While I can't blame him for being realistic, how about promising me something a little more exciting like iPod headphones without the 'phone' part, just plug them directly into my ear?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you already plug them directly into your ear.
An interesting question is, WHY should gamers switch to linux/Mac?
Because very few people are solely a gamer or an artist or a business user. For a very large number of people, Linux or Mac OS are the OS best suited for them--unless they are also avid gamers (such that games become a secondary, but real, barrier between them and their ideal OS).
So that leaves us with a number of gamers who want to switch but are discouraged by the (relative) lack of games.
THAT'S why (some) gamers might want to switch to Mac or Linux.
Anyway, just my thoughts. I see no real reason why people should be encouraged to move away from Win/x86 just to play games, other than the usual 'Bill Gates is satan' reasons.
While there is no overwhelming reason to switch from Windows to play games, there are plenty of reasons to switch from Windows in general, and many people already have (or have never ran Windows at home to begin with).
The game industry already ports games to Mac (about 1 in 4 top tier games), and Linux (every now and then), but they could do a lot more. The demand is there, please don't advocate against it.
for all you lazy cats that keep flooding the front page with nonesense "WHERE DO I FIND X PIECE OF SOFTWARE?!?" it's called
google.com, www.freshmeat.net, and sourceforge.net. quit being lazy and find it yourself damnit~!
And for all you crotchety old coots who keep flooding stories with "WHY IS THIS ON SLASHDOT?!?" it's called community. These sorts of articles are one of the many types that make slashdot worth reading. A lot of people will have looked for Linux map/trip planning software years ago and given up, not finding any, or may not have even thought about it. Either way, this story will help them.
There are also a lot of Windows and Mac users who might have this image of Linux being an OS with like ten billion open source programs, all of them useless. This story might pique their interest.
Maybe there is no such program, or there is but it's a dilapidated project. This might bring attention to someone who both wants the program bad enough to help write it and is capable of doing so.
Anyway, these are a few reasons why these ask slashdot posts are worth having. Community is a good and useful thing. Maybe it's not for you?
What they will not tell you is that not only is it their fault (meaning both parties) that there are still problems, but that they have a vested interest in making sure the problems are not fixed.
Democrats have been fighting electronic voting machines and stupid ballot laws for the past four years. Repulicans have been blatently fighting against people's right to vote.
Sure, both parties benefit from a rigged system, but the two parties aren't treating the issue equivalently.
It's like saying both Bush and Clinton lied, so that's that. Except Bush lied to take us into a war, Clinton lied about sex.
It's this phoney "objectivity" that's led to such an apathetic and cynical populace.
The ballot is the paper trail. When you do a recount, you've got to count the physical ballots. With the electronic machines, you have nothing to count.
Of course both can be corrupted, but it's a lot harder to fake a few thousand ballots than it is to fake any number in the voting machine you want.
Run the voting machines like ATMs. This problem has been solved decades ago. There's no excuse for not doing this with our voting machines.
Next, if you vote for a third party canidate you are actually voting for president.
Literally, yes. But you aren't actually voting under that subset of the whole system that votes for the actual President.
Just because they don't have a chance in hell of winning shouldn't matter.
Only if you don't want to win. I covered this already when I said that if you don't mind not winning (ie: that the two main candidates are sufficiently identical to you), then maybe a third party vote is for you.
I'm not trying to talk anyone out of voting for a so-called third party candidate. What I am trying to point out is that a third party vote is not a vote for President so much as a vote of no confidence in the entire system.
If you really believe you are voting for President, next time you are at a restaurant that sells Coke, ask for a Pepsi.
You'll get a Coke.
The reason is is that although you can ask for it, it's not an actual choice. Now, you will possibly have some effect on the owner and maybe he'll stock Pepsi, but probably not. He doesn't really care about 1 or 2 Pepsi drinkers.
Yes, that was actually my point. We won't see instant gratification by voting third party. It will take several elections to force the point being made. Meanwhile the third party canidates would/should gain traction in the system and items might start to ballance out.
And it's my point, so perhaps our points are the same. If your third party vote is primarily to get the other two parties to change (this is not a bad thing, as I've already said), then it's not really for President. Sure, you might fantasize about Badnarik/Nader/Cobb/etc winning, but you know it's actually impossible this election.
I imagine you are having difficulty with my use of phrases like, "you aren't voting for President" and "it's impossible for a third party candidate to win", because technically those phrases are incorrect. But their meaning is true. It's like pitting Screech against Bruce Lee (he's alive for this thought experiment). Technically Screech could win, but it's not going to happen.
That doesn't mean there aren't other reasons to fight Bruce Lee (or run for President), it's just not for the most obvious goal.
I'm not sure i would agree with everything a third party canidate represents just as i wouldn't with the republicans or democrates. Idealy i would like to see the best of all parties combined into a dream canidate. Unfortunatly seeing how most of the issues i support are based off my opinions on right and wrong or how life should be, they may differ from everyone elses and they would be unlikly to agree on everything too.
This is another issue. For a lot of "progressives" (Liberals), Kerry is pretty good, except that he's not quite perfect. But then, isn't third party candidate X also flawed? Etc. No matter who you vote for, there's compromise. Not all compromise is the same, of course, so you have to decide for yourself. One thing to keep in mind though is that voting third party is not some pristine thing so much as a point on a scale. Do the benefits of voting for third party candidate X outweigh the loss in not voting for the lesser of two evils? Maybe yes, maybe no, but imagine a 2000 Gore Presidency? I don't blame Nader or his supporters, but it is a valid consequence to keep in mind.
Do you vote for Kerry, hoping to give him a mandate to strengthen his Presidency against a Republican Congress (not to mention a wide enough margin to offset any tomfoolery)? Do you vote Nader to give Kerry notice that being better than Bush is not a blank check? Do you go for the icky-feeling compromise, or the game of chicken? Or something else?
The problem here is, i don't see a better system.... If you know a what changes need to be made that don't have any other concequences then i would like to hear them.
I can't believe how much you apparently grossly misunderstand this issue.
This is a POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SITE for a POLITICAL CANDIDATE.
The site shows how the guy operates. He has no qualms with secrecy. I don't like that, so I'll complain about it.
You're acting like this is supposed to be some sort of "smoking gun" issue. It's not, it's just yet another example of Bush secrecy.
This is not whitehouse.gov, or any other US government site.
You are confusing the issue again. I never said it was a government web site, but it is a part of our electoral process and therefore should serve the people. If it doesn't, his campaign shouldn't be taken seriously. Sadly this isn't the case.
You might claim that he has no obligation to actually make an effort to serve the people, to be open, or anything like that, and I agree. Just don't ask me to say anything nice about such a bastard. In this case, it's not just some random jerk, it's the President. I don't know about you, but I prefer a President who is open and works for the people.
And Ralph Nader's site probably will get the same amount of traffic, in sum total, than Bush's site gets in a day, or likely even a matter of hours. So that argument is also BS.
Again, you miss the point. Your problem is that you have no standards (at least on this issue). Seriously. Just because someone is allowed to do something, does not mean it's good. That's what people are bitching about.
Regarding Nader, his site is open, and he has limited cash--the cost for his site is more of a burden than an akamai'd site is for Bush. Of the two candidates, Nader has a more valid "business" reason to limit his site than Bush, but it's Bush who limits it. That says a lot about the people involved. That's why it's newsworthy.
Way to conflate extremists in with those who think that governments should be open.
The US is not a business. Saving cash shouldn't be the primary concern. More important is serving the people, and that requires (among other things) effort beyond the bare minimum to be open and accessible.
The idea that Bush is running low on cash and trying to save up is ludicrous. Ralph Nader's site isn't blocked, and he sure doesn't have the same cash reserve.
The issue for me is that this shows that Bush doesn't really care about openness (as evidenced all throughout his Presidency). This is a very bad trait for a US President as far as I'm concerned.
Your way of treating this as some whack-o conspiracy theory is disgusting. What we are in essence saying is that Bush is not an open President--not that somehow this is subtle but undeniable proof that he's planning to declare martial law on Nov. 3rd in preparation for the draft to ready the sneak attack against Mexico.
You are taking the same revolting tact as Limbaugh. Someone makes a valid complaint, and he (you) pretend that they are claiming the end is nigh, belittle the point (which is often valid) and provide a tremendous disservice to the public good.
People aften don't see the "other benefits" involved with voting your concience instead of the lessor of two evils likley to win.
If you are talking about me, you are 100% wrong. I fully understand and appreciate the benefits of voting for the best, but no-chance-in-hell, candidate. But if you vote for that person, you are not voting for President. If you don't mind giving up your presidential vote (ie: both main candidates are equal enough from your point of view), then vote your conscious, just don't pretend you are actually voting for President. What you are really doing is voting to shift the political spectrum towards your candidate.
After all it kinda borders contemp to the will of the american people (or atleast a minority of them)
Yes. The system is flawed. Fix the system! Acting as though the system is not flawed is stupid (no offense--I'm not saying you're stupid, but the idea itself is).
I think if we go against the "waisted vote" mindset, the proccess would actually change without the need for voting reform.
This is wrong. The system is geared towards two parties. Yes you can have a legitimate three-way race under our current system, but its very design actively supports a return to two parties (this has already happened in the US over the years).
The repiblicans had incorperated alot of his position into the 2000 platform making bush a lot more attractive as a canidate. It doesn't look like he followed thru with alot of them (lipservice) but it was effective.
You just argued against your point. The parties will make lip-service to the principled parties, but they won't follow through. That's because they don't have to actually fear losing to a third party. The Democrats fear losing to the Republicans more than they fear losing to Nader, so they are going to go for the Republican vote. That's why Kerry is not taking the Nader anti-war stance, he's taking the Bush, "let's kick their ass" stance. That's because he can win more votes from Bush supporters than all of the Nader voters combined.
Vote your conscious (whether your conscious demands idealism or a strategic vote). When the polls close, the work isn't over, it's just begun. That's when it's time to fix the system.
Kerry is 100% guaranteed to not fully satisfy the "progressive" (liberal, social, whatever) voter and Bush is 100% guaranteed notto fully satisfy the "conservative" (reactionary, "family values") voter, but those are the two choices. Does that seem right? That's the way it's always going to be, with the random variation, unless the system is geared not toward mediocrity, but towards true democracy and true, principled, choice.
The presidency is not a horse race. The winner is not a foregone conclusion with voters "placing bets". Your vote decides the outcome. If you and your friends and their friends vote for Badnarik, then he will win,
I wish that were true, but it isn't.
While it is true that if most people voted for Nader or Cobb or Badnarik, or whoever, that person would win, but the system is designed in such a way (either intentionally or not) that it makes it harder for a third party candidate to win, even if that person would win based on everyone voting their true preference.
just as assuredly as Kerry would win if you vote for him or Bush if you vote for him. If you don't vote for what you believe, you'll never get what you want. It's not as if Bush/Kerry is going to pay more attention to what you say since you voted for him - he'll just be laughing all the way to the White House.
You are right, but that illustrates my point. In order to vote for the "spoiler" (which is to say, of the three people, you would have voted for your #2 choice, but instead are voting for #1), you have to accept the possibility that your vote will have the effect of actually helping your last choice pick win the election.
In essence, you are no longer voting for President, you are voting against President. If choices 2 and 3 are so similar that you don't mind the getting choice 3, or if the polls are so overwhelming for one of the candidates, then chosing your #1 pick can make sense, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you are actually voting for President. To do so helps justify and reinforce the system.
It's true that you are throwing away your vote (for President) if you vote for Badnarik (because you know he can't win), or if you vote for Kerry or Bush, but really don't like your choice (because you are then no longer voting for who you really want for President). If you make either compromise, then the real battle should be for election reform, to enable a system where a vote for your ideal candidate and your "strategic" vote don't have to be at odds.
Nader tried to build a third party, but a three party system is unstable in the way our elections function. You'll inevitably end up with two parties again (even if they aren't the original two parties). He is doing a great service (as did Perot in '92) in making it far more difficult to believe the system currently serves the people. Perhaps through their, others, and our own, efforts, we'll move to a more democratic Presidential election, and for once have real choice.
If you RTFA, you'll see pictures of her with her RIAA mask removed, showing her worm-like scarred and totured face, finally able to hear music with her own ears once again after so long.
No one finds it really odd that suddenly she writes an article supporting the CC? What's in it for her? What is the underlying motive?
Maybe she is trying to subvert the CC from within?
Maybe she just wasn't the evil cunt her job forced her to be? We have designed out institutions such that when otherwise good people try to do good and become successful, they find themselves increasingly faced with having to compromise their ethics.
Now that she's out, perhaps her soul is no longer distorted by her job, and she's trying to regain her lost innocence and idealism by making a feeble attempt at a moral act?
Kerry's record in this regard is awful. But so is Bush's. So, I guess that leaves us with Badnarik who has all rhetoric and no record.
And no chance of winning, so he's not really a choice, even if he's on the ballot.
No matter how much we'd all like it to be so, without voting reform (specifically, something like Instant Run-off Voting, but there are other options), it's a two party, two choice, system for President. Vote accordingly then fight to change the way the system works.
On the grounds that Notepad is a Win32 app primarily designed to run under GNU/Linux's competitor, I'll concede that, but I certainly wouldn't suggest that this means that WindowMaker is suddenly part of Linux, any more than the native Linux Unreal Tournament or OpenOffice are parts of Linux.
Again, I never said that any of these products are Linux. This is also a side issue. Linux is a kernel, it's an OS, it's a community, etc. In at least one of those senses, Window Maker is a part of Linux (the OS distribution).
But that's not what I'm really concerned with. All I'm saying is that Window Maker is a part of the Linux category in computing. Yes it is part of the BSD category, and conversely, you can use Linux and never touch Window Maker (or even install it). It's just that it's rational to discuss Window Maker under the general category of "Linux". I'm not saying it's the best classification by any means, just that it's a reasonable one.
Would you say that, for example, Mozilla should be discussed as "Windows" given it's an integral part of many people's Windows experiences, and is, in many corporations, part of the standard operating system roll-out?
If instead of "should", you had said, "can", I'd say absolutely. If the story is about Mozilla replacing IE under Windows in the business, it would make sense to put it under the Windows category. But Mozilla is not as closely identified with Windows as Window Maker is with Linux (and before you get on this again, I'm not saying that Window Maker and Linux are closely tied, just that there's a reasonable relationship).
I quoted the ad-hominem, an attack on me and not my argument. ... So: I'm an "annoying geek", with a "big character flaw" whose argument can be dismissed because I'm the kind person who'd take something that was "reasonable" and "extend(-) it to absurdity".
That is not "ad hominem" as regards the fallacy. To be the ad hominem fallacy, my argument must rest on that. For example, had I said, "Your argument is false because you are an annoying geek" would be ad hominem.
I don't know if you are an annoying geek (although I'm starting to get an idea (laugh, that was a joke)) or that you have that particular character flaw, but that it is a flaw that is manifest in many of the "geek" type, and it's generally annoying as hell.
And at no point did you successfully demonstrate a flaw, you merely claimed that Linux was a fine category for this to be in whereas YRO and Games are not, backing up the latter points but with a notable absense of justification for it being under Linux in the first place.
I suggest you read my original post. I said it's a reasonable (I used the words "isn't an illogical category", I hope it's clear that I meant it in the "reasonable" sense, and not the "it follows the infallable and strict rules of logic" sense) category. I even made the point that it's not the only category.
Are you seriously trying to claim that both the "Games" and the "Linux" categories are equally suitable for this Window Maker story? Maybe an analogy would do here. If we were talking about a coffee table, would it be equally absurd to put it into the "Living Room" category as the "Games" category because a coffee table can both be used in the living room as well as you can play games on it? Why, a den advocate might ask, focus on the living room when many a den has a coffee table?
If this story was about games in some way, such as games that use Window Maker for the UI, or a new X Box shell that uses Window Maker, or a game that is bundled with a Window Maker download, etc, "Games" would be a reasonable category. But this story was not about games, it was about a new release of Window Maker. So of all the available categories, "Linux" is a reasonable one (and I've never said that it was the best one), while "Games" and "YRO" are not reasonable at all.
Look, WTF does WindowMaker have to do with Linux? You haven't explained that beyond stupid "Well, duh, it runs under Linux". Yes it does run under Linux, but it's not specifically a Linux application.
What you are missing completely is the relationship between wmaker and Linux. They are more closely related, than say, notepad.exe and Linux (which you claim is an equal comparison, given that notepad.exe can be run under WINE under X11 under Linux).
I never said that wmaker is equal to Linux. It is a standard part of a Linux distribution (which notepad is not), it is an integral part of many people's Linux experience (which notepad is not) and it is run more often under Linux (this is a reasonable guess, I could be wrong) than under any other OS (notepad is not).
What I'm claiming is, that under the general category of Linux, it's reasonable to include a discussion about Window Maker.
I've tried to explain as clearly as possible why your argument seems completely irrational to the rest of us. You've responded with ad-hominems and with a complete absense of explaination. I think you're trolling.
I didn't engage in ad hominem. I suggest you study the term. It means that my argument is predicated on an attack against you, and not your argument. I illuminated the flaw in your argument, which is that the absurdity is exactly equal to the non-absurdity.
If you carefully re-read my original post, you'll see that I said that a discussion on Window Maker is reasonably placed under the general "Linux" category of discussions, and that it's a fuzzy (ie: non-exact) categorization. Of course you can be more precise (I *never* claimed the categorization was precise) and say it's an X11 discussion, or a Window Manager discussion. Once you get so precise, then the purpose of categories becomes useless. You're just calling everything its own category (this story is under the "Halo will ship on X" category, etc). So you have to treat the issue reasonably.
Is it reasonable to talk about Window Maker under the category of Linux? Sure. Is it precise? Not at all. Is there a better category? Of course. But this isn't some high moral offense, and it's within the realm of reason, unlike your stance that "the absuridity is exactly equal to the reasonable".
I know, it's stretching it, but it's equally stretching it to argue that the appropriate place for this is the Linux section.
It's not equal at all, except in an irrational, binary, you-completely-missed-the-nuance way. Of all the possible Slashdot categories, Linux is a logical one. I believe there's an X11 category which to me seems even more appropriate. Hell, there might even be a Window Maker one. The Games and YRO categories are not reasonable, unless the story is specifically about Games or YRO aspect of wmaker (ie: some new Window Maker based game console or Longhorn now uses Window Maker for its WM but MS doesn't release the code, etc.).
The editors have to pick a category. Timothy picked one that is reasonable, contrary to the opinion of the guy who I was replying to.
Or is this the new policy? Do we now submit anything that might have a vague connection to Linux ("Well, I guess Mozilla runs under Linux"
This is a big character flaw in the standard annoying geek. They take something that's reasonable, and extend it to absurdity to make the claim that the reasonable example is also absurd.
A new release of Window Maker is not exactly linux news.
But it exactly is Linux news. It's news that is related to Linux, and of interest to many Linux users.
That doesn't mean it's not also X11 news, and Mac OS X news, and Cygwin/X news, and AIX news, etc, but they have to pick a category, and "Linux" isn't an illogical category to choose. It's not like they picked YRO, or Games or something.
Window Maker can run on pretty much any platform which runs X.
And Linux is used as a general catch-all category for the Unixey platforms that run X. A bit fuzzy? Sure. Is that too confusing for you?
Slashdot Mirror
While I can't blame him for being realistic, how about promising me something a little more exciting like iPod headphones without the 'phone' part, just plug them directly into my ear?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you already plug them directly into your ear.
At least, you're supposed to.
An interesting question is, WHY should gamers switch to linux/Mac?
Because very few people are solely a gamer or an artist or a business user. For a very large number of people, Linux or Mac OS are the OS best suited for them--unless they are also avid gamers (such that games become a secondary, but real, barrier between them and their ideal OS).
So that leaves us with a number of gamers who want to switch but are discouraged by the (relative) lack of games.
THAT'S why (some) gamers might want to switch to Mac or Linux.
Anyway, just my thoughts. I see no real reason why people should be encouraged to move away from Win/x86 just to play games, other than the usual 'Bill Gates is satan' reasons.
While there is no overwhelming reason to switch from Windows to play games, there are plenty of reasons to switch from Windows in general, and many people already have (or have never ran Windows at home to begin with).
The game industry already ports games to Mac (about 1 in 4 top tier games), and Linux (every now and then), but they could do a lot more. The demand is there, please don't advocate against it.
A 20% increase in vocabulary performance could be quite beneficial in a number of occupations.
Such as President?
You know, this might help explain the mysterious lump...
for all you lazy cats that keep flooding the front page with nonesense "WHERE DO I FIND X PIECE OF SOFTWARE?!?" it's called
google.com, www.freshmeat.net, and sourceforge.net. quit being lazy and find it yourself damnit~!
And for all you crotchety old coots who keep flooding stories with "WHY IS THIS ON SLASHDOT?!?" it's called community. These sorts of articles are one of the many types that make slashdot worth reading. A lot of people will have looked for Linux map/trip planning software years ago and given up, not finding any, or may not have even thought about it. Either way, this story will help them.
There are also a lot of Windows and Mac users who might have this image of Linux being an OS with like ten billion open source programs, all of them useless. This story might pique their interest.
Maybe there is no such program, or there is but it's a dilapidated project. This might bring attention to someone who both wants the program bad enough to help write it and is capable of doing so.
Anyway, these are a few reasons why these ask slashdot posts are worth having. Community is a good and useful thing. Maybe it's not for you?
Just as generals always "plan to win the last war" the polls are showing methods designed to win the last election.
They are only polling the Supreme Court justices?
Yeah, it'd be great. You'd just sort of slowly and gently touch down on the ground...
Or about 20 feet from the ground you'd flip up and over, and slam into the ground at about 80 mph.
It'd be the MS Windows of parachutes.
The entire point of the article is to piss off everyone using any of those distros.
Ah, a HURD user.
I was going to make a +5 Funny post about how George W. Bush is keeping us safe, but the subject is just too horrible.
The war on terror is not meant to be won, it's meant to be an excuse for any atrocity.
How can anyone think this is justified? It's sick.
What they will not tell you is that not only is it their fault (meaning both parties) that there are still problems, but that they have a vested interest in making sure the problems are not fixed.
Democrats have been fighting electronic voting machines and stupid ballot laws for the past four years. Repulicans have been blatently fighting against people's right to vote.
Sure, both parties benefit from a rigged system, but the two parties aren't treating the issue equivalently.
It's like saying both Bush and Clinton lied, so that's that. Except Bush lied to take us into a war, Clinton lied about sex.
It's this phoney "objectivity" that's led to such an apathetic and cynical populace.
The ballot is the paper trail. When you do a recount, you've got to count the physical ballots. With the electronic machines, you have nothing to count.
Of course both can be corrupted, but it's a lot harder to fake a few thousand ballots than it is to fake any number in the voting machine you want.
Run the voting machines like ATMs. This problem has been solved decades ago. There's no excuse for not doing this with our voting machines.
Next, if you vote for a third party canidate you are actually voting for president.
... If you know a what changes need to be made that don't have any other concequences then i would like to hear them.
Literally, yes. But you aren't actually voting under that subset of the whole system that votes for the actual President.
Just because they don't have a chance in hell of winning shouldn't matter.
Only if you don't want to win. I covered this already when I said that if you don't mind not winning (ie: that the two main candidates are sufficiently identical to you), then maybe a third party vote is for you.
I'm not trying to talk anyone out of voting for a so-called third party candidate. What I am trying to point out is that a third party vote is not a vote for President so much as a vote of no confidence in the entire system.
If you really believe you are voting for President, next time you are at a restaurant that sells Coke, ask for a Pepsi.
You'll get a Coke.
The reason is is that although you can ask for it, it's not an actual choice. Now, you will possibly have some effect on the owner and maybe he'll stock Pepsi, but probably not. He doesn't really care about 1 or 2 Pepsi drinkers.
Yes, that was actually my point. We won't see instant gratification by voting third party. It will take several elections to force the point being made. Meanwhile the third party canidates would/should gain traction in the system and items might start to ballance out.
And it's my point, so perhaps our points are the same. If your third party vote is primarily to get the other two parties to change (this is not a bad thing, as I've already said), then it's not really for President. Sure, you might fantasize about Badnarik/Nader/Cobb/etc winning, but you know it's actually impossible this election.
I imagine you are having difficulty with my use of phrases like, "you aren't voting for President" and "it's impossible for a third party candidate to win", because technically those phrases are incorrect. But their meaning is true. It's like pitting Screech against Bruce Lee (he's alive for this thought experiment). Technically Screech could win, but it's not going to happen.
That doesn't mean there aren't other reasons to fight Bruce Lee (or run for President), it's just not for the most obvious goal.
I'm not sure i would agree with everything a third party canidate represents just as i wouldn't with the republicans or democrates. Idealy i would like to see the best of all parties combined into a dream canidate. Unfortunatly seeing how most of the issues i support are based off my opinions on right and wrong or how life should be, they may differ from everyone elses and they would be unlikly to agree on everything too.
This is another issue. For a lot of "progressives" (Liberals), Kerry is pretty good, except that he's not quite perfect. But then, isn't third party candidate X also flawed? Etc. No matter who you vote for, there's compromise. Not all compromise is the same, of course, so you have to decide for yourself. One thing to keep in mind though is that voting third party is not some pristine thing so much as a point on a scale. Do the benefits of voting for third party candidate X outweigh the loss in not voting for the lesser of two evils? Maybe yes, maybe no, but imagine a 2000 Gore Presidency? I don't blame Nader or his supporters, but it is a valid consequence to keep in mind.
Do you vote for Kerry, hoping to give him a mandate to strengthen his Presidency against a Republican Congress (not to mention a wide enough margin to offset any tomfoolery)? Do you vote Nader to give Kerry notice that being better than Bush is not a blank check? Do you go for the icky-feeling compromise, or the game of chicken? Or something else?
The problem here is, i don't see a better system.
I don't have the answer
I can't believe how much you apparently grossly misunderstand this issue.
This is a POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SITE for a POLITICAL CANDIDATE.
The site shows how the guy operates. He has no qualms with secrecy. I don't like that, so I'll complain about it.
You're acting like this is supposed to be some sort of "smoking gun" issue. It's not, it's just yet another example of Bush secrecy.
This is not whitehouse.gov, or any other US government site.
You are confusing the issue again. I never said it was a government web site, but it is a part of our electoral process and therefore should serve the people. If it doesn't, his campaign shouldn't be taken seriously. Sadly this isn't the case.
You might claim that he has no obligation to actually make an effort to serve the people, to be open, or anything like that, and I agree. Just don't ask me to say anything nice about such a bastard. In this case, it's not just some random jerk, it's the President. I don't know about you, but I prefer a President who is open and works for the people.
And Ralph Nader's site probably will get the same amount of traffic, in sum total, than Bush's site gets in a day, or likely even a matter of hours. So that argument is also BS.
Again, you miss the point. Your problem is that you have no standards (at least on this issue). Seriously. Just because someone is allowed to do something, does not mean it's good. That's what people are bitching about.
Regarding Nader, his site is open, and he has limited cash--the cost for his site is more of a burden than an akamai'd site is for Bush. Of the two candidates, Nader has a more valid "business" reason to limit his site than Bush, but it's Bush who limits it. That says a lot about the people involved. That's why it's newsworthy.
Way to conflate extremists in with those who think that governments should be open.
The US is not a business. Saving cash shouldn't be the primary concern. More important is serving the people, and that requires (among other things) effort beyond the bare minimum to be open and accessible.
The idea that Bush is running low on cash and trying to save up is ludicrous. Ralph Nader's site isn't blocked, and he sure doesn't have the same cash reserve.
The issue for me is that this shows that Bush doesn't really care about openness (as evidenced all throughout his Presidency). This is a very bad trait for a US President as far as I'm concerned.
Your way of treating this as some whack-o conspiracy theory is disgusting. What we are in essence saying is that Bush is not an open President--not that somehow this is subtle but undeniable proof that he's planning to declare martial law on Nov. 3rd in preparation for the draft to ready the sneak attack against Mexico.
You are taking the same revolting tact as Limbaugh. Someone makes a valid complaint, and he (you) pretend that they are claiming the end is nigh, belittle the point (which is often valid) and provide a tremendous disservice to the public good.
People aften don't see the "other benefits" involved with voting your concience instead of the lessor of two evils likley to win.
If you are talking about me, you are 100% wrong. I fully understand and appreciate the benefits of voting for the best, but no-chance-in-hell, candidate. But if you vote for that person, you are not voting for President. If you don't mind giving up your presidential vote (ie: both main candidates are equal enough from your point of view), then vote your conscious, just don't pretend you are actually voting for President. What you are really doing is voting to shift the political spectrum towards your candidate.
After all it kinda borders contemp to the will of the american people (or atleast a minority of them)
Yes. The system is flawed. Fix the system! Acting as though the system is not flawed is stupid (no offense--I'm not saying you're stupid, but the idea itself is).
I think if we go against the "waisted vote" mindset, the proccess would actually change without the need for voting reform.
This is wrong. The system is geared towards two parties. Yes you can have a legitimate three-way race under our current system, but its very design actively supports a return to two parties (this has already happened in the US over the years).
The repiblicans had incorperated alot of his position into the 2000 platform making bush a lot more attractive as a canidate. It doesn't look like he followed thru with alot of them (lipservice) but it was effective.
You just argued against your point. The parties will make lip-service to the principled parties, but they won't follow through. That's because they don't have to actually fear losing to a third party. The Democrats fear losing to the Republicans more than they fear losing to Nader, so they are going to go for the Republican vote. That's why Kerry is not taking the Nader anti-war stance, he's taking the Bush, "let's kick their ass" stance. That's because he can win more votes from Bush supporters than all of the Nader voters combined.
Vote your conscious (whether your conscious demands idealism or a strategic vote). When the polls close, the work isn't over, it's just begun. That's when it's time to fix the system.
Kerry is 100% guaranteed to not fully satisfy the "progressive" (liberal, social, whatever) voter and Bush is 100% guaranteed notto fully satisfy the "conservative" (reactionary, "family values") voter, but those are the two choices. Does that seem right? That's the way it's always going to be, with the random variation, unless the system is geared not toward mediocrity, but towards true democracy and true, principled, choice.
The presidency is not a horse race. The winner is not a foregone conclusion with voters "placing bets". Your vote decides the outcome. If you and your friends and their friends vote for Badnarik, then he will win,
I wish that were true, but it isn't.
While it is true that if most people voted for Nader or Cobb or Badnarik, or whoever, that person would win, but the system is designed in such a way (either intentionally or not) that it makes it harder for a third party candidate to win, even if that person would win based on everyone voting their true preference.
just as assuredly as Kerry would win if you vote for him or Bush if you vote for him. If you don't vote for what you believe, you'll never get what you want. It's not as if Bush/Kerry is going to pay more attention to what you say since you voted for him - he'll just be laughing all the way to the White House.
You are right, but that illustrates my point. In order to vote for the "spoiler" (which is to say, of the three people, you would have voted for your #2 choice, but instead are voting for #1), you have to accept the possibility that your vote will have the effect of actually helping your last choice pick win the election.
In essence, you are no longer voting for President, you are voting against President. If choices 2 and 3 are so similar that you don't mind the getting choice 3, or if the polls are so overwhelming for one of the candidates, then chosing your #1 pick can make sense, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you are actually voting for President. To do so helps justify and reinforce the system.
It's true that you are throwing away your vote (for President) if you vote for Badnarik (because you know he can't win), or if you vote for Kerry or Bush, but really don't like your choice (because you are then no longer voting for who you really want for President). If you make either compromise, then the real battle should be for election reform, to enable a system where a vote for your ideal candidate and your "strategic" vote don't have to be at odds.
Nader tried to build a third party, but a three party system is unstable in the way our elections function. You'll inevitably end up with two parties again (even if they aren't the original two parties). He is doing a great service (as did Perot in '92) in making it far more difficult to believe the system currently serves the people. Perhaps through their, others, and our own, efforts, we'll move to a more democratic Presidential election, and for once have real choice.
PS You want Condorcet, not IRV.
Probably. IRV was just an example.
Welcome, Hilary! You're on the good side now! :-)
If you RTFA, you'll see pictures of her with her RIAA mask removed, showing her worm-like scarred and totured face, finally able to hear music with her own ears once again after so long.
No one finds it really odd that suddenly she writes an article supporting the CC? What's in it for her? What is the underlying motive?
Maybe she is trying to subvert the CC from within?
Maybe she just wasn't the evil cunt her job forced her to be? We have designed out institutions such that when otherwise good people try to do good and become successful, they find themselves increasingly faced with having to compromise their ethics.
Now that she's out, perhaps her soul is no longer distorted by her job, and she's trying to regain her lost innocence and idealism by making a feeble attempt at a moral act?
Kerry's record in this regard is awful. But so is Bush's. So, I guess that leaves us with Badnarik who has all rhetoric and no record.
And no chance of winning, so he's not really a choice, even if he's on the ballot.
No matter how much we'd all like it to be so, without voting reform (specifically, something like Instant Run-off Voting, but there are other options), it's a two party, two choice, system for President. Vote accordingly then fight to change the way the system works.
Thanks for making America look "enlightened" by comparison. It's kind of rare these days.
You kind of overdid it with Howard though. You didn't have to re-elect him just for us.
On the grounds that Notepad is a Win32 app primarily designed to run under GNU/Linux's competitor, I'll concede that, but I certainly wouldn't suggest that this means that WindowMaker is suddenly part of Linux, any more than the native Linux Unreal Tournament or OpenOffice are parts of Linux.
Again, I never said that any of these products are Linux. This is also a side issue. Linux is a kernel, it's an OS, it's a community, etc. In at least one of those senses, Window Maker is a part of Linux (the OS distribution).
But that's not what I'm really concerned with. All I'm saying is that Window Maker is a part of the Linux category in computing. Yes it is part of the BSD category, and conversely, you can use Linux and never touch Window Maker (or even install it). It's just that it's rational to discuss Window Maker under the general category of "Linux". I'm not saying it's the best classification by any means, just that it's a reasonable one.
Would you say that, for example, Mozilla should be discussed as "Windows" given it's an integral part of many people's Windows experiences, and is, in many corporations, part of the standard operating system roll-out?
If instead of "should", you had said, "can", I'd say absolutely. If the story is about Mozilla replacing IE under Windows in the business, it would make sense to put it under the Windows category. But Mozilla is not as closely identified with Windows as Window Maker is with Linux (and before you get on this again, I'm not saying that Window Maker and Linux are closely tied, just that there's a reasonable relationship).
I quoted the ad-hominem, an attack on me and not my argument.
...
So: I'm an "annoying geek", with a "big character flaw" whose argument can be dismissed because I'm the kind person who'd take something that was "reasonable" and "extend(-) it to absurdity".
That is not "ad hominem" as regards the fallacy. To be the ad hominem fallacy, my argument must rest on that. For example, had I said, "Your argument is false because you are an annoying geek" would be ad hominem.
I don't know if you are an annoying geek (although I'm starting to get an idea (laugh, that was a joke)) or that you have that particular character flaw, but that it is a flaw that is manifest in many of the "geek" type, and it's generally annoying as hell.
And at no point did you successfully demonstrate a flaw, you merely claimed that Linux was a fine category for this to be in whereas YRO and Games are not, backing up the latter points but with a notable absense of justification for it being under Linux in the first place.
I suggest you read my original post. I said it's a reasonable (I used the words "isn't an illogical category", I hope it's clear that I meant it in the "reasonable" sense, and not the "it follows the infallable and strict rules of logic" sense) category. I even made the point that it's not the only category.
Are you seriously trying to claim that both the "Games" and the "Linux" categories are equally suitable for this Window Maker story? Maybe an analogy would do here. If we were talking about a coffee table, would it be equally absurd to put it into the "Living Room" category as the "Games" category because a coffee table can both be used in the living room as well as you can play games on it? Why, a den advocate might ask, focus on the living room when many a den has a coffee table?
If this story was about games in some way, such as games that use Window Maker for the UI, or a new X Box shell that uses Window Maker, or a game that is bundled with a Window Maker download, etc, "Games" would be a reasonable category. But this story was not about games, it was about a new release of Window Maker. So of all the available categories, "Linux" is a reasonable one (and I've never said that it was the best one), while "Games" and "YRO" are not reasonable at all.
How can you completely miss this point?
I'm glad you're s
Look, WTF does WindowMaker have to do with Linux? You haven't explained that beyond stupid "Well, duh, it runs under Linux". Yes it does run under Linux, but it's not specifically a Linux application.
What you are missing completely is the relationship between wmaker and Linux. They are more closely related, than say, notepad.exe and Linux (which you claim is an equal comparison, given that notepad.exe can be run under WINE under X11 under Linux).
I never said that wmaker is equal to Linux. It is a standard part of a Linux distribution (which notepad is not), it is an integral part of many people's Linux experience (which notepad is not) and it is run more often under Linux (this is a reasonable guess, I could be wrong) than under any other OS (notepad is not).
What I'm claiming is, that under the general category of Linux, it's reasonable to include a discussion about Window Maker.
I've tried to explain as clearly as possible why your argument seems completely irrational to the rest of us. You've responded with ad-hominems and with a complete absense of explaination. I think you're trolling.
I didn't engage in ad hominem. I suggest you study the term. It means that my argument is predicated on an attack against you, and not your argument. I illuminated the flaw in your argument, which is that the absurdity is exactly equal to the non-absurdity.
If you carefully re-read my original post, you'll see that I said that a discussion on Window Maker is reasonably placed under the general "Linux" category of discussions, and that it's a fuzzy (ie: non-exact) categorization. Of course you can be more precise (I *never* claimed the categorization was precise) and say it's an X11 discussion, or a Window Manager discussion. Once you get so precise, then the purpose of categories becomes useless. You're just calling everything its own category (this story is under the "Halo will ship on X" category, etc). So you have to treat the issue reasonably.
Is it reasonable to talk about Window Maker under the category of Linux? Sure. Is it precise? Not at all. Is there a better category? Of course. But this isn't some high moral offense, and it's within the realm of reason, unlike your stance that "the absuridity is exactly equal to the reasonable".
I know, it's stretching it, but it's equally stretching it to argue that the appropriate place for this is the Linux section.
It's not equal at all, except in an irrational, binary, you-completely-missed-the-nuance way. Of all the possible Slashdot categories, Linux is a logical one. I believe there's an X11 category which to me seems even more appropriate. Hell, there might even be a Window Maker one. The Games and YRO categories are not reasonable, unless the story is specifically about Games or YRO aspect of wmaker (ie: some new Window Maker based game console or Longhorn now uses Window Maker for its WM but MS doesn't release the code, etc.).
The editors have to pick a category. Timothy picked one that is reasonable, contrary to the opinion of the guy who I was replying to.
Or is this the new policy? Do we now submit anything that might have a vague connection to Linux ("Well, I guess Mozilla runs under Linux"
This is a big character flaw in the standard annoying geek. They take something that's reasonable, and extend it to absurdity to make the claim that the reasonable example is also absurd.
It'll be a cold day in hell when I buy Wired.
Bad timing for you then. Reports are that hell froze over last year when Apple released iTunes for Windows.
Too bad the CD wasn't available then. Maybe with all this weird weather we're having, who knows?
The Internet: Proof that a million monkeys with keyboards won't produce the complete works of Shakespeare.
:-)
The Complete Works of Shakespeare
Yeah, I know.
A new release of Window Maker is not exactly linux news.
But it exactly is Linux news. It's news that is related to Linux, and of interest to many Linux users.
That doesn't mean it's not also X11 news, and Mac OS X news, and Cygwin/X news, and AIX news, etc, but they have to pick a category, and "Linux" isn't an illogical category to choose. It's not like they picked YRO, or Games or something.
Window Maker can run on pretty much any platform which runs X.
And Linux is used as a general catch-all category for the Unixey platforms that run X. A bit fuzzy? Sure. Is that too confusing for you?