Bill Clinton received only 43.0% of the vote in 1992, and only 49.2% in 1996. Bush's 48.1% in 2000 beats Clinton's first-time, and Bush will probably break 51% next week against Kerry. Woodrow Wilson, even on the brink of WWI, only received 49.3% of the popular vote, and he won four years before that with only 41.9% of the vote. And Abe Lincoln won with less than 40% of the vote!
The crap about being unpopular doesn't hold any water, because history proves that being popular and doing the job well are mutually exclusive.
The crap about losing the debates doesn't hold any water because that is pure, unbridled opinion. Not to mention that Bush's numbers have been steadily rising since the second debate when the consensus media opinion is that Bush not only held his own, but won back his majority support in the polls.
And by the way, if you're so convinced that Kerry is more qualified than Bush based on any objective standard, then why not actually list a few. I couldn't help but notice that, in a post full of subjectivity, you didn't actually list any objective reasons for your disdain for Bush.
So is that evolution, in the sense that spreading our kind is good for us and therefore good for our ideas and ideals about life and the universe? Or is it devolution, in the sense that spreading our kind like a cancer of the universe is slowly killing the galactic environment much like the paranoid among us think we're doing to this planet?
I'm more inclined to believe that our paranoia over our destructive habits on our own planet are overblown. Our actions aren't that significant, and the solar climate has its own cycles that have huge effects on our planet's climate. But anyway...
This swing state group says on their web site that the election of 2004 will be the closest presidential election in history. How about this for blatant rebuking: WRONG.
I'm sorry, but I know that it's possible, but I can't imagine that anyone would say the very next election would be even closer than the previous election when the two major candidates received 48.3% and 48.1% of the popular vote, and 50.4% and 49.4% of the electoral vote. It just isn't that likely.
But even ignoring 2000... Kennedy defeated Nixon in 1960 with 49.7% of the vote, compared to Nixon's 49.6%. You want a pissed off America, imagine that type of split today with the electoral vote count that Kennedy enjoyed in 1960 -- he was neck and neck with Nixon in popular votes, but destroyed him in the electoral college with a 303-219 victory.
If you want a really close presidential election, look back to 1800 when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied at 73, or to 1876 when Rutherford Hayes defeated Samuel Tilden 185 to 184. Those were close elections, and this one won't compare to those.
And... besides... Bush will easily receive 50% of the popular vote this time, whether I like it or not.
The main reason why the "put the paper in the box" ballot methodology is no more secure than electronic ballots is that it is impossible to verify that voters vote no more than once. For instance, suppose an unruly citizen comes in and grabs a stack of paper ballots, fills out a dozen of them, then grabs the ballot box and throws his dozens of votes in the air along with hundreds of others from his voting precinct. Is it a huge deal if one person does it? No. Is it likely? No. But it is a concern, and there are many more ways than this obvious, silly example to multiply your voting opportunities with paper ballots.
So first you say your opinions are you own, and then you speak on behalf of an entire industry without even consulting the entire industry, but rather by inappropriately sampling from what could easily be a loud minority of it. Your "opinion" is based entirely on an irratonal assumptions, like the assumption that the minions of techies with anything to say on the subject aren't just echoing the first witty thing that some random tech writer had to say about it.
I read nothing substantive at all in your letter to Cleland, and I imagine he won't either.
So I guess the line "First Mars, then: THE WORLD!" doesn't quite fit here.
But what does come after Mars? The potentially lively moons of Jupiter? Saturn? Uranus? Neptune? You know, because walking on Neptune is so critical for the continuation of our species.
I keep reading a bunch of "definitions" of cybersquatting relying solely on the intent to sell a domain name back to its intended owner, but there's more to it than that according to US law:
According to the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, cybersquatting is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad-faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else.
Yes, intent to profit has a lot to do with it, but bad-faith intent is all that's necessary for such activity to be considered cyber-squatting. Punishments are only much worse for those intending to profit from it. Besides, since when is profit limited to money? The additional attention via registering your political opponent's namesake domain name allows extra persuasion of voters, and that's a profit... or else, what is your definition of profit?
My understanding of cybersquatting is that, in order to fit that label, you must intentionally acquire a domain name that is obviously intended to (mis)represent someone else (individual or organization). In this case, a politician is knowingly purchasing domain names -- with public money, no less! -- that is specifically intended to (mis)represent opposing candidates.
You will not catch me verbally supporting or voting for any candidate who uses my taxdollars to purchase someone else's domain name and use it against them.
If your store is going out of business and you want to make some quick cash on your all-but-lost inventory, bundle it all up and sell it on eBay! The millions of hits via the Slashdot effect are guaranteed to land quite a few suckers willing to pay thousands of dollars!
Well, think of it this way: are political campaigs won by legitimate efforts to inform the public, or by schoolyard scare tactics? I have always voted in favor of legitimate efforts to reveal the truth, but I'm no sucker; I know scare tactics are much more persuasive than the boring, honest truth.
If Democrats can win with arguments about Republicans trying to steal your social security and/or welfare money... If Republicans can win with arguments about Democrats trying to tax you to death and take God out of your life... If environmentalists can win with arguments that we're killing the planet no matter what we do... we all lose.
I'm all but convinced that Reuters would rather have us believe anything that supports an environmentalist agenda than the truth, if said truth went against said agenda.
Correlation doesn't mean a thing if you can't prove that the factor in question was the only cause of the result. An entire planets climatic tendencies are much too complicated to assume that one thing caused another without consideration of the uncountably many other changes that have taken place all the while. You're not a scientist, are you?
Of course scientists caution this would have to continue for at least a couple more years to be a trend or anything to get excited about.
Well of course! Because we can't have people thinking that good news about the environment is actually good, or else people might actually get the idea that our lives really don't affect the environment at all, and environmentalists might actually have to find real work! Oh the shame of real, honest work...
I am both astonished and ashamed...
on
Star Wars TV Show
·
· Score: 1
Why?! Why on earth...? Why should anyone ever clarify that Kevin Smith is Silent Bob, and even further clarify that Silent Bob is from the "clerks series"?! That should be universally accepted as one of those things that earn the line, "Dude, if you don't know, I'm not telling."
When I first read this headline, I thought it meant there were 11,000 words on the DVD itself (or within the DVD package). Then I read the caption and, well, it made more sense. But I was much more excited when I initially thought that Lucas & Co. had written a ton of stuff for Star Wars fanatics to enjoy... or hate, whatever.
Actually, NEVER preface any thought with "I feel...", because feeling relies on emotion rather than rationale. Use "I think..." or something like it instead.
I know tons of LOTR fans already know the release date, but I hadn't bothered to look yet since I was waiting on announcements about this specific edition. So for those not in the know, the Extended Edition of Return of the King will be available December 14.
Now if only they would move that last weird sequence of scenes -- everything after Frodo and Sam are saved from Mount Doom -- to the end of the credits, then I would feel like I have watched a single, massive, coherent movie.
As it stands, the last 20 minutes really irk me. The silly laughing and and slow motion and curtain-call-like greetings are way overdone, such that they do not belong within the context of the actual movie... in my opinion.
If you are receiving this email, you should be ashamed of yourself. For days, then weeks, then months, then years... I awaited to hear from you, and you never called! Not once. I left messages. I offered you a drink or a dinner here and there. All I wanted was someone to talk to, someone to confide in.
Well my gig's up, and for your lack of concern for my well-being, I have only one thing to offer you for the rest of the miserable days of your human lifetime: if there is an afterlife, rest assured that I will expense every fiber of my being haunting your sorry ass.
Therefore, if I do not haunt you and make the rest of your days in misery, live in fear of death for the rest of your life knowing that your consciousness, your existence, your everything will be wiped clean and you will be forever lost to oblivion soon after you breathe your last breath.
We've celebrated the radio, television, microwave oven, wireless telephones, and now wireless internet... among countless other devices controlled or manipulated by transmitting data through electromagnetic waves.
My question: what health effects (defects?) will this have on us, our children, and the rest of the world as electromagnetic waves that have historically been absent from our planet's atmosphere continue to saturate our lives?
Slashdot Mirror
Bill Clinton received only 43.0% of the vote in 1992, and only 49.2% in 1996. Bush's 48.1% in 2000 beats Clinton's first-time, and Bush will probably break 51% next week against Kerry. Woodrow Wilson, even on the brink of WWI, only received 49.3% of the popular vote, and he won four years before that with only 41.9% of the vote. And Abe Lincoln won with less than 40% of the vote!
The crap about being unpopular doesn't hold any water, because history proves that being popular and doing the job well are mutually exclusive.
The crap about losing the debates doesn't hold any water because that is pure, unbridled opinion. Not to mention that Bush's numbers have been steadily rising since the second debate when the consensus media opinion is that Bush not only held his own, but won back his majority support in the polls.
And by the way, if you're so convinced that Kerry is more qualified than Bush based on any objective standard, then why not actually list a few. I couldn't help but notice that, in a post full of subjectivity, you didn't actually list any objective reasons for your disdain for Bush.
So is that evolution, in the sense that spreading our kind is good for us and therefore good for our ideas and ideals about life and the universe? Or is it devolution, in the sense that spreading our kind like a cancer of the universe is slowly killing the galactic environment much like the paranoid among us think we're doing to this planet?
I'm more inclined to believe that our paranoia over our destructive habits on our own planet are overblown. Our actions aren't that significant, and the solar climate has its own cycles that have huge effects on our planet's climate. But anyway...
This swing state group says on their web site that the election of 2004 will be the closest presidential election in history. How about this for blatant rebuking: WRONG.
I'm sorry, but I know that it's possible, but I can't imagine that anyone would say the very next election would be even closer than the previous election when the two major candidates received 48.3% and 48.1% of the popular vote, and 50.4% and 49.4% of the electoral vote. It just isn't that likely.
But even ignoring 2000... Kennedy defeated Nixon in 1960 with 49.7% of the vote, compared to Nixon's 49.6%. You want a pissed off America, imagine that type of split today with the electoral vote count that Kennedy enjoyed in 1960 -- he was neck and neck with Nixon in popular votes, but destroyed him in the electoral college with a 303-219 victory.
If you want a really close presidential election, look back to 1800 when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied at 73, or to 1876 when Rutherford Hayes defeated Samuel Tilden 185 to 184. Those were close elections, and this one won't compare to those.
And... besides... Bush will easily receive 50% of the popular vote this time, whether I like it or not.
The main reason why the "put the paper in the box" ballot methodology is no more secure than electronic ballots is that it is impossible to verify that voters vote no more than once. For instance, suppose an unruly citizen comes in and grabs a stack of paper ballots, fills out a dozen of them, then grabs the ballot box and throws his dozens of votes in the air along with hundreds of others from his voting precinct. Is it a huge deal if one person does it? No. Is it likely? No. But it is a concern, and there are many more ways than this obvious, silly example to multiply your voting opportunities with paper ballots.
So first you say your opinions are you own, and then you speak on behalf of an entire industry without even consulting the entire industry, but rather by inappropriately sampling from what could easily be a loud minority of it. Your "opinion" is based entirely on an irratonal assumptions, like the assumption that the minions of techies with anything to say on the subject aren't just echoing the first witty thing that some random tech writer had to say about it.
I read nothing substantive at all in your letter to Cleland, and I imagine he won't either.
So I guess the line "First Mars, then: THE WORLD!" doesn't quite fit here.
But what does come after Mars? The potentially lively moons of Jupiter? Saturn? Uranus? Neptune? You know, because walking on Neptune is so critical for the continuation of our species.
I keep reading a bunch of "definitions" of cybersquatting relying solely on the intent to sell a domain name back to its intended owner, but there's more to it than that according to US law:
According to the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, cybersquatting is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad-faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else.
Yes, intent to profit has a lot to do with it, but bad-faith intent is all that's necessary for such activity to be considered cyber-squatting. Punishments are only much worse for those intending to profit from it. Besides, since when is profit limited to money? The additional attention via registering your political opponent's namesake domain name allows extra persuasion of voters, and that's a profit... or else, what is your definition of profit?
My understanding of cybersquatting is that, in order to fit that label, you must intentionally acquire a domain name that is obviously intended to (mis)represent someone else (individual or organization). In this case, a politician is knowingly purchasing domain names -- with public money, no less! -- that is specifically intended to (mis)represent opposing candidates.
You will not catch me verbally supporting or voting for any candidate who uses my taxdollars to purchase someone else's domain name and use it against them.
If your store is going out of business and you want to make some quick cash on your all-but-lost inventory, bundle it all up and sell it on eBay! The millions of hits via the Slashdot effect are guaranteed to land quite a few suckers willing to pay thousands of dollars!
Selling your trash can add cash to your stash!
You just used the word "y'all" while complaining about intelligence. :)
Ah, right. I guess I missed it because of the way Yogurt said "soich", although I'm not sure why that would make me mistake the word for "quest"...
Evil? I thought you were talking about Nintendo.
Well, think of it this way: are political campaigs won by legitimate efforts to inform the public, or by schoolyard scare tactics? I have always voted in favor of legitimate efforts to reveal the truth, but I'm no sucker; I know scare tactics are much more persuasive than the boring, honest truth.
If Democrats can win with arguments about Republicans trying to steal your social security and/or welfare money... If Republicans can win with arguments about Democrats trying to tax you to death and take God out of your life... If environmentalists can win with arguments that we're killing the planet no matter what we do... we all lose.
I'm all but convinced that Reuters would rather have us believe anything that supports an environmentalist agenda than the truth, if said truth went against said agenda.
Correlation doesn't mean a thing if you can't prove that the factor in question was the only cause of the result. An entire planets climatic tendencies are much too complicated to assume that one thing caused another without consideration of the uncountably many other changes that have taken place all the while. You're not a scientist, are you?
Why?! Why on earth...? Why should anyone ever clarify that Kevin Smith is Silent Bob, and even further clarify that Silent Bob is from the "clerks series"?! That should be universally accepted as one of those things that earn the line, "Dude, if you don't know, I'm not telling."
Heheh, I said come.
For comedic effect, the best idea for a subtitle was first proposed by Yogurt himself some 18 years ago: Spaceballs 2: The Quest for More Money!
When I first read this headline, I thought it meant there were 11,000 words on the DVD itself (or within the DVD package). Then I read the caption and, well, it made more sense. But I was much more excited when I initially thought that Lucas & Co. had written a ton of stuff for Star Wars fanatics to enjoy... or hate, whatever.
Actually, NEVER preface any thought with "I feel...", because feeling relies on emotion rather than rationale. Use "I think..." or something like it instead.
I know tons of LOTR fans already know the release date, but I hadn't bothered to look yet since I was waiting on announcements about this specific edition. So for those not in the know, the Extended Edition of Return of the King will be available December 14.
Now if only they would move that last weird sequence of scenes -- everything after Frodo and Sam are saved from Mount Doom -- to the end of the credits, then I would feel like I have watched a single, massive, coherent movie.
As it stands, the last 20 minutes really irk me. The silly laughing and and slow motion and curtain-call-like greetings are way overdone, such that they do not belong within the context of the actual movie... in my opinion.
Dear Sir or Madame,
If you are receiving this email, you should be ashamed of yourself. For days, then weeks, then months, then years... I awaited to hear from you, and you never called! Not once. I left messages. I offered you a drink or a dinner here and there. All I wanted was someone to talk to, someone to confide in.
Well my gig's up, and for your lack of concern for my well-being, I have only one thing to offer you for the rest of the miserable days of your human lifetime: if there is an afterlife, rest assured that I will expense every fiber of my being haunting your sorry ass.
Therefore, if I do not haunt you and make the rest of your days in misery, live in fear of death for the rest of your life knowing that your consciousness, your existence, your everything will be wiped clean and you will be forever lost to oblivion soon after you breathe your last breath.
Yours,
[......]
I want to be the boss of the guy who is placed in the witness protection program and comes back a year later.
We've celebrated the radio, television, microwave oven, wireless telephones, and now wireless internet... among countless other devices controlled or manipulated by transmitting data through electromagnetic waves.
My question: what health effects (defects?) will this have on us, our children, and the rest of the world as electromagnetic waves that have historically been absent from our planet's atmosphere continue to saturate our lives?
Just curious.