

Site is flakey. Here are direct links.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The C-SPAN site uses a flakey AJAX framework to try to sniff your stream reader. Unfortunately it's broken for some browsers. That seems to include firefox - including the version on my Ubuntu Feisty install which I keep up-to-the-minute with the upgrade tool.

So I've reverse-engineered it enough to find URLs for the underlying streams.

Here are direct links to the realplayer streams for C-SPAN, C-SPAN2, and C-SPAN3.

= = =

PS: I haven't been able to figure out how to construct similar links for archived shows. If anybody else can mange that, please follow up with it. Thanks.

FOX

[inzy]

i believe Fox has the best coverage - i hear it's pretty balanced, and covers all the policy issues; I'm sure they'll have a stream with not too many adverts

Re:FOX

[Spacejock]

I have a faint suspicion the OP was being sarcastic.

Re:FOX

[elrous0]

Actually CNN is pretty moderate. It's MSNBC that's basically the liberal equivalent to Fox.

If only there were some 'public' broadcasting svc?

[pugugly]

Some channel that, perhaps with public funding, broadcast news programs over the airwaves, that would cover that kind of thing?

For myself - I had to drop Dish network, but went ahead and got two TR-40/DTVpal Digital-->Analog tuners before I did, and it turns out my PBS affiliate has three HDTV channels, with another two from another affiliate I get decent reception on, none of them have the same programming, so I actually have five pretty decent channels for free.

Free unsolicited endorsement - if you have a government coupon you need to use, I highly recommend the DTVPal. I miss comedy central, some of the science channels, and C-Span, (And PPV/Movie Channels, but they went two months before I quit Satellite entirely) but other than those, HDTV is actually doing very well.

I was pleasantly surprised.

Pug

Re:Site is flakey. Here are direct links.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

That seems to include firefox - including the version on my Ubuntu Feisty install which I keep up-to-the-minute with the upgrade tool.

Correction: Ubuntu Hardy Heron.

Direct tv will have 8 feeds on one channel in HD

[Joe The Dragon]

Direct tv will have 8 feeds on one channel in HD

C-SPAN

[Rayge]

You could watch the live stream from http://www.cspan.org/

Good Luck

[aarenz]

First off, I am betting that the whole thing will be embroiled in troubles with all electronic voting machines and close recounts. I doubt that we will hear an official winner in several states until days or maybe weeks later. Second, suggest getting one of the digital converter boxes and an amplified antenna. Will serve you well for a long time into the future and provide a very good signal even when you normally get static on the old analog over the air. I work for a broadcast group and we have tested digital converter boxes in hard to recieve locations like condos and office buildings with some pretty good success.

Overall I say save the money and wait for the hubub to end after two weeks of the electronic version of hanging chads.

Why bother?

[camperdave]

Why bother watching live, or watching at all? Is it really going to make a difference to your life that you know who the president elect is when your head hits the pillow vs when you wake up in the morning? Geesh! The only thing more boring than watching election coverage is watching the endless speeches, debates, talk shows, etc. leading up to the election. Your election coverage has been going on for months on end already. Obama this, and Palin that, and blah, blah, blah, voting machines, blah, blah. Just pick someone already. We have. 36 days from election called to election held.

Steaming Election Night Broadcast TV

[Diss Champ]

is what I read the first time, and it made much more sense.

I know people who will actually be holding election results watching parties. I can't think of much more painful that you could pay someone to do without violating OSHA..

Who cares

[MicklePickle]

Why on earth would you want to watch it live? It's like watching the outcome of a cockroach race. Someone's gonna win and it doesn't really matter who.

Re:Who cares

[Max_W]

I would agree. Why not watch and read instead news that matter?

Find a friend to host an Election Night Party

[molotovjester]

Its pretty popular nowadays for people to host little parties for election/debate nights. If you have kids and cant get a sitter (or similar issue with pet), then this might not work - but I am in the same boat as you and this is my only solution.

NPR has a website

[wonkavader]

You could listen to NPR and they'll update their website as data comes in.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

FiveThirtyEight.com

[SpaceLifeForm]

They will be all over it.

If McCain gets over 120 Electoral College Votes, he
will have had a good day.

For linux users

[Script Cat]

Is you can't/won't install silverlight and can't get windos media plaer or fake media plaer to work, the BBC has a flash stream that they used to showed the debate.

Plug pulled, no "tax".

[dazedNconfuzed]

He does have an option, and he exercised it: pull the plug. Not a tax if you can choose to not pay it.

Worked for me, saved $80+ a month and lots of time & brain cells.

Re:If only there were some 'public' broadcasting s

[Hatta]

He said reception was bad in his area. If you have poor but watchable analog reception, you'll have unwatchably choppy digital reception. Before digital, I got PBS from 2 states. Now, I'm lucky if I can get one station to come in without breaking up long enough to watch the News Hour.

Sigh. Only 6 more days of this BS

[fm6]

Enough with the Obama rumor nonsense. It isn't so much that nobody believes the stories that he's an adulterous socialist cryptomuslim alqaida mole whose really a citizen of Queen Maud Land. (Though you have to admit that the evidence is, to put it mildly, laughable.) It's just that nobody cares.

Why should they? He's different from the idiot who's now in power and the senile fool who's the alternative. That's all anybody cares about.

Re:Sigh. Only 6 more days of this BS

[rawtatoor]

He's different from the idiot who's now in power ....

He might look different, too bad he's the same in most of the ways that count.

Alternatives

Re:Sigh. Only 6 more days of this BS

[fm6]

Dude, do you understand the concept of sarcasm?

Re:Sigh. Only 6 more days of this BS

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

I wonder what odds you'd have got four years ago if you'd tried to bet that a sitting republican president would effectively nationalize the main US banks?

Probably about the same as Obama really hailing from an icy cavern under Queen Maud Land.

Re:Sigh. Only 6 more days of this BS

[caluml]

Why should they? He's different from the idiot who's now in power and the senile fool who's the alternative. That's all anybody cares about.

Exactly. As a Brit, viewing from overseas, McCain looks pretty much the same as Bush. Old, rich, right-wing guy. So the election looks like: Vote for McCain, because you think Bush did OK. Or vote Obama, and hope that that guy has some intelligence, a more worldly view, and morals. Mind you, I thought in 2004 that the US population couldn't be *that* silly to re-elect Bush. Mind you - fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again.

Re:Sigh. Only 6 more days of this BS

[YXdr]

Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again.

Impressive - a Brit who can paraphrase a Bush gaffe! I couldn't even pretend to know something Gordon Brown has ever said (and I'm in that 0.002% of the US population who even knows who Gordon Brown is ...).

Re:Sigh. Only 6 more days of this BS

[fucket]

Play Magic Bus!

Re:Sigh. Only 6 more days of this BS

[apostrophesemicolon]

In times like these, we must dig deep down into our hearts and ponder on this one ultimate question:

"What Would Ralph Nader Do?"

Re:Sigh. Only 6 more days of this BS

[fm6]

Actually, I used to have a lot of respect for McCain, despite agreeing with essentially none of his political views. Most of the time he was in the Senate, he really did try to make the place less corrupt, and to work with people of opposing views. He was one of the few right-wingers who didn't try to block the Clinton administration's every move on general principal. His friendship with David Ifshin (less violent than Bill Ayers, but just as radical, and somebody McCain had every excuse to hate) was very telling.

Alas, McCain sold his soul once he saw the presidency within his grasp. Now he goes around pushing the agenda of far-right assholes who privately despise him. Too bad.

Re:Sigh. Only 6 more days of this BS

[fm6]

Not every problem can be solved by filing a lawsuit!

Re:Sigh. Only 6 more days of this BS

[MightyYar]

I couldn't even pretend to know something Gordon Brown has ever said

I could take a stab at it... "C'mon, bloody hell! When will Blair retire?"

Re:Sigh. Only 6 more days of this BS

[Obfuscant]

Or vote Obama, and hope that that guy has some intelligence, a more worldly view, and morals.

Of course he has intelligence.

Sucking up to foreigners isn't "worldly view", it's just pandering for an audience. We're electing the president of the US, not president of the world. I expect my president to look to the US first and then the world.

As for morals, well, we know the answer to that one, too. Nobody cares. He's the Obama. He's the one who we were all waiting for. The day he started campaigning is the day that the oceans stopped their rise and global warming turned around. He told us so.

He calls welfare "tax cuts" so that poor and middle class people will vote for him. He talks about a pig still being a pig after you put lipstick on it, after his VP opponent talks about being a hockey mom with lipstick. He calls his ideas "new" when they are straight out of the 60's playbook for radicals, and those came from Marx before that.

He won his first senate election by getting the courts to disqualify all of his opponents.

He claims he's a Christian, despite being a Muslim when he was young. He claims never to have heard his minister speak, at a church he attended for 20 years and was a member of.

He doesn't want to leave a deficit to the children, but doesn't care that his tax proposals will result in lowered federal revenues. It's ok because it makes the rich pay more (even though they pay the majority of the taxes already).

But nobody cares. He's not Bush. He's the one who can beat Bush (he said so).

Re:Sigh. Only 6 more days of this BS

[Hognoxious]

What Would Ralph Nader Do?

Nada?

Re:Sigh. Only 6 more days of this BS

[AgentSmith]

Play Uboat! uuuuuuuuuuuboat!

answer seems obvious

[discojohnson]

slingbox

if he has kids

[circletimessquare]

he can't get a tv if he is a member of a certain demographic in this country

according to a demographic every bit as ridiculous as the morons who think innoculations cause autism, the television emits stupidity rays that make kids stupid, suffer ADHD, etc.

television is television is television. it entertains and informs. end of story. its not a magical totem of evil, hellbent on turning your children into zombies

hulu.com might stream it live.

[DragonTHC]

it might be worth checking out.

Really?-For sale.

[Ostracus]

"Does this really need to be a front-page discussion?"

Well no one could see it if you put it in the classifieds. :)

an entertained grammar nazi (of sorts)

[eleuthero]

Your last line reminds me of my students... you forgot to make it a contraction though--> Chill'ax

CCTV From A Counting Room Near You

[tunapez]

Some(all?) county recorders have CCTV cameras set-up for public viewing election night. Open your mind and you will find it @ "yourcounty".gov.

If you can't find it, the DOT traffic cameras can be fun to watch when crackhead carjack hijinx erupts. They're there 24/7/365 (*except during hurricanes in Galveston and N'orleans).

Maricopa County Count Room, AZ

low-tech solution

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Take your kids and their sleeping bags with you to your friends. Do your friends have kids? (election night sleepover) Or a spare bedroom?

ATSC Broadcasts

[decep]

Try picking up an ATSC Digital tuner. I have seen first hand when analog channels are barely watchable, the same digital broadcast is crystal clear.

Enjoy.

[senorpoco]

http://www.channelsurfing.net/ http://www.chooseandwatch.com/ http://www.channelchooser.com/ http://www.imvite.com/watch-free-live-tv.php http://onlinetv.yamour.com/portal.htm big lists of free streaming channels. some sports some news and discovery channel.

Radio...Rabbit Ears

[tkrotchko]

Radio works very well. If you want to be really high-tech, then stream it over the web.

Rabbit Ears (that catch hi-def signals) work well. Local TV will have it on.

Lots of options if you think about it.

It doesn't matter?

[citylivin]

"Someone's gonna win and it doesn't really matter who"

Im pretty sure the only people who dont care who wins the american election are americans. If you are from any other country in the world, your eyes (or ears) will be glued to a live feed that night.

This isn't a sports match where the teams are no different and are fighting over something arbitrary and inconsequential. This election decides the future of the world.

Re:Bunny ears

[JSBiff]

Even when it is digital, he could probably get decent reception if he got a decent outdoor antenna for his house. Most parts of the US (there are probably exceptions, but I believe it's generally true) have at least *some* over-the-air coverage that is good enough that if you have a directional antenna mounted on your roof, (or an antenna tower), you can receive at least a PBS affiliate or two, and at least one of the major commercial networks (usually all 4).

That said, I sympathize with the ideal of just streaming your TV over the Internet instead of bothering with antennas, and as others have said, Hulu will probably have it. It's probably also worth checking NBC.com, ABC.com, CBS.com, and Fox.com. Maybe PBS.org. Maybe CNBC.com, MSNBC.com, CNN.com, etc. Youtube might stream some coverage.

Are you sure it will BE decided by then?

[penguin_dance]

And yes, we could visit friends, but ideally our kids would watch the first part and then go to bed -- and a sitter would be expensive if we have to wait until late for the result.

The question is not whether you can wait up that late...it's also possible we have another "hanging chad" type screw up and have to wait for weeks....

Between Acorn and electronic voting machines, there's all kinds of places where, if the race is close, it will be contested.

Re:Same thing with the World Series

[GeorgeS]

I found 2 places so far...

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=7526101&version=34&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1

and...

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb

There may be others.

Go Phillies!!!

Re:Same thing with the World Series

[senorpoco]

http://www.channelsurfing.net/ has most sports events streamed live.

Re:Same thing with the World Series

[Atheose]

I was signed up for mlb.tv during the regular season, but they don't have it for the playoffs. Fox, sadly, has exclusive rights. They aren't giving that shit up, not even to people who pay $120 per year.

Better Election Live Coverage Links

[rubypossum]

Hi, I find your link to CNN to be humorously incorrect but fun nonetheless. The true links to live election coverage are MS-NBC, Fox News and CNN. Be sure to wait until election day to tune in!

Begging the question.

[Jane Q. Public]

Well, never mind that, I see at the end you DID in fact address WHY the system is broken. But you forgot the part about the bankers and financiers paying off the government officials via semi-"legal" means...

It is as simple as this: today there is far too much of a connection in this country between monetary wealth and government. While this has always been true to some extent, it was NOT designed that way, at least here. It built up over time. (It was predicted, certainly. But that is another matter.)

And unfortunately for our citizens, breaking the ties between wealth and government will be a struggle. Not impossible, but not easy.

I am not prejudiced against the wealthy, but I certainly do not appreciate the rampant abuse of others by many of the wealthy. (That is not prejudice, it is a sense of justice.) Unfortunately for everybody, often the poor person's only recourse against the power of wealth is force. History is full of stories about that one.

If I were certain of the wealthy in this country, especially the abusive wealthy (I am thinking names like Bush and Cheney, though no doubt there are many others less familiar), I would be very afraid, because of the situation that I had helped to create.

This has nothing to do with me, personally. I am simply saying that if I were them, I would be shaking in my boots. I am glad I am not.

Re:Begging the question.

[Eskarel]

I'm pretty much against the idea of political donations in general, though I would allow an exception for personal contributions of some amount that even someone working at minimum wage could afford(say a few hundred dollars up to maybe a maximum of a thousand) so that people have to opportunity to financially support people they agree with if they so choose.

Of course actually accomplishing a zero(or close to) donation system would be fairly difficult, you'd have to fund political advertisements solely out of the public purse, and if you did that by limiting the amount of advertising they were capable of you'd have to deal with advertising by third parties which is in accordance with free speech, but which adds an avenue of corruption, as the exchange could be political advertising in exchange for favours instead of bribes.

Mind you, I'd argue with the idea that it wasn't always this way. True corporations didn't always run the government(there weren't any), but neither the founding fathers, nor most of the people who were originally allowed to vote would be what you'd consider poor, and they most definitely wanted to retain control of the system in the hands of people like themselves as opposed to the regular unwashed massses. There have also been times in American history when you'd have lobbyists on the floor of congress shoving stock certificates/cash directly into the pockets of congressmen while they voted. Early American society was egalitarian only to the extent that it didn't matter who your father was or where your money came from, not for the most part to the extent that it didn't matter if you had any.

Re:Begging the question.

[electrictroy]

>>>They both supported the bailout because the bailout had to happen.

Did you hear the news about one of the U.S. Banks (PNC?) using their bailout, not to stabilize themselves, but to buy yet another building! The corporations are still continuing their irresponsible behaviors of foolish spending/investments, but now they are wasting MY and my neighbors' money to do it.

The bailout never should have happened. *Temporarily* lower the interest rate to 0% in order to "save" the credit market from freezing-up, but don't rescue irresponsible corporations. They Deserve to fail.

Re:Begging the question.

[Eskarel]

The problems you're talking about are not caused by the bailout, they're caused by the fact that the US government hasn't got the balls to actually socialize anything and instead just gave them money.

If you or I(presuming we had that kind of money) bought out a billion dollars worth of bank stock we'd be part owners of the bank, and have a seat on the board. Depending on how big our stake was, we might even run the bank(certainly the 79% of AIG the government owns would give them control). In that situation if anyone blew our money on something stupid we'd shit can them.

The Bush government however doesn't have the stones to admit to what they're doing so they're giving the corps all the money and not getting back any of the say on how it gets spent.

That's not a problem with the bailout as such it's a problem with the government. They also should have done what the brits did and fire everyone at the top of all the banks they bailed out.

As for dropping the interest rates to zero, that wouldn't have helped. Pretty much every business needs credit to run and the corporations they bailed out were the ones who do the lending, if they'd gone under there wouldn't have been anyone to do the lending.

I'm not a big fan of the bailout, and I certainly think that it should have had a hell of a lot more strings attached. I also fully understand how the citizens of a country where the government doesn't give a flying fuck about what happens to them as individuals, the American people(myself included even if I don't live there anymore) might be a little pissed that corporations get unemployment benefits and they don't.

That said, it doesn't change the fact that for reasons of economics as well as domestic and foreign policy the US government couldn't let the banks/insurers rot.

No, I do not understand the concept of sarcasm.

[rawtatoor]

PALIN 2012!!!!

Re:No, I do not understand the concept of sarcasm.

[fm6]

Dream on. She's an effective troll, no more. Her actual political record is less than stellar, and this year is it for her.

She probably won't even finish her term as Governor, not when Fox offers her 7 figures to deliver her brain dead zingers on cable.

Re:No, I do not understand the concept of sarcasm.

[revxul]

The more basely humorous anagrams of Sarah Palin:

Anal Has Rip
A Plain Rash
Ah Liars Nap

OTA

[peas_n_carrots]

You could get a digital OTA tuner and watch the local broadcast channels in HD. They should all be covering the election thru the night. As a bonus, you'll be all set for the digital broadcast switchover in Feb '09

Fun with mplayer

[jc42]

mplayer -playlist http://www.cnn.com/video/live/cnnlive_1.asx
  I'm running it on linux, and watching CNN right now.

Hmmm ... I keep hearing about how great mplayer is, and I have a new ubuntu 8.04 system sitting on the desk, so I decided to try it out. It wasn't installed, of course, but a "sudo apt-get install mplayer" seemed to work fine. So I tried the above command. The result, when googled, turned out to be something that apparently has bitten thousands of people, but none of their questions seems to be answered as far as I can tell. The symptoms are the messages:

[VO_XV] Could not grab port 100.
[VO_XV] Could not find free Xvideo port - maybe another process is already
[VO_XV] using it. Close all video applications, and try again. If that does
[VO_XV] not help, see 'mplayer -vo help' for other (non-xv) video out drivers.
Error opening/initializing the selected video_out (-vo) device.

The audio seems to be working fine, but there's no video. I also found the Mplayer entry in the Applications menu, and tried it. That was supremely unhelpful. I found the Open .. Play URL thing, selected it, a window popped up, I pasted in the above URL, hit the OK button ... and an "ERROR!" window popped up saying "Failed, exiting." No clue at all as to what might be wrong, and the only thing I could do was hit OK, which closed the "ERROR!" window, but MPlayer didn't actually exit like it sait it would. So I looked around some more. I didn't find anything else that would accept a URL.

So. Apparently mplayer can't or won't show me the video stream, though it does play the audio and it identifies itself as CNN. Anyone have clues where I look now? Googling has, as I said, turned up lots of reports of the above error condition, but apparently nobody has posted anything explaining what to do about it. If there's a way of finding another program that has the port open, it doesn't seem to be documented anywhere, not even in "man lsof", and "mplayer -vo help" doesn't seem to mention the topic at all.

So is there somewhere I can read about diagnosing this problem and fixing it?

(It may seem dumb asking such questions here, but I've actually gotten useful pointers a few times in the past when I post questions like this on /.)
(And I must say I've really grown to hate programmers whose idea of a helpful error message is "Failed, exiting." It's sad to see this user-hostile approach infecting the geeky linux universe. ;-)

Re:Fun with mplayer

[Obfuscant]

(And I must say I've really grown to hate programmers whose idea of a helpful error message is "Failed, exiting." It's sad to see this user-hostile approach infecting the geeky linux universe.

Mplayer is pretty helpful in it's error message. Here's the relevant line:

[VO_XV] not help, see 'mplayer -vo help' for other (non-xv) video out drivers.

You probably don't have an Xvideo driver. Try "-vo x11". If that doesn't work, try one of the other real-time displays listed when you do "-vo help". You'll know when you get away from displays, it starts talking about files. When you find one that works, go to .mplayer and edit the file "config" to add the -vo line. (I.e., if you find that "-vo x11" works, put the line "-vo x11" in your .mplayer/config.

You may then run into a codec issue, depending on how your mplayer was compiled. I don't get video, either, because:

Requested video codec family [wmv9dmo] (vfm=dmo) not available. Enable it at compilation. Requested video codec family [wmvdmo] (vfm=dmo) not available. Enable it at compilation.

Re:Fun with mplayer

[adavies42]

Mplayer is awesome when it works, but incredibly poorly documented/supported. It makes VLC seem intuitive, and that's saying something. I lots of fun figuring out how to make modern soft-subbed anime (colored, custom fonts, etc., packed in MKVs) render properly--the OS X GUI wrapper is crap.

Re:Fun with mplayer

[toad3k]

Works fine for me on gentoo at work. If I had to guess, I'd bet ubuntu is not installing windows media codecs by default. No windows streams for you (until you find out how to install it correctly).

Re:Fun with mplayer

[jc42]

You probably don't have an Xvideo driver. Try "-vo x11". If that doesn't work, try one of the other real-time displays listed when you do "-vo help". You'll know when you get away from displays, it starts talking about files.

That worked, for some definition of "work". That is, a window appeared with the video, and it was even synchronized with the audio. The window was sorta tiny, so I tried to enlarge it. Nothing I tried had any effect at all. Does mplayer have any menus or anything? Actually, I found some by starting MPlayer from the Applications menu at the upper left, but when I start mplayer on the command line, the same clicking on the window has no effect at all. Using CTRL, ALT, etc. still gets no response of any sort. If I put the pointer into the terminal where I ran mplayer, typing things there gets messages saying there's no binding for that character, but nothing else. This seems to imply that there's some way of binding chars to actions, but the man page doesn't explain how I might do this. So all I know to do is to run that one URL and kill it. I don't know how to find other URLs that may work. I guess if I want to see CNN, I can now, but I think I have a long way to go before I'd call mplayer useful.

When you find one that works, go to .mplayer and edit the file "config" to add the -vo line. (I.e., if you find that "-vo x11" works, put the line "-vo x11" in your .mplayer/config.

Well, that didn't work at all, it just gave gibberish messages and died. I did a bit of googling, and found examples that used the syntax "vo=x11". I tried that, and found that the MPlayer entry in the menus now produced a window. But the window doesn't play the video stream. I poked around and found the menu that now turns up when I click inside the window; the URL entry thing is there, but copying the CNN URL doesn't seem to work. I can also run mplayer from the command line without the "-vo x11", so I guess that's something.

I wonder where people learn to use this thing. It's all very baffling.

And why would URL for a video stream be called a "playlist"? That has no obvious relation to the way in which "playlist" is used in other apps.

NO

[Jane Q. Public]

I have paid very little attention to the campaigning. After all, they have had very little important to say.

Rather, I have been swayed by the CONVINCING EVIDENCE I have seen and read.

There is a rather large difference.

In any case, I must say that I believe I detected a note of sarcasm there, which I appreciate. But there are several ways to look at the "wasted vote" issue, which is similar on some ways to the mathematical problem known as the "prinoner's dilemma".

People have been known to second-guess elections by saying "I know MY candidate will not win, so I will vote for the candidate I most like who has a chance of winning." Then they tell their neighbor who also like Candidate X, that their vote was "wasted".

Like the famous incident of the Oracle at Delphi, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. As logic, it fails completely.

To address the "wasted vote" fallacy, I will say that voting has been likened to a "horse race", but it really isn't so. In a horse race, you vote for who you THINK will win. In an election, you vote for who you WANT to win. Unless we acknowledge cheating, then those strategies pay off. Other strategies do not.

Elections are not horse races. If you do not vote for the candidate you WANT, then the candidate you want will probably not win. And that is a lost bet. In reality today, it is probably a lot more lost than just a bet.

Re:NO

[MightyYar]

As logic, it fails completely.

Without some form of Preferential Block Voting, it does not completely as logic. It is quite logical to minimize your losses. Unless the system takes into account preferences, you are left to take everything into account yourself when you cast your ballot.

Damn typos

[Jane Q. Public]

"similar in some ways" ... "prisoner's dilemma" ... "who also likes Candidate X" ...

Early termination

[tepples]

Alternately, you could sign up for one month of limited Analog Cable for $15.

Watch out. Some cable companies will advertise $14.99 per month, but then charge a $164.89 early termination fee (equivalent to 11 months of service) if you cancel after the first month.

Yup. CSPAN.

[AmazingChicken]

It should be streamed from here: http://www.cspan.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx

It Is Broken

[LuYu]

CNN is broken: It does not work with Linux.

We are on the same channel.

[Jane Q. Public]

I realize that some people would consider these ideas "extreme", but on the other hand, what we have been seeing has been rather extreme. Maybe it is time for extreme ideas.

Here is what I would do:

(1) Pass law (and, I hope, amend the Constitution), to the effect that no campaign contributions, gifts, or other compensation shall be given to current or campaigning politicians, other than from individual citizens who are eligible to vote. No entity that does not actually vote (i.e., anybody but individual citizens) may contribute to political interests in any way. Foreign interests may not contribute in any way. Violation by any party (i.e, anyone offering OR accepting money or goods in violation of this provision) shall be guilty of a Federal felony punishable by NOT LESS than 2 years in solitary confinement in a Federal penitentiary.

(This means that CEOs cannot take corporate profits (created by the employees), and use them to support politicians to whom the company's employees would strongly object. Similarly, it would prevent worker unions from taking member dues and using those to support politicians who are not approved by the members. Only individuals could contribute. So: if an individual felt that a candidate would benefit the corporation they work for, they are free to donate. If the employee felt that the candidate might threaten their bargaining position by voting anti-union, then they are free to donate to THEIR favorite (up to the maximum). BUT... this prevents organizational "bigwigs" from taking money from their "underlings" and using it against them. ONLY INDIVIDUALS QUALIFIED TO VOTE COULD CONTRIBUTE TO CAMPAIGNS. Period. Emphasis on "individuals". Not companies, not unions. Companies do not vote, unions do not vote. People do. There is no reason that ANY entity other than a VOTER should be able to influence politics. If a company CEO or a union president want to talk to their legislators... they can. With exactly as much influence as anybody else.)

(2) Limit each contribution to a fixed percentage of the average (mean, not median or mode) income of a private adult citizen of the United States. That would limit the influence of the disgustingly wealthy, and bring things back to the idea of "one voice, one vote".

(3) While I am all for privacy, this is an area that has been screaming for openness: the names of each individual contributor to political causes must be made public. I choke over this one, but there appears to be no realistic alternative.

(4) Campaign contributions, even a nickel, must NEVER be tax-deductible.

Now for the fun stuff...

(5) AUTOMATIC EXPIRATION OF UNNECESSARY LAWS. While there must be exceptions for some projects that require long-term funding (I am open for ideas on that), ALL Federal legislation (laws) will be subject to review after a period of no more than 3 years from passage (not the "effective" date). In order for a Federal law to remain in effect, the legislature must publicly review and renew the law before the 3 years is up. If they fail to do so, the law automatically expires. There are several benefits to this idea:

• (a) Defunct laws that are still in effect (you might be surprised how many there are) will automatically lose force and become null. This is a MAJOR benefit for the citizenry, who have more and more found themselves facing ancient laws that they did not even know about, and which are arbitrarily enforced. (I just watched a video about this. Did you know that you could be prosecuted by the Federal Government for a FELONY, for possessing a fish that is illegal to possess in Honduras... because of the laws of HONDURAS, not even American law? There is a federal law that makes it illegal to possess a fish if there is a law against its possession in ANY of the countries that are signatory to ANY treaties with the United States! This is TRUE. And if they changed their laws, you would still be prosecutable under Federal law, even though you had no way to know abo

Re:We are on the same channel.

[Reziac]

Very interesting. Practical reform from the ground up. Be sure to include a provision that the Constitution is immune from sunset laws -- I can already hear some clever socialist lawyer thinking about that one!

Hope you don't mind if I pillage your post for the benefit of non-slashdotters. :)

#7 seems harsh if you don't know about the posh surrounds of some white-collar prisons... (when I saw video of one of 'em, I was like, Where do I sign up?!) I'd suggest the sentence apply to the other items as well, and that the duration of sentence be directly proportional to how much the attempted influence exceeds the other provisions (frex, if someone contributed 2x the allowed amount, they do 2 years X 2 = 4 years in prison, etc.)

Re:We are on the same channel.

[Big Boss]

I think you're trying to cover it in 7, but I would include an explicit provision that ALL votes in both the House and Senate be recorded IN WRITING. No "voice votes". Every representative has to go ON PUBLIC RECORD with EVERY SINGLE VOTE. Including not voting on a bill and/or not being present. If they are passing laws, they should be held accountable to the people they claim to represent.

This could be streamlined with electronic means, but I would want a printed paper trail as well.

Other than that, I very much like your ideas. I think this kind of thing is the only way to make real change. It would need to start as a grassroots type effort to elect some congress critters though.

Re:We are on the same channel.

[Jane Q. Public]

Good point. And let's add the written results of a roll call (recording of presence or absence) for every day the legislature is in session. No proxies allowed.

Attribution!

[Jane Q. Public]

Please give attribution. I know that insisting would be futile, so I shant do so.

As for #7: you got the point exactly.

Have fun.

Re:Attribution!

[Reziac]

Attributed you are, by the simple method of including the "posted by" slashdot ID header in the copy/paste :)

DTV Converter Box

[Kebis]

Have you tried hooking your TV up to one of the digital TV converter boxes? I have friends that couldn't get any clear signals with regular TV that can now get at least a few channels because of the converter boxes.

Net is superior, stuff it

[justinlee37]

The internet has all the capabilities of cable television; you can watch great, syndicated shows just for the price of watching a few commercials. But wait, there's more! You DON'T have to "pay per view," or buy something fancy like a TiVO, in order to watch something on your own time or pause it!

So maybe they are a little stuck up about not having a television. But my question is - why would I want a television?

Southparkstudios.com

Hulu.com

TheDailyShow.com

adultswim.com

The list goes on ... get on board, stop letting NBC and Fox set your schedule and overcharge you for basic services on an obsolete medium.

Local coverage from WNEP-TV

[SEMLogistics]

Watch the coverage live on WNEP.com, Newswatch 16 in Northeast, PA: http://www.wnep.com/global/Category.asp?c=122728

Re:Same thing with the World Series

[Gavagai80]

Actually, baseball doesn't allow watching games live online that are being shown on TV. You can only watch out of market, non-national games unless you're outside the U.S. or you watch the archives later.

I know you said it, but...

[Half-pint HAL]

Go to a friend's house. One with kids. Take your kids with you, with sleeping bags and roll-mats or camp-beds.

Let the kids stay up a bit later than usual eating popcorn and drinking soda. Cheer, whoop, holler. Hang a banner for your favorite candidate.

Make election night into a party -- kids should be encouraged to see the democratic process as something of value and of interest, rather than boring old fogey stuff.

HAL.

Re:Same thing with the World Series

[reidconti]

I know this is offtopic, but I'll post non-anon to take my punishment.

I am wondering the same thing about tonight's World Series game on Fox. Anyone answer that question?

Not helpful, but...

I totally lucked out 4 years ago. I posted somewhere (Fark, I think) asking about streaming World Series. I guess it wouldn't work in the US, but some kind soul gave me his login info for mlb.com, and since my IP did not originate in the US (I was in Europe), I was able to watch the final game of the world series fullscreen on my laptop in the middle of the night.

Elections, though, came courtesy of CNN International :)

Re:Site is flakey. Here are direct links.

[elrous0]

Thank you.

justin.tv

[Malangali]

justin.tv will certainly have people broadcasting all the networks. The site strikes me as highly illegal (for example, last night I used it to watch the World Series, including the "no rebroadcasting or retransmission" disclaimer), but it would be the rebroadcaster whose ass went in the sling if a case went to trial, not the viewer. For my election night Obama Pyjama Party, I plan to have CNN on the tellie and three computers running three different justin.tv feeds. Plus coffee, popcorn, and champagne on ice.

Re:Same thing with the World Series

[jim_redwagon]

while too late... TBS offered their bare streams of the ALCS on their website. You'd get 4 views, pitcher, batter, behind the plate (large view) and then slightly delayed, the super-imposed flight of the ball and how it went traveled to the strike zone. I had to watch one game this way while my wife had on Desperate Housewives, yes, i know, but it kept you abreast of the action.

Find a friend with kids and a TV

[wombert]

Find a friend with kids and TV. Offer to bring the pizza or other food/beverage for an election night party. The kids learn a bit about the electoral process before going off to their slumber party, the adults stay up to see the results. Bonus points if the parents let you leave the kids overnight & pick them up in the morning.

If you don't have any such friends whose kids tolerate yours, and vice versa, then you really need to buy that TV. :-P

Democracy Now election night coverage

[ianm.phil]

It's not network, but Democracy Now will be doing live coverage. They do excellent reporting, so it may be worth tunning in, and it's always free.

From their website:

Democracy Now! will be doing a special five-hour broadcast on November 4th from 07:00PMâ"12:00AM ET to bring you the 2008 election results as they come in.

The program will include live coverage of the results as the polls close, on-the-ground reports from across the country, reactions from across the globe, and running in-depth analysis and commentary from a wide range of guests you wonâ(TM)t get anywhere else.

On November 5th, the morning after, Democracy Now! expands to a two-hour broadcast from 08:00AMâ"10:00AM ET to provide complete coverage of the election outcome.

Please contact your local radio or TV station for local listings. There will also be a live video and audio stream of the show on our homepage at democracynow.org.

well placed ads...

[ddusza]

It's somehow amusing to me that when I looked at this article, I noticed that the ad placed at the top of the discussion is for DishTV's services....

Re:If only there were some 'public' broadcasting s

[pugugly]

Actually, I have had the exact opposite result - I was concerned given the moderately bad reception where we are at that Digital reception would be an issue. Instead, it's been as good or better than our Dish network has been.

Not that I claim enough skill to say *why* - {G}.

Pug

But that begs the question.

[Jane Q. Public]

In order to vote to "minimize your losses", you must be convinced that your are going to lose. And by voting for someone else (assuming that others use exactly the same logic), you are in fact GUARANTEEING that you are going to lose. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy!

Re:But that begs the question.

[MightyYar]

I don't think you are being pragmatic. What 3rd party has a shot at the White House? When there is a viable candidate, people DO vote for him. See Ross Perot.

However, I will agree

[Jane Q. Public]

that Instant Runoff voting, or a few other similar systems, are provably superior to our current "black and white" system.

And in fact it is up to the individual states, so there is some likelihood that one or more of them will experiment soon.

Re:However, I will agree

[MightyYar]

I guess that I'm more skeptical, since they can't even seem to properly record a single traditional vote! :)

We can always hope, though.

FM news online

[WindShadow]

WNYC (NYC, obviously), WAMC (Albany NY), WFSU (Florida State University) all should have live audio election coverage, add ".org" to the call letters. Also bbc.co.uk should have a live channel, cnn.com (there are serious issues with Linux playing their live feed, though), or politics.msnbc.com.

So lots of places you can at least listen online, some you can probably watch.