This post just pointed out the the complete uselessness of the scoring system used on slashdot.
According to the post, it was scored 4 for being informative when it is comprised of nothing more then a cut/paste from the article, prefaced with a remark that attempts to point out the obvious. Don't get me wrong. I'm not slamming the poster here, but rather the scoring system.
Kudos, Slashdot, on an excellent scoring system.
(By the time some of you read this, it may have changed, dunno. But I can almost assure you that THIS post will be slammed as a Troll. Woot!)
It was NOT a ruling, it was a settlement. HUGE difference. The most important is that no "precedence" has been set. What that basically means is that this case cannot be used in the future to help in the prosecution of other offenders.
Is it a beginning? Yes. Does it move us closer to being able to prosecute others? No.
While I applaude the state of Washington on bringing charges in the first place, I think that they did the people of the state a disservice by settling. It seemed they had a pretty solid case yet caved at the last moment.
I suspect that what happened is that someone decided that in order to collect ANY funds from the company, they had to settle. Otherwise, the defendants attorneys would have "used" up all the funds in an effort to defend the company leaving none for the "fines".
Attorneys have been known to obfuscate, delay and appeal cases all in the name of extending their own value, and thus, their fees.
Call the cops in, prosecution gets court orders to search his properties (including hardrives, etc.), have that info shared under discovery (probably shared by the prosecution in order to build a case and verify that he actually had something in which to blackmail with. Important in a blackmail case as it shows intent.), then drop the whole shebang.
Once they have the information, they can then fix/modify the filters, all without having to pay the guy his blackmail demands or ever allow any of it to reach the public domain.
.....I have come to the decision to NEVER do business with your company, nor any of its subsidiaries. Your decision to utilize a means of advertising at the expense of consumers highlights the general business attitude your company has taken. Further emails to me will only reinforce this opinion, and quite possibly trigger a public effort, on my part, to make known to as many consumers as possible, via the internet, and any other means available to me, that your company is taking part in illegal activities (email advertising) at the expense of the very customers you are trying to do business with."
I send this to as many spam adverts as I can. I simply cut and paste the exact same reply. And NOT to the address contained in the advert. I look up the SALES dept. address and send it to THEM. In EVERY instance I have done this, the mails stopped.
I honestly feel that the only thing that is going to bring the United States back to control by the people, for the people, is a complete breakdown of the existing system. It has become too corrupt and manipulated to ever be "righted" again.
Because of the Internet and various other means of "free speech", that complete breakdown can still happen. Once we lose the ability to communicate en masse, our chances at ever gaining "freedom" again will be lost.
The "War on Terrorism", as explained by those in power, is a hoax. It is simply a means devised by those in power to retain and spread that power. I am just waiting for them to make some huge mistake that really opens the eyes of Americans. I thought Iraq would do that, but the spin-meisters managed to keep it together so far.
I once read a comment from a Ford designer regarding the Pinto. He stated that it was DESIGNED to only last 5 years. Yet I still see them on the road.......albeit, in pretty bad shape most of the time.
My point is that it was designed, by the company that made it, to only last a certain amount of time. Why? Obviously, to sell the consumer another car in 5 years.
I work with automotive computer systems and I see it first hand all the time. I will cite the most frequent example I see. Mercedes uses Bosch components in its computer controlled systems and fuel injection systems. I cannot state how many times I have had a customer come in with a "check engine" light on (in various models) only to hook up a scanner to pull trouble codes only to find NONE. Yet the car runs like crap, the light comes back on after being reset and the customer is still not amused. After diagnosing quite a few of these I now do one thing soon as I get in the car. I look at the odometer. If it has a little more then 60,000 miles on it(the warranty period has JUST expired), I can almost ASSURE you the cause of the problem. A "faulty" Mass Air Flow Sensor. Why can I say this? Because Bosch, and more then likely Mercedes, have designed and installed a component with a "desired" life span of just over 60,000 miles.
The reason for this is money (sales). The device fails (parameters within spec, no trouble codes set)in such a way that standard trouble shooting procedures will not locate the problem. The "average" independant shop then refers the customer to the dealership(Mercedes)thus assuring the dealership (and thus Mercedes) of the repair sales AND the replacement sensor. And ALWAYS after the warranty has run out.
It got to the point that we kept several "known good" sensors of various part numbers around the shop to simply install one and see if the problem went away. It usually did. The dealership, having a parts department, foregoes standard diagnosis and simply throws a new sensor at it. They then charge you for a "full diagnostic scan and testing".
So, not only have they found a way to charge you to replace the part, but to charge you for service to diagnose it as well. This repair, by the way, if done at the dealership, usually costs the consumer about $750-1000, parts and "labor". This also has the added benefit of making the dealership "look good" in the eyes of the consumer because they were able to fix it and the independant was unable to. Thus, the consumer returns to the vastly more expensive dealer when something else goes wrong.
Planned obsolescence is a reality. Even supposedly "well made" products are subject to this. Simply look up the "reliability" rating for autos and you will see that Mercedes sucketh quite badly in that department. They figure that if people can shell out 60k+ for a Benz, they can shell out $350 + "labor" for a new sensor every 60k miles.
They only cure for this is to research products and their reliability before buying them. Eventually, when sales slumps, they will curtail the practice to some extent (again, I cite Ford here. In the 70's Ford had a HORRIBLE reliability record and suffered heavy sales declines because of it. They changed their ways. At least until the last decade. They are doing it again........)
The idea, while novel, is not new. The idea of a "100 knot Torpedo" has been around for awhile. The idea was to basically blow compressed air through a nozzle in the nose of the torpedo enveloping the torpedo in a "shroud" of air, as opposed to water, thus drastically reducing drag resulting from moving through the water.
The idea, when applied to a ship, has nothing to do with bouyancy(although it would certainly effect it) but rather reducing drag by displacing the water around the hull with air. While impossible to entirely remove the contact with water, even small decreases will reduce drag enough to make the whole idea worthwhile in terms of fuel consumption.
The problem with BOTH ideas is the interference with propulsion. A propeller does not work as efficiently in the same mass of air bubbles. Unless some means of keeping the prop out of the bubble cloud is devised, the resulting loss of propulsion will offset the gains made by the reduction of drag. This is the main reason the "100 knot Torpedo" is not used.
As far as noise reduction in submarine warfare, it is NOT quieter. Its simply different. It is akin to a propeller "cavitating", and in submarine warfare, that is like sending up a signal flare.
Last I heard, a 10% market share was not considered a "win". Ok, ok. I see that the reference was not just to home PCs. But where is most of the money spent by consumers of computer products going to? Windows-based home PCs and software. I don't call that a "win" in any sense of the word. Microsofts grip remains as firm as it has ever been in those markets.
When my rating went from Insightful to Troll in the span of one response (the topic was rather political in nature), I decided to entirely ignore the "rating" system. Considering the fact that moderators are people, it became obvious to me that it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to keep their own points of view from effecting their decisions.
It sounds like an excellent idea until you take into account the fact that most people think they have more important things to do.
It is a pretty sad affair when you look at the lengths people will go to just to be relieved of Jury Duty. Alot of people simply think they don't have to do it because there are other people that will.
I sat on a rape trial for 5 weeks(unpaid by my employer) and it was a real financial hardship. While I am an idealist, and still think the jury system is the way to go, I can assure you I will not be sitting on any more juries willingly.
Another flaw is the "wrench in the works" aspect. All it would take is ONE person to make intentional mistakes to require recounts. If done sufficiently, and enough, it can effectively undermine the citizens faith in the whole process. The tactic of attempting to cast doubt on a count has brought about many expensive and time consuming recounts in MANY elections, some, to the point that there was actually a different result(winner) after all the recounts.
If indeed, some manipulation of the voting process is occuring, it is completely rediculous to assume an open-bid process would be able to subvert that manipulation. I find it hard to believe that would occur when such things as Haliburton receiving contracts with NO bidding process are taking place.
Even if it(an open-bid process) did occur, all the miscreants would have to do is create SEVERAL companies that produce voting machines to create the IMPRESSION that it was a fair process. If you think that is not possible as a tactic, my only repsponse would have to be that at one time I did not think it possible to steal a presidency by vote manipulation.
More to the point, in response to your post, I think your missing the point. This is not a discussion about republicans tampering with voting machines, and thus, elections. It is a discussion about the fact that ANYONE could be doing it. It is a discussion about the fact that there is evidence to assert that Diebold is making product that can be used to rig votes.
Simply put, Diebold is leading the country to believe the technology is foolproof, when, in fact, it is far from. And until the technology is PROVEN to be foolproof, we should not be relying on it to put our politicians into office.
Sure, many inferences to the corruption surrounding the 2000 election are being made(even by myself), it is only being cited as evidence against trusting our democracy to unproven(and quite possibly, corrupt) technology.
.........SexSurfer logs in to begin his daily search of the web to find more images to rip in an effort to increase his database of porn images, utilizing this technology, only to find that most of the images consist of naked women with political statements printed on their asses......
Seriously now, I am sure their are people out there that have already got ideas rolling around in their heads about how they can use this technology to hijack images to their advantage. Once somebody understands how the technology works it is only a matter of time before it is used for nefarious purposes, by means of "tricking" the technology. And in the process, invalidating any possible means by which the developers can realize a return on their investments.
Personally, I'd love to use such a technology(if it actually works) to sift through the plethora of "crap" images I have to search through on the web. It can be really frustrating to do a search only to find that a vast amount of the results are TOTALLY out of context simply because of the title tag attached.
I think its rather amusing to see people posting here and essentially shooting themselves in the face just like Diebold has with its demands.
I can honestly say that this is one instance where I think it is in the best interest of people that are trying to discount the validity of the issue(and the documentary) to simply shut up. Silence can be deadly or golden.
The phrase "Any publicity is good publicity" simply doesn't apply here. Unless, of course, you happen to be HBO.
The New York Times and The Washington Post are the LAST places I would look for reviews of a documentary that criticizes the tools of the current administration. Both are notorious for "selective" journalism.
Its my honest opinion that ANY mainstream news outlet is suspect. Both the NYT and TWP are reliant on politicians/insiders for "scoops" and because of that, have an inherent interest in "serving" them to some extent.
As I said in another post, watch the show, do your OWN research and come to your OWN conclusions. Do NOT let others decide for you the validity of the ISSUE. The content may be skewed, but the whole premise of the show is to bring to the forefront of the american consciousness the idea that maybe, just maybe, the idea of voting in a manner that gives someone the ability to control elections is POSSIBLE.
The "prevailing tone" that you refer to (and yes, I am well aware of it) is a product of the prevailing evidence that it IS one party responsible.
I'll say what you are reluctant to voice yourself. The republicans stole the presidency. Why do I say that? Because the democrats LOST. If the democrats won and it was indicated that they used nefarious means to do so, I assure you, the "prevailing tone" here in these forums, and elsewhere, would be quite different.
Criticizing the "prevailing tone" is akin to criticising a majority vote. You certainly have the right to do so. Thats the beauty of free speech. But criticizing someone for being a part of that majority is rediculous. They are but a small part of that majority.
You cannot be a "sore loser"(which I think you are referring to those responsible for this "prevailing tone" as being) if you won.
"Pretty much pregnant"? Attacking the phrasing I used is needless. I made my point. To be honest, I did not "like" either candidate.
In response to the link you included, I never once stated that nobody else has an interest in rigging votes. I was NOT taking political sides here. A democrat is just as "able" to resort to such means as a republican. Your link merely backs up my assertion that vote tampering/harvesting is taking place. Thanks.
As far as the results in Florida being in question, have you actually researched that? I am not touting it as being "THE" truth, but the documentary "Farenheit 9/11" certainly raises questions about the validity of that race and the results of it. I research issues for my OWN benefit, NOT to persuade people to change their own opinions. If you look at my statements, you may notice that I suggest that readers view the show and then do their OWN research. I do NOT direct them to any information specifically, as that can be construed as biased information based on the idea that it was "provided"(such as the link you provided).
The gist of my post was to point out that people need to inform themselves. In order to do so, one must have access to information. The documentary in question is simply that. It is not incontrovertable, thus my suggestion to follow up with research into the issue. Your statement that "just because the can, does not mean they are..." is besides the point. The simple fact that they CAN, is, in itself, sufficient justification to question the whole premise of e-voting.
Looking back to an election that was pretty much STOLEN (by the Bush brothers and a cousin, just to mention a few), one has to wonder just how it was pulled off. Just HOW IN THE HELL do you successfully pull the wool over the eyes of 300 million people?
Easy. Manipulate the tools in which we have based our democracy, most importantly, voting. A huge portion of the votes tabulated in Florida were done so on Diebold voting machines. Since then, their use has become much more prevalent. I my home state, there are 11 counties using their machines for voting, including my own. I don't like it one bit.
Now I ask you this, If they were successful in taking a presidency illegally, wouldn't they want to protect the tools by which they did so? If not to keep stealing elections, but, at the VERY least, to hide the facts surrounding previous use of such means? That is exactly what Diebold is doing. Protecting their current tools of manipulation while preventing the public from questioning the past uses.
If your current state of mind prevents you from questioning the validity of the claims made in the show, just do a little research into Diebold. I did so. It took a surprisingly short amount of time to find apparent "conflict of interest" regarding Diebold. And its not just Diebold but Sequoia as well.
Watch the show, then do your own research. America and our Democracy are being stolen right out from under us. THAT doesn't surprise me that much, to be honest. What really surprises me is the transparency in which it is being done. Are we, as a nation, really that gullible?
So your saying that making things EASY TO DO, for their existing customers is a BAD thing? I see NO reason why MS should resort to the same "handicapped" distribution methods that the Firefox is pretty much stuck with.
If Firefox had the means to offer FF2.0 to users of FF1.5 as an "update", they more then likely would offer that OPTION.
Seeing as how I use this machine primarily for gaming, I use windows XP Home.
When it was announced that IE7 was available for download, I did so. It installed well, transferred all my previous IE6 settings/preferences without fail and, in general, performed reasonably well. As with any new product it does have some aspects I am not too happy about. My biggest gripe is the delays in loading pages the "Phishing filter" causes. I got to the point that I was disabling it when viewing pages that I already trusted.
Not long after, Firefox 2.0 was released. I viewed the changes made and wasn't surprised to see that, on the surface, pretty much ALL of the "new" aspects of FF2.0 are included in IE7. I waited a few days and then began reading reviews of FF2.0. I then compared them to reviews of IE7. VERY surprisingly, I was beginning to see that FF2.0 wasn't all that it was purported to be. Even in the area of stability, it seems it was lacking.
So why use FF2.0? To be blunt, I see no reason to do so.
But thats not the basis of this thread. The "update" method of "offering" IE7 is the issue. Since I downloaded IE7 and had it installed already I assumed that I was done. So it came to me as a bit of a surprise when Windows Update informed me that one of the updates was actually an installation of IE7. Umm, I already have it. Why would I want to download it again? I saw no reason to do so. Just out of curiosity, I did it anyways.
I really couldnt tell any difference at first glance. But as I used it more I noticed a difference. The "Phishing Filter" no longer slowed my browsing to dial-up speeds. So basically, my biggest complaint about the browser had been "patched".
In short, with the release of IE7 via download, I think Microsoft rushed out a browser to beat Firefox2.0 out of the gates, while it still had some shortcomings. The "update" release was basically, as far as I can tell, just a means to release IE7 to the public (in a manner that pretty much assures that Windows users are aware of it being available) while at the same time "patching" the previously downloaded browser.
As far as being "force-fed", I see NO evidence of it being so. BOTH times I installed it, I had the choice not to. I fail to see where its shoved down your throat.
As far as my choice between FF2.0 and IE7, I simply went with what worked best. When it boils down to it, thats all that really matters to me. If FF2.0 fixes the problems in a timely manner, like MS appears to be doing with its product, then maybe I will change my mind.
As a location to advertise, Slashdot would probably be the WORST place to try and sell something this blatently useless. It did elicit a few giggles from me though, and thus, is indelibly etched in my consciousness, so it at the very least it raised some "product awareness".
.......Nor is it really the running. Its the impacts.
Getting your skull cracked is probably THE best way to reinforce, in the mind of a child, the whole idea of LOOKING where you are running. I don't know how many times I have seen some pretty spectacular kiddie collisions on the playground, usually the result of Dodgeball game A overlapping into Tag game B, cause some pretty good hurtin'.
But the real issue is that we are raising our kids to be pampered, padded and ill-equiped to deal with NORMAL activities, such as running through the park without braining some poor little ol' lady on her way to her bridge game.
We are subverting the whole premise of "survival of the fittest" and allowing our kids to be less and less capable of the demands we put on them as adults, later in life.
I used to play Ultima Online before Origin was devoured by EA. The first thing EA did with the game after aquiring it was to make a nifty little EA intro/advert screen that popped up on login. Everyone just "Esc" keyed past it.
The SECOND thing they did was to remove the ability to "Esc" past it. You had to sit through 20 secs of advertising for the company that you were already sending cash to every month. This, all long before they even tried to improve the actual game
Shows where the real priorties lie in the minds of those with the keg tap in hand..........
The problem with your proposal is determining which posts "earn" one the right to the next tier. I have seen all too often forum posters that seem to have this grandious opinion of themselves (apparent in the writings they post) simply because they have posted a large NUMBER of posts. One can often go back and see that the posts are just witty comments of no real consequence. Just ALOT of them. The grading system of posts has a moderating effect, but it can still be abused simply by posting alot. After all, the grading sytem doesn't really afford "negative" scores (scores that would actually drag DOWN ones standing). Alot of "1" scores still does NOT tell you whether or not the posts had any real value.
Not to mention that maybe there are "lurkers" out there that are, for the most part, non-posters. But who is to say that, maybe, this guy/gal just came up with some brilliant idea that he/she choose to speak up about this ONE time. Because they don't post often, their "brilliant idea" is relegated to a location that is, by and large, ignored by the upper-caste crowd. Tiered posting is, in my honest opinion, a move towards "elitism" in a medium that should NOT be limiting the free exchange of ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
Glad to see you were not offended by my comment. Your obviously smart enough to see that it was not targeting YOU.
Believe it or not, I was actually concerned about that.
I am one of those "fucked up in the head" people that realizes that there is a real person at the other end of every post.
This post just pointed out the the complete uselessness of the scoring system used on slashdot.
According to the post, it was scored 4 for being informative when it is comprised of nothing more then a cut/paste from the article, prefaced with a remark that attempts to point out the obvious. Don't get me wrong. I'm not slamming the poster here, but rather the scoring system.
Kudos, Slashdot, on an excellent scoring system.
(By the time some of you read this, it may have changed, dunno. But I can almost assure you that THIS post will be slammed as a Troll. Woot!)
It was NOT a ruling, it was a settlement. HUGE difference. The most important is that no "precedence" has been set. What that basically means is that this case cannot be used in the future to help in the prosecution of other offenders.
Is it a beginning? Yes. Does it move us closer to being able to prosecute others? No.
While I applaude the state of Washington on bringing charges in the first place, I think that they did the people of the state a disservice by settling. It seemed they had a pretty solid case yet caved at the last moment.
I suspect that what happened is that someone decided that in order to collect ANY funds from the company, they had to settle. Otherwise, the defendants attorneys would have "used" up all the funds in an effort to defend the company leaving none for the "fines".
Attorneys have been known to obfuscate, delay and appeal cases all in the name of extending their own value, and thus, their fees.
Call the cops in, prosecution gets court orders to search his properties (including hardrives, etc.), have that info shared under discovery (probably shared by the prosecution in order to build a case and verify that he actually had something in which to blackmail with. Important in a blackmail case as it shows intent.), then drop the whole shebang.
Once they have the information, they can then fix/modify the filters, all without having to pay the guy his blackmail demands or ever allow any of it to reach the public domain.
Problem solved.
.....I have come to the decision to NEVER do business with your company, nor any of its subsidiaries. Your decision to utilize a means of advertising at the expense of consumers highlights the general business attitude your company has taken. Further emails to me will only reinforce this opinion, and quite possibly trigger a public effort, on my part, to make known to as many consumers as possible, via the internet, and any other means available to me, that your company is taking part in illegal activities (email advertising) at the expense of the very customers you are trying to do business with."
I send this to as many spam adverts as I can. I simply cut and paste the exact same reply. And NOT to the address contained in the advert. I look up the SALES dept. address and send it to THEM. In EVERY instance I have done this, the mails stopped.
I honestly feel that the only thing that is going to bring the United States back to control by the people, for the people, is a complete breakdown of the existing system. It has become too corrupt and manipulated to ever be "righted" again.
Because of the Internet and various other means of "free speech", that complete breakdown can still happen. Once we lose the ability to communicate en masse, our chances at ever gaining "freedom" again will be lost.
The "War on Terrorism", as explained by those in power, is a hoax. It is simply a means devised by those in power to retain and spread that power. I am just waiting for them to make some huge mistake that really opens the eyes of Americans. I thought Iraq would do that, but the spin-meisters managed to keep it together so far.
But thats just my opinion.
I once read a comment from a Ford designer regarding the Pinto. He stated that it was DESIGNED to only last 5 years. Yet I still see them on the road.......albeit, in pretty bad shape most of the time.
My point is that it was designed, by the company that made it, to only last a certain amount of time. Why? Obviously, to sell the consumer another car in 5 years.
I work with automotive computer systems and I see it first hand all the time. I will cite the most frequent example I see.
Mercedes uses Bosch components in its computer controlled systems and fuel injection systems. I cannot state how many times I have had a customer come in with a "check engine" light on (in various models) only to hook up a scanner to pull trouble codes only to find NONE. Yet the car runs like crap, the light comes back on after being reset and the customer is still not amused.
After diagnosing quite a few of these I now do one thing soon as I get in the car. I look at the odometer. If it has a little more then 60,000 miles on it(the warranty period has JUST expired), I can almost ASSURE you the cause of the problem. A "faulty" Mass Air Flow Sensor.
Why can I say this? Because Bosch, and more then likely Mercedes, have designed and installed a component with a "desired" life span of just over 60,000 miles.
The reason for this is money (sales). The device fails (parameters within spec, no trouble codes set)in such a way that standard trouble shooting procedures will not locate the problem. The "average" independant shop then refers the customer to the dealership(Mercedes)thus assuring the dealership (and thus Mercedes) of the repair sales AND the replacement sensor. And ALWAYS after the warranty has run out.
It got to the point that we kept several "known good" sensors of various part numbers around the shop to simply install one and see if the problem went away. It usually did. The dealership, having a parts department, foregoes standard diagnosis and simply throws a new sensor at it. They then charge you for a "full diagnostic scan and testing".
So, not only have they found a way to charge you to replace the part, but to charge you for service to diagnose it as well. This repair, by the way, if done at the dealership, usually costs the consumer about $750-1000, parts and "labor". This also has the added benefit of making the dealership "look good" in the eyes of the consumer because they were able to fix it and the independant was unable to. Thus, the consumer returns to the vastly more expensive dealer when something else goes wrong.
Planned obsolescence is a reality. Even supposedly "well made" products are subject to this. Simply look up the "reliability" rating for autos and you will see that Mercedes sucketh quite badly in that department. They figure that if people can shell out 60k+ for a Benz, they can shell out $350 + "labor" for a new sensor every 60k miles.
They only cure for this is to research products and their reliability before buying them. Eventually, when sales slumps, they will curtail the practice to some extent (again, I cite Ford here. In the 70's Ford had a HORRIBLE reliability record and suffered heavy sales declines because of it. They changed their ways. At least until the last decade. They are doing it again........)
The idea, while novel, is not new. The idea of a "100 knot Torpedo" has been around for awhile. The idea was to basically blow compressed air through a nozzle in the nose of the torpedo enveloping the torpedo in a "shroud" of air, as opposed to water, thus drastically reducing drag resulting from moving through the water.
The idea, when applied to a ship, has nothing to do with bouyancy(although it would certainly effect it) but rather reducing drag by displacing the water around the hull with air. While impossible to entirely remove the contact with water, even small decreases will reduce drag enough to make the whole idea worthwhile in terms of fuel consumption.
The problem with BOTH ideas is the interference with propulsion. A propeller does not work as efficiently in the same mass of air bubbles. Unless some means of keeping the prop out of the bubble cloud is devised, the resulting loss of propulsion will offset the gains made by the reduction of drag. This is the main reason the "100 knot Torpedo" is not used.
As far as noise reduction in submarine warfare, it is NOT quieter. Its simply different. It is akin to a propeller "cavitating", and in submarine warfare, that is like sending up a signal flare.
Last I heard, a 10% market share was not considered a "win". Ok, ok. I see that the reference was not just to home PCs. But where is most of the money spent by consumers of computer products going to? Windows-based home PCs and software. I don't call that a "win" in any sense of the word.
Microsofts grip remains as firm as it has ever been in those markets.
When my rating went from Insightful to Troll in the span of one response (the topic was rather political in nature), I decided to entirely ignore the "rating" system. Considering the fact that moderators are people, it became obvious to me that it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to keep their own points of view from effecting their decisions.
It sounds like an excellent idea until you take into account the fact that most people think they have more important things to do.
It is a pretty sad affair when you look at the lengths people will go to just to be relieved of Jury Duty. Alot of people simply think they don't have to do it because there are other people that will.
I sat on a rape trial for 5 weeks(unpaid by my employer) and it was a real financial hardship. While I am an idealist, and still think the jury system is the way to go, I can assure you I will not be sitting on any more juries willingly.
Another flaw is the "wrench in the works" aspect. All it would take is ONE person to make intentional mistakes to require recounts. If done sufficiently, and enough, it can effectively undermine the citizens faith in the whole process. The tactic of attempting to cast doubt on a count has brought about many expensive and time consuming recounts in MANY elections, some, to the point that there was actually a different result(winner) after all the recounts.
Obfuscation! Foul! Foul, I say!
If indeed, some manipulation of the voting process is occuring, it is completely rediculous to assume an open-bid process would be able to subvert that manipulation. I find it hard to believe that would occur when such things as Haliburton receiving contracts with NO bidding process are taking place.
Even if it(an open-bid process) did occur, all the miscreants would have to do is create SEVERAL companies that produce voting machines to create the IMPRESSION that it was a fair process. If you think that is not possible as a tactic, my only repsponse would have to be that at one time I did not think it possible to steal a presidency by vote manipulation.
More to the point, in response to your post, I think your missing the point. This is not a discussion about republicans tampering with voting machines, and thus, elections. It is a discussion about the fact that ANYONE could be doing it. It is a discussion about the fact that there is evidence to assert that Diebold is making product that can be used to rig votes.
Simply put, Diebold is leading the country to believe the technology is foolproof, when, in fact, it is far from. And until the technology is PROVEN to be foolproof, we should not be relying on it to put our politicians into office.
Sure, many inferences to the corruption surrounding the 2000 election are being made(even by myself), it is only being cited as evidence against trusting our democracy to unproven(and quite possibly, corrupt) technology.
.........SexSurfer logs in to begin his daily search of the web to find more images to rip in an effort to increase his database of porn images, utilizing this technology, only to find that most of the images consist of naked women with political statements printed on their asses......
Seriously now, I am sure their are people out there that have already got ideas rolling around in their heads about how they can use this technology to hijack images to their advantage. Once somebody understands how the technology works it is only a matter of time before it is used for nefarious purposes, by means of "tricking" the technology. And in the process, invalidating any possible means by which the developers can realize a return on their investments.
Personally, I'd love to use such a technology(if it actually works) to sift through the plethora of "crap" images I have to search through on the web. It can be really frustrating to do a search only to find that a vast amount of the results are TOTALLY out of context simply because of the title tag attached.
I think its rather amusing to see people posting here and essentially shooting themselves in the face just like Diebold has with its demands.
I can honestly say that this is one instance where I think it is in the best interest of people that are trying to discount the validity of the issue(and the documentary) to simply shut up. Silence can be deadly or golden.
The phrase "Any publicity is good publicity" simply doesn't apply here. Unless, of course, you happen to be HBO.
The New York Times and The Washington Post are the LAST places I would look for reviews of a documentary that criticizes the tools of the current administration. Both are notorious for "selective" journalism.
Its my honest opinion that ANY mainstream news outlet is suspect. Both the NYT and TWP are reliant on politicians/insiders for "scoops" and because of that, have an inherent interest in "serving" them to some extent.
As I said in another post, watch the show, do your OWN research and come to your OWN conclusions. Do NOT let others decide for you the validity of the ISSUE. The content may be skewed, but the whole premise of the show is to bring to the forefront of the american consciousness the idea that maybe, just maybe, the idea of voting in a manner that gives someone the ability to control elections is POSSIBLE.
The "prevailing tone" that you refer to (and yes, I am well aware of it) is a product of the prevailing evidence that it IS one party responsible.
I'll say what you are reluctant to voice yourself. The republicans stole the presidency. Why do I say that? Because the democrats LOST. If the democrats won and it was indicated that they used nefarious means to do so, I assure you, the "prevailing tone" here in these forums, and elsewhere, would be quite different.
Criticizing the "prevailing tone" is akin to criticising a majority vote. You certainly have the right to do so. Thats the beauty of free speech. But criticizing someone for being a part of that majority is rediculous. They are but a small part of that majority.
You cannot be a "sore loser"(which I think you are referring to those responsible for this "prevailing tone" as being) if you won.
"Pretty much pregnant"? Attacking the phrasing I used is needless. I made my point. To be honest, I did not "like" either candidate.
In response to the link you included, I never once stated that nobody else has an interest in rigging votes. I was NOT taking political sides here. A democrat is just as "able" to resort to such means as a republican. Your link merely backs up my assertion that vote tampering/harvesting is taking place. Thanks.
As far as the results in Florida being in question, have you actually researched that? I am not touting it as being "THE" truth, but the documentary "Farenheit 9/11" certainly raises questions about the validity of that race and the results of it. I research issues for my OWN benefit, NOT to persuade people to change their own opinions. If you look at my statements, you may notice that I suggest that readers view the show and then do their OWN research. I do NOT direct them to any information specifically, as that can be construed as biased information based on the idea that it was "provided"(such as the link you provided).
But I'll humor you. http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
The gist of my post was to point out that people need to inform themselves. In order to do so, one must have access to information. The documentary in question is simply that. It is not incontrovertable, thus my suggestion to follow up with research into the issue. Your statement that "just because the can, does not mean they are..." is besides the point. The simple fact that they CAN, is, in itself, sufficient justification to question the whole premise of e-voting.
Looking back to an election that was pretty much STOLEN (by the Bush brothers and a cousin, just to mention a few), one has to wonder just how it was pulled off. Just HOW IN THE HELL do you successfully pull the wool over the eyes of 300 million people?
Easy. Manipulate the tools in which we have based our democracy, most importantly, voting. A huge portion of the votes tabulated in Florida were done so on Diebold voting machines. Since then, their use has become much more prevalent. I my home state, there are 11 counties using their machines for voting, including my own. I don't like it one bit.
Now I ask you this, If they were successful in taking a presidency illegally, wouldn't they want to protect the tools by which they did so? If not to keep stealing elections, but, at the VERY least, to hide the facts surrounding previous use of such means? That is exactly what Diebold is doing. Protecting their current tools of manipulation while preventing the public from questioning the past uses.
If your current state of mind prevents you from questioning the validity of the claims made in the show, just do a little research into Diebold. I did so. It took a surprisingly short amount of time to find apparent "conflict of interest" regarding Diebold. And its not just Diebold but Sequoia as well.
Watch the show, then do your own research. America and our Democracy are being stolen right out from under us. THAT doesn't surprise me that much, to be honest. What really surprises me is the transparency in which it is being done. Are we, as a nation, really that gullible?
Thats absurd.
So your saying that making things EASY TO DO, for their existing customers is a BAD thing? I see NO reason why MS should resort to the same "handicapped" distribution methods that the Firefox is pretty much stuck with.
If Firefox had the means to offer FF2.0 to users of FF1.5 as an "update", they more then likely would offer that OPTION.
Seeing as how I use this machine primarily for gaming, I use windows XP Home.
When it was announced that IE7 was available for download, I did so. It installed well, transferred all my previous IE6 settings/preferences without fail and, in general, performed reasonably well. As with any new product it does have some aspects I am not too happy about. My biggest gripe is the delays in loading pages the "Phishing filter" causes. I got to the point that I was disabling it when viewing pages that I already trusted.
Not long after, Firefox 2.0 was released. I viewed the changes made and wasn't surprised to see that, on the surface, pretty much ALL of the "new" aspects of FF2.0 are included in IE7. I waited a few days and then began reading reviews of FF2.0. I then compared them to reviews of IE7. VERY surprisingly, I was beginning to see that FF2.0 wasn't all that it was purported to be. Even in the area of stability, it seems it was lacking.
So why use FF2.0? To be blunt, I see no reason to do so.
But thats not the basis of this thread. The "update" method of "offering" IE7 is the issue. Since I downloaded IE7 and had it installed already I assumed that I was done. So it came to me as a bit of a surprise when Windows Update informed me that one of the updates was actually an installation of IE7. Umm, I already have it. Why would I want to download it again? I saw no reason to do so. Just out of curiosity, I did it anyways.
I really couldnt tell any difference at first glance. But as I used it more I noticed a difference. The "Phishing Filter" no longer slowed my browsing to dial-up speeds. So basically, my biggest complaint about the browser had been "patched".
In short, with the release of IE7 via download, I think Microsoft rushed out a browser to beat Firefox2.0 out of the gates, while it still had some shortcomings. The "update" release was basically, as far as I can tell, just a means to release IE7 to the public (in a manner that pretty much assures that Windows users are aware of it being available) while at the same time "patching" the previously downloaded browser.
As far as being "force-fed", I see NO evidence of it being so. BOTH times I installed it, I had the choice not to. I fail to see where its shoved down your throat.
As far as my choice between FF2.0 and IE7, I simply went with what worked best. When it boils down to it, thats all that really matters to me. If FF2.0 fixes the problems in a timely manner, like MS appears to be doing with its product, then maybe I will change my mind.
As a location to advertise, Slashdot would probably be the WORST place to try and sell something this blatently useless. It did elicit a few giggles from me though, and thus, is indelibly etched in my consciousness, so it at the very least it raised some "product awareness".
.......Nor is it really the running. Its the impacts.
Getting your skull cracked is probably THE best way to reinforce, in the mind of a child, the whole idea of LOOKING where you are running. I don't know how many times I have seen some pretty spectacular kiddie collisions on the playground, usually the result of Dodgeball game A overlapping into Tag game B, cause some pretty good hurtin'.
But the real issue is that we are raising our kids to be pampered, padded and ill-equiped to deal with NORMAL activities, such as running through the park without braining some poor little ol' lady on her way to her bridge game.
We are subverting the whole premise of "survival of the fittest" and allowing our kids to be less and less capable of the demands we put on them as adults, later in life.
I used to play Ultima Online before Origin was devoured by EA. The first thing EA did with the game after aquiring it was to make a nifty little EA intro/advert screen that popped up on login. Everyone just "Esc" keyed past it.
The SECOND thing they did was to remove the ability to "Esc" past it. You had to sit through 20 secs of advertising for the company that you were already sending cash to every month. This, all long before they even tried to improve the actual game
Shows where the real priorties lie in the minds of those with the keg tap in hand..........
The problem with your proposal is determining which posts "earn" one the right to the next tier.
I have seen all too often forum posters that seem to have this grandious opinion of themselves (apparent in the writings they post) simply because they have posted a large NUMBER of posts. One can often go back and see that the posts are just witty comments of no real consequence. Just ALOT of them. The grading system of posts has a moderating effect, but it can still be abused simply by posting alot. After all, the grading sytem doesn't really afford "negative" scores (scores that would actually drag DOWN ones standing). Alot of "1" scores still does NOT tell you whether or not the posts had any real value.
Not to mention that maybe there are "lurkers" out there that are, for the most part, non-posters. But who is to say that, maybe, this guy/gal just came up with some brilliant idea that he/she choose to speak up about this ONE time. Because they don't post often, their "brilliant idea" is relegated to a location that is, by and large, ignored by the upper-caste crowd.
Tiered posting is, in my honest opinion, a move towards "elitism" in a medium that should NOT be limiting the free exchange of ideas.