That's the way people seem to see it, that's for sure. It only seems that way though, because the one that's "in control" is the one that falls under greater scrutiny and gets more attention.
I'm not going to say that both parties are rotten to the core because of massive expanse of professional lobbiest, as I don't want anyone arguing with that statement. So I'll just take a pointer from the major media(thanks to Jon Stewart) and ask "Is the rapid expanse of the lobbying industry involved with both parties a sign that both parties are corrupt and rotten to the core of their black and darkened hearts?"
With the possible exceptions of a few weeks after WWI, WWII, and 09/11, there has never been a time that we weren't in "a time of great political tension".
Let me get this straight.... you don't think there is greater political tension in this country now that we are occupying a foreign country that we invaded on false pretenses, under the command of a president whose previous elections were called into question by irregularities at the polls, a president who has laid claim to powers of the judicial branch, who has engaged in illegal wiretaping, who has sought an expansion of executive power, even while according to polls a 1/3rd of Americans believe the government played a part in 9/11, while we continue to attempt to police and remake a foreign country in our own image?
Do you really believe this is just like the political tension we had during the 80s and the mid 90s?
Political tension is a sign of a healthy democracy, in which people are willing to speak and push for their cause.
Which is why I used a qualifier such as "GREAT political tension". Political tension is healthy and normal, but not the kind we have now. You know, exercise is healthy and normal, but you can also drop dead of a corony event if you push it too far. It is not the sign of a healthy democracy when 1/3rd of the people believe the government took part or simply knowingly let happen a brutal assault on our own people: http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
If that's the sign of a healthy democracy, then get it over with and crown George king because democracy is clearly madness.
Yes if you are going to lose your freedom, or be executed because of it,
The nature of the internet and the records kept means you could pay for something you did last night, 10 years from now. Take the whole steroid hysteria right now. 3 years ago, if you used andro, you did nothing illegal, it wasn't considered a steroid and was available at practically every health shop. If there is an internet record of you talking about using andro and the great results you got from it now, NOW YOU'RE A STEROID USER WITH A DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF USING, because now it's illegal and considered a steroid. This could happen with just about anything in this nation of partisan embiciles.
The problem with the question of "is it worth it?" is, you don't know if it was worth it for you personally, until you find yourself in circumstances where either doing it saved your ass, or not doing it costs you dearly.
I'm all for seeing Linux in general realize more adoption, but, I don't think this particular action of Microsoft is going to achieve that. Microsoft, whether people want to accept it or not, has poured billions of dollars into development of their software. They pay money to have people improve it, fix it, support it, etc... The people they're cracking down on in the story are leeches who think they have a right to profit from other people's work without having to pay those other people.
These aren't good guys who believe in freedom of information, these are bad guys who think people should pay them for information they themselves haven't paid for, developed, etc...
I'm just curious if the old addage about "Republicans have no heart, and Democrats have no brains" has any truth to it.:D
I won't offer my opinion on the adage, but something is seriously wrong with these two parties. I would love to be able to vote from my computer, right here, without having to go somewhere. If I had to go somewhere, it would be gee-whiz cool if there was a nice computerized system for me to use. But if either of these options came at the cost of losing the integrity, or even just perceived integrity of the vote, then I don't think they're worth it.
And this is precisely what has happened, and yet there is no solid resistance coming from either party. The money coming from the corporate drive to sell these systems is just too great.
Maybe in 20 years the tech will get there, but it ain't there yet and I think it's absurd that we're basically experimenting with the integrity of the voting system during a time of great political tension. Wise leaders would recognize that and put a stop to it.
You clearly are not a californian democrat desperate to see Schwarzenegger replaced. The Dems don't seem to have much of a chance against him so expect more mole hill issues like this being made into mountains in the next couple of months. SOP.
Regarding the comment from Jchernia: As an aside, the California Highway Patrol is running the investigation -- maybe the Internet is a truck after all."
No, NO YOU FOOL! They're running the investigation because it's the INFORMATION SUPER HIGHWAY! DUH!
... until you did the math. Bics are like 2 bucks for a pack of 10. Assuming you had to buy all new ones every year, and assuming every year was a major voter turnout equivalent to a presidential election, and also assuming that one pen would serve only 3 voters, and that 300,000,000 people voted every year(notice how way over the top I'm padding the numbers in favor of the bic theory), you'd need 100,000,000 pens nationwide. That would equal 20,000,000 bucks on a nationwide scale.
In reality, according the US census numbers, ~125,000,000 people voted in the last presidential election. You would not need a pen ratio of 1 pen per 3 people, but say you did, you now only need what, 45,000,000 pens(to make the math simple). This now reduces the money involved to 9 million.
To break it down further, the required pen to voter ratio is actually far far lower than that, and then you have the whole problem that the pens can easily be stored and used for several years, with no real ongoing maintenance costs other than purchasing replacements here and there for the ones that die or grow legs.
Couple of points to grant before I'm called on it... Not every county is getting as blatantly ripped off as the above mentioned one. But most of these systems I've read about are multi-million dollar systems. I also didn't factor in cost of printing of paper ballots, but my point wasn't to argue pen and paper was cheaper, only that the money generated by computerized voting machine purchases is far greater than the sales of pens. This is important because it puts a lot of cash into a single source who can then make sure that certain campaigns recieve good financing. Far more cash than if the governments just bought bics.
And I know it sounds like a "conspiracy theory", but IMO, anyone who thinks that money isn't playing a part in all this is living in a dream world. Keep in mind that in most cases it is local and state governments making these purchasing deciscions, which in general fall under far less scrutiny than the federal government.
paper and pen? Who is going to give the politicians money out of their paper and pen profits if we do that? Won't somebody think about the politicians?
I agree, I was being sarcastic. Although you forgot some important things... Not only will the coming 500 page law not exactly make it illegal for a company to do it and make it legal for a government to do it, but, it will also include financing for pork projects around the country(like 2.3m dollars for fuzzy navel research in Florida), and it will be called the "Save the Children Act".
I'm of course assuming the past is an indicator of the future.
Anyone else looking forward to seeing what kind of monstrous legislation we get in answer to this problem? Whatever it is, I sure hope it includes funding for an escalator to nowhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you want either one of them in charge of your money?
That's the way people seem to see it, that's for sure. It only seems that way though, because the one that's "in control" is the one that falls under greater scrutiny and gets more attention.
I'm not going to say that both parties are rotten to the core because of massive expanse of professional lobbiest, as I don't want anyone arguing with that statement. So I'll just take a pointer from the major media(thanks to Jon Stewart) and ask "Is the rapid expanse of the lobbying industry involved with both parties a sign that both parties are corrupt and rotten to the core of their black and darkened hearts?"
You're talking about THEIR party, not MINE. My party isn't the problem.[/end sarcasm]
With the possible exceptions of a few weeks after WWI, WWII, and 09/11, there has never been a time that we weren't in "a time of great political tension".
Let me get this straight.... you don't think there is greater political tension in this country now that we are occupying a foreign country that we invaded on false pretenses, under the command of a president whose previous elections were called into question by irregularities at the polls, a president who has laid claim to powers of the judicial branch, who has engaged in illegal wiretaping, who has sought an expansion of executive power, even while according to polls a 1/3rd of Americans believe the government played a part in 9/11, while we continue to attempt to police and remake a foreign country in our own image?
Do you really believe this is just like the political tension we had during the 80s and the mid 90s? Political tension is a sign of a healthy democracy, in which people are willing to speak and push for their cause.
Which is why I used a qualifier such as "GREAT political tension". Political tension is healthy and normal, but not the kind we have now. You know, exercise is healthy and normal, but you can also drop dead of a corony event if you push it too far. It is not the sign of a healthy democracy when 1/3rd of the people believe the government took part or simply knowingly let happen a brutal assault on our own people:
http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
If that's the sign of a healthy democracy, then get it over with and crown George king because democracy is clearly madness.
Yes if you are going to lose your freedom, or be executed because of it,
The nature of the internet and the records kept means you could pay for something you did last night, 10 years from now. Take the whole steroid hysteria right now. 3 years ago, if you used andro, you did nothing illegal, it wasn't considered a steroid and was available at practically every health shop. If there is an internet record of you talking about using andro and the great results you got from it now, NOW YOU'RE A STEROID USER WITH A DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF USING, because now it's illegal and considered a steroid. This could happen with just about anything in this nation of partisan embiciles.
The problem with the question of "is it worth it?" is, you don't know if it was worth it for you personally, until you find yourself in circumstances where either doing it saved your ass, or not doing it costs you dearly.
I'm all for seeing Linux in general realize more adoption, but, I don't think this particular action of Microsoft is going to achieve that. Microsoft, whether people want to accept it or not, has poured billions of dollars into development of their software. They pay money to have people improve it, fix it, support it, etc... The people they're cracking down on in the story are leeches who think they have a right to profit from other people's work without having to pay those other people.
These aren't good guys who believe in freedom of information, these are bad guys who think people should pay them for information they themselves haven't paid for, developed, etc...
I'm just curious if the old addage about "Republicans have no heart, and Democrats have no brains" has any truth to it. :D
I won't offer my opinion on the adage, but something is seriously wrong with these two parties. I would love to be able to vote from my computer, right here, without having to go somewhere. If I had to go somewhere, it would be gee-whiz cool if there was a nice computerized system for me to use. But if either of these options came at the cost of losing the integrity, or even just perceived integrity of the vote, then I don't think they're worth it.
And this is precisely what has happened, and yet there is no solid resistance coming from either party. The money coming from the corporate drive to sell these systems is just too great.
Maybe in 20 years the tech will get there, but it ain't there yet and I think it's absurd that we're basically experimenting with the integrity of the voting system during a time of great political tension. Wise leaders would recognize that and put a stop to it.
Actually, most of the Democrats I know think that the LA Times made far too big a deal about this
Are you saying I'm wrong and that this isn't the work of california democrats desperate to see Schwarzenegger replaced?
As for the CHP running the investigation, it's not at all surprising. What we refer to as the Highway Patrol is what other states call State Police.
You went and ruined a perfectly good bad joke. Thanks for nothing.
I'm not a macuser and I got a kick out of reading about that.
You clearly are not a californian democrat desperate to see Schwarzenegger replaced. The Dems don't seem to have much of a chance against him so expect more mole hill issues like this being made into mountains in the next couple of months. SOP.
Regarding the comment from Jchernia:
As an aside, the California Highway Patrol is running the investigation -- maybe the Internet is a truck after all."
No, NO YOU FOOL! They're running the investigation because it's the INFORMATION SUPER HIGHWAY! DUH!
... until you did the math. Bics are like 2 bucks for a pack of 10. Assuming you had to buy all new ones every year, and assuming every year was a major voter turnout equivalent to a presidential election, and also assuming that one pen would serve only 3 voters, and that 300,000,000 people voted every year(notice how way over the top I'm padding the numbers in favor of the bic theory), you'd need 100,000,000 pens nationwide. That would equal 20,000,000 bucks on a nationwide scale.
7 3.html?1139698724
The diebold machine purchase for Cuyahoga County Ohio(pop ~1.3 million), would cost 22,000,000 alone(or it would have, but I think the cost will drop a good deal now) source: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/2197/142
In reality, according the US census numbers, ~125,000,000 people voted in the last presidential election. You would not need a pen ratio of 1 pen per 3 people, but say you did, you now only need what, 45,000,000 pens(to make the math simple). This now reduces the money involved to 9 million.
To break it down further, the required pen to voter ratio is actually far far lower than that, and then you have the whole problem that the pens can easily be stored and used for several years, with no real ongoing maintenance costs other than purchasing replacements here and there for the ones that die or grow legs.
Couple of points to grant before I'm called on it... Not every county is getting as blatantly ripped off as the above mentioned one. But most of these systems I've read about are multi-million dollar systems. I also didn't factor in cost of printing of paper ballots, but my point wasn't to argue pen and paper was cheaper, only that the money generated by computerized voting machine purchases is far greater than the sales of pens. This is important because it puts a lot of cash into a single source who can then make sure that certain campaigns recieve good financing. Far more cash than if the governments just bought bics.
And I know it sounds like a "conspiracy theory", but IMO, anyone who thinks that money isn't playing a part in all this is living in a dream world. Keep in mind that in most cases it is local and state governments making these purchasing deciscions, which in general fall under far less scrutiny than the federal government.
paper and pen? Who is going to give the politicians money out of their paper and pen profits if we do that? Won't somebody think about the politicians?
I agree, I was being sarcastic. Although you forgot some important things... Not only will the coming 500 page law not exactly make it illegal for a company to do it and make it legal for a government to do it, but, it will also include financing for pork projects around the country(like 2.3m dollars for fuzzy navel research in Florida), and it will be called the "Save the Children Act".
I'm of course assuming the past is an indicator of the future.
Anyone else looking forward to seeing what kind of monstrous legislation we get in answer to this problem? Whatever it is, I sure hope it includes funding for an escalator to nowhere.