Actually the grandparent poster has a point. When I lived and voted in Maryland, the previously-scanned ballots were just sitting in a cardboard box. It would have been rather easy for an election worker to say, "Hmmm... this guy voted for Joe Smith. I'm going to run the card through the machine a few more times," after I had left the building.
The GP is also correct when he says the existence of the paper ballots allows for a recount if foulplay is suspected. The same is not true for touchscreens.
>>>I've been an Elections Inspector in New York State for the last five years...
The last time I saw an Elections Inspector was on television while he appeared before the Florida Supreme Court. He walked into the room, confident that he knew all the answers, and would be able to explain why the Miami-Dade punchcard election machines were "guaranteed to produce accurate results" (his words).
He left the room visibly shaking, because the judges slowly-but-methodically tore apart his assumptions, presumptions, and outright false beliefs ("So you BELIEVE the machines are accurate. But how do you know?" "Uhhhh...I just do." "This report from the manufacturer states there's a 0.1% error rate, with upto 1% error rate when the machines are filled with chads. Isn't it possible the machines were full which led to uncounted votes?" "Uhhh.... I. Don't know.").
Ultimately they revealed that he knew nothing about the voting machines, and could not prove they were accurate. They then dismissed his testimony as worthless. He walked into the room presuming he knew his job. He walked out with the realization he doesn't.
Yes it is. The paper ballots most states used worked just fine. You take a pen, you draw a line next to your man, and then feed it into the central scanning machine which reads your mark. Easy. Efficient. And it left a paper trail that could be easily counted by hand, if necessary.
Yes Miami-Dade County's punchcard system was flawed, but *only* that place and a few others needed to be fixed. Most of the rest of the country has the scantron machines I described above, and worked just fine. I trusted the old paper ballot system. I no longer trust these e-voting machines, regardless of if they are run by Diebold or the Government.
One other thing - The *States* control voting, not the Congress. That's in the Supreme Law of the land. You'll have to amend the law via a 3/4 vote if you want to replace it with some kind of central control.
No it isn't "HD" but it does provide a nice clear DVD quality image (640x480) which is good enough for most people. Heck even blurry 320x240 ipod downloads are good enough, since most of what Hollywood makes is crap anyway. It might as well look as bad as it plays.
>>>We talk science, politics, computers, and all else..... I sometimes have my cleavage showing and wear makeup...
(looking down). I am intrigued by your "ideas". Please sign me up for your newsletter or blog.;-) Just joking.;-) Although I do like current feminine styles with Miley Cyrus, Emily Osment, and other young women showing lots of skin. It reminds me of the 70s styles, which is a fashion statement I fully support.
>>>it'll be a miracle if it's anywhere near as good as the original series.
That's what people said in 1987, 1988, and 1989 about Star Trek TNG, but it did eventually prove itself to be just as good as the original (and often times better like season 4). TNG eventually scored 12% of the American audience, equal to how many had watched the original in the 60s.
As for "The Prisoner" after years of hype by fans I finally watched it last year, and I was unimpressed. Yes it is an intelligently-written series, but there were a lot of moments where I wanted to reach for the fast-forward button because many of the middle episodes were excruciatingly dull.
Okay you can now mod -1 for me, since you disagree.;-)
I deeply apologize, but I have to be honest. I'd rather do one of those "Real Dolls" than do Pierce Brosnan's morbidly-obese wife - and while this is a free country, and if you want to commit suicide that's your choice, there is absolutely no way you can justify any of these as an "intelligent" choice. HERE'S THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH:
- Smoking is bad and destroys the lungs, causes high blood pressure, and premature skin aging
- Drinking is bad and destroys the liver, the kidney, causes high blood pressure, and even brain damage
- Overeating is bad and destroys the heart, the arteries, blocks bloodflow to the extremities, and causes brain damage.
>>>To me, there is a bit of talking involved in the whole "getting to the bed"-process, and someone who brings nothing to the table but appearances quickly looses my interest. >>>
True but their nude bedroom photos make a great addition to your c: drive porn collection!;-)
>>>Someone who claims to only like smart women is obviously rebelling from the widely held myth that a man will have sex with anything..... How do I know this? Because I used to say the same crap: "I only like smart girls." Took me years to realize that biology was oh so much more powerful than intellect or free will. >>>
Just keep repeating this mantra: - She looks great now, but she's going to get as fat as her mom. - She looks great now, but she's going to get as fat as her mom. - She looks great now, but she's going to get as fat as her mom.
A bucket of ice also helps.;-)
And really I do prefer smart girls. A woman wearing glasses and intently studying a book is a real turn on for me, because it means we can talk intelligently about stuff rather than the typical ditz response - "OMG she's wearing white after Labor Day!" I recall back in school I met 2 sorority girls at roughly the same time. One was shy but obviously intelligent; the other was intelligent too but talked like she was permanently drunk and/or partying. I chose the shy one because once she came out of her shell, she was great company and we had great conversations. The other one is still single and still a ditz.
>>>what happens between "ooookay" and "thank you. You are such a sweetie" gets quite nasty...
I don't have casual sex. All I really want is a chance to see the woman topless. If she shows me "the goodies" then I'll keep my end of the bargain, and take her out to dinner or a movie. Most women don't really have a problem being topless, once they get over their initial shyness.
Sometimes they'll do it and you don't even have to ask! I remember one time I was visiting a friend's room to copy her classnotes, and while I was there, her roommate walked-in wearing nothing but a towel. I apologized and said I'll leave and she said, "No it's okay." She then proceeded to get dressed in front of me. It was the first time I've ever seen a woman naked, and the memory is burned into my brain.
>>>This viewpoint is shortsighted to the max..... I've seen some people in their 30s or approaching 40s that look frozen at 25.
That's true. Rebecca Romeign (sp?) is an example of a great-looking 40-something. But eventually even she will lose her looks. Just imagine the last time you visited an old folk's home and said, "Boy I'd like to do that granny." Hasn't happened? Me neither. The point is that when I'm chatting-up some "hottie" I keep reminding myself that eventually, thanks to time she'll be an "ugly" just like me.
You need to look for personality, not looks. And also I like to avoid people with bad habits: - Smoking is bad and destroys the lungs, causes high blood pressure, and premature skin aging - Drinking is bad and destroys the liver, the kidney, causes high blood pressure, and even brain damage - Overeating is bad and destroys the heart, the arteries, blocks bloodflow to the extremities, and causes brain damage.
While this is a free country, and if you want to commit suicide that's your choice, there is absolutely no way you can justify any of these as an "intelligent" choice, and I consider that when choosing my mates.
I reviewed your google link, and it appears that it's just ONE study that showed these unusual results.
That's not enough to throw-out the literally millions of other studies which show being overweight is bad. QUOTE: "It's just rubbish," said Walter Willett, the professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. "It's just ludicrous to say there is no increased risk of mortality from being overweight." Such slightly-overweight patients may simply have deeper bodily reserves to draw on in times of medical crisis like surgery or Swine's Flu, not necessarily more healthy.
>>>Any male, twenty or over and somewhat attractive, who has ever had to spend time around high school girls can tell you that they get just as stupid around guys they think are hot.
Young teen or college-aged women who have a crush on you are fun to play with:
- "Hello... would you like to see a movie?" "Seriously???" - "Of course! Just one little catch." "Okay." - "You ever see those European beaches where the women go topless? I'd like you to do that for me, somewhere private of course." "Uhhhh...." - "Come on. Europeans do it all the time. It's no big deal." "ooookay." - "Thank you. You are such a sweetie." "(smiles)"
I want to add that anyone who thinks being fat is "okay" is being hypocritical, because these same persons don't tolerate smokers, or alcoholics, or druggies. Why? Because they know those things are bad for your health. Overeating is no different.
I used to get tongue-tied thinking I was unworthy of this gorgeous woman & becoming nervous & basically being an idiot. But now with advancing age I realize Beauty is only transitory. Today's "hottie" will probably be a "fatty" by the time she's 30 or 40 (see Pierce Brosnan's wife as an excellent example).*
In other words, they all get ugly eventually, just like me. So that gives me confidence.
- If it doesn't happen, the result could be disastrous for Sun, which reported last week that it lost $147 million in the April-June quarter as revenue dropped 31 percent. IBM and Hewlett-Packard Co. have been trying to stir up fears among Sun's customers about what Oracle's plans for the company might be. And those tactics may have worked. Sun's server market share fell 9 percent in the second quarter
- Oracle shares fell 27 cents, 1.2 percent, to $21.50 in afternoon trading. Sun shares fell 18 cents....
- A key reason the deal got done in the first place was because Oracle was seen as a safer suitor than IBM Corp., which also bid for Sun. IBM was viewed as a bigger antitrust risk because it and Sun overlap in the server and data-storage markets, but now SUN finds themselves being investigated anyway.
- Peter Alexiadis, a partner at the Brussels office of law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, said he was surprised that the EU was taking a different tack from the U.S. on the deal. "If ever there was a case for the U.S. and the EU seeing eye to eye, I would have imagined that this was an appropriate one," he said, "If the commission goes down the path of defining narrow database markets, they might be going down a path they may regret."
>>>Nobody on/. seems to mind when they take Microsoft to task
That's because Microsoft controls 90% of the OS market, and 85% of the web market, and 95% of the office productivity software market, and..... well you get the point. They SHOULD be investigated by both side of the Atlantic, and they were investigated by both sides, and still are under investigation. But Oracle/Sun is not doing anything worthy of anti-monopoly investigation. They're just merging - big deal. There are still tons of other competitors out there, like the aforementioned IBM. The EU's move to delay this merger another six months seems suspicious to me. Here's some more from the MSNBC article I quoted:
EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said regulators needed to examine whether customers could have fewer choices or see higher prices "when the world's biggest proprietary database company proposes to take over the world's leading open-source database company." The European Commission now has until Jan. 19 before it makes a final decision to clear the deal or block it.....
Oracle is the database leader with 37 percent of the overall market, followed by IBM Corp. and Microsoft Corp., according to the IDC research firm. MySQL, a Swedish company that Sun bought for $1 billion last year, is a tiny player, with just 0.2 percent market share, but is the reason European regulators are worried. The EU officials claim that MySQL, already popular among Web-based companies, will increasingly threaten Oracle's database software as it adds features and attracts more customers. The regulators questioned "Oracle's incentive to further develop MySQL as an open source database."
That last paragraph makes me suspect politics are in play - trying to protect an european company. Therefore anyone who claims the European Commission is "less beholden to corporations than their counterparts in the US" is just naive. They are controlled - by their own home companies.
This just in from MSNBC.com (1:06 p.m. ET, Thursday)
European Union regulators applied the brakes Thursday, launching a formal antitrust probe that shatters Oracle's goal of completing the acquisition this summer. The U.S. Department of Justice has already approved the deal.
Who here still thinks the European Commission is just a "neutral party" and not, to quote the summary, "seems to get off on abusing American firms"?
It seems odd how they are dragging their feet like this, especially after the U.S. DOJ already provided approval. We're just talking about the merger of two companies - why create an anti-monopoly investigation for that?
>>>European Commission is just slightly less beholden to corporations than their counterparts in the US.
Are they? When the European Daimler wanted to merge with Chrysler, the EU signed-off on the deal so fast my head spun. I'm sure others with more familiarity with EU politics could name other examples. The EU seems very proactive when it comes to their own home-grown corporations. So really they are no different than the U.S. government in that respect.
It would be a shame if Sun went under.
I have a friend who has a great job where he's only required to come to work on Tuesday/Thursday. The rest of the time he works from home in New Hampshire. Knowing his personality he'd probably go nuts (like me) if he had to dutifully sit in an office day-after-day like us other poor schlubs. The 1.5 hour commute to Boston would probably be zero fun as well.
Well if Gore can lay claim to "creating" the internet, then I'm going to make a bold public announcement. Reporters, please gather round:
- "During my service as a stockholder, I took the initiative in creating the Microsoft corporation. I bought their stock in 1983. You can all send your letters of thanks to my office."
I sometimes wonder if TV producer Bellisarius got the name "Quantum Leap" from Quantum Link. They certainly have the same "tone" to them.
As for charges, I was able to avoid them for the most post. There were plenty of free forums to chat with other people, and since it was nationwide the quality of the conversations was better than the local BBSes. The other stuff like games/newspapers didn't interest me, but it made sense you would have to pay for that content, just like we pay for it today (via advertisements).
BTW you can try Quantum Link yourself, and "feel" what it was like in the late 1980s, by going to this link. It takes maybe 15 minutes to setup the required software, and then you can start chatting with other people:
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the grandparent poster has a point. When I lived and voted in Maryland, the previously-scanned ballots were just sitting in a cardboard box. It would have been rather easy for an election worker to say, "Hmmm... this guy voted for Joe Smith. I'm going to run the card through the machine a few more times," after I had left the building.
The GP is also correct when he says the existence of the paper ballots allows for a recount if foulplay is suspected. The same is not true for touchscreens.
>>>I've been an Elections Inspector in New York State for the last five years...
The last time I saw an Elections Inspector was on television while he appeared before the Florida Supreme Court. He walked into the room, confident that he knew all the answers, and would be able to explain why the Miami-Dade punchcard election machines were "guaranteed to produce accurate results" (his words).
He left the room visibly shaking, because the judges slowly-but-methodically tore apart his assumptions, presumptions, and outright false beliefs ("So you BELIEVE the machines are accurate. But how do you know?" "Uhhhh...I just do." "This report from the manufacturer states there's a 0.1% error rate, with upto 1% error rate when the machines are filled with chads. Isn't it possible the machines were full which led to uncounted votes?" "Uhhh.... I. Don't know.").
Ultimately they revealed that he knew nothing about the voting machines, and could not prove they were accurate. They then dismissed his testimony as worthless. He walked into the room presuming he knew his job. He walked out with the realization he doesn't.
>>>e-voting is proven a bad idea.
Yes it is. The paper ballots most states used worked just fine. You take a pen, you draw a line next to your man, and then feed it into the central scanning machine which reads your mark. Easy. Efficient. And it left a paper trail that could be easily counted by hand, if necessary.
Yes Miami-Dade County's punchcard system was flawed, but *only* that place and a few others needed to be fixed. Most of the rest of the country has the scantron machines I described above, and worked just fine. I trusted the old paper ballot system. I no longer trust these e-voting machines, regardless of if they are run by Diebold or the Government.
One other thing - The *States* control voting, not the Congress. That's in the Supreme Law of the land. You'll have to amend the law via a 3/4 vote if you want to replace it with some kind of central control.
A less-messy solution is to amend the People's Constitution:
Amendment __ : "Strike the phase 'exclusive Right'. Replace with 'temporary privilege'."
How do you deal with that problem?
Cut off the head.
(aims sniper rifle)
No it isn't "HD" but it does provide a nice clear DVD quality image (640x480) which is good enough for most people. Heck even blurry 320x240 ipod downloads are good enough, since most of what Hollywood makes is crap anyway. It might as well look as bad as it plays.
>>>We talk science, politics, computers, and all else..... I sometimes have my cleavage showing and wear makeup...
(looking down). I am intrigued by your "ideas". Please sign me up for your newsletter or blog. ;-) Just joking. ;-) Although I do like current feminine styles with Miley Cyrus, Emily Osment, and other young women showing lots of skin. It reminds me of the 70s styles, which is a fashion statement I fully support.
>>>it'll be a miracle if it's anywhere near as good as the original series.
That's what people said in 1987, 1988, and 1989 about Star Trek TNG, but it did eventually prove itself to be just as good as the original (and often times better like season 4). TNG eventually scored 12% of the American audience, equal to how many had watched the original in the 60s.
As for "The Prisoner" after years of hype by fans I finally watched it last year, and I was unimpressed. Yes it is an intelligently-written series, but there were a lot of moments where I wanted to reach for the fast-forward button because many of the middle episodes were excruciatingly dull.
Okay you can now mod -1 for me, since you disagree. ;-)
I deeply apologize, but I have to be honest. I'd rather do one of those "Real Dolls" than do Pierce Brosnan's morbidly-obese wife - and while this is a free country, and if you want to commit suicide that's your choice, there is absolutely no way you can justify any of these as an "intelligent" choice. HERE'S THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH:
- Smoking is bad and destroys the lungs, causes high blood pressure, and premature skin aging
- Drinking is bad and destroys the liver, the kidney, causes high blood pressure, and even brain damage
- Overeating is bad and destroys the heart, the arteries, blocks bloodflow to the extremities, and causes brain damage.
>>>To me, there is a bit of talking involved in the whole "getting to the bed"-process, and someone who brings nothing to the table but appearances quickly looses my interest.
>>>
True but their nude bedroom photos make a great addition to your c: drive porn collection! ;-)
>>>Someone who claims to only like smart women is obviously rebelling from the widely held myth that a man will have sex with anything..... How do I know this? Because I used to say the same crap: "I only like smart girls." Took me years to realize that biology was oh so much more powerful than intellect or free will.
>>>
Just keep repeating this mantra:
- She looks great now, but she's going to get as fat as her mom.
- She looks great now, but she's going to get as fat as her mom.
- She looks great now, but she's going to get as fat as her mom.
A bucket of ice also helps. ;-)
And really I do prefer smart girls. A woman wearing glasses and intently studying a book is a real turn on for me, because it means we can talk intelligently about stuff rather than the typical ditz response - "OMG she's wearing white after Labor Day!" I recall back in school I met 2 sorority girls at roughly the same time. One was shy but obviously intelligent; the other was intelligent too but talked like she was permanently drunk and/or partying. I chose the shy one because once she came out of her shell, she was great company and we had great conversations. The other one is still single and still a ditz.
>>>what happens between "ooookay" and "thank you. You are such a sweetie" gets quite nasty...
I don't have casual sex. All I really want is a chance to see the woman topless. If she shows me "the goodies" then I'll keep my end of the bargain, and take her out to dinner or a movie. Most women don't really have a problem being topless, once they get over their initial shyness.
Sometimes they'll do it and you don't even have to ask! I remember one time I was visiting a friend's room to copy her classnotes, and while I was there, her roommate walked-in wearing nothing but a towel. I apologized and said I'll leave and she said, "No it's okay." She then proceeded to get dressed in front of me. It was the first time I've ever seen a woman naked, and the memory is burned into my brain.
>>>This viewpoint is shortsighted to the max..... I've seen some people in their 30s or approaching 40s that look frozen at 25.
That's true. Rebecca Romeign (sp?) is an example of a great-looking 40-something. But eventually even she will lose her looks. Just imagine the last time you visited an old folk's home and said, "Boy I'd like to do that granny." Hasn't happened? Me neither. The point is that when I'm chatting-up some "hottie" I keep reminding myself that eventually, thanks to time she'll be an "ugly" just like me.
You need to look for personality, not looks.
And also I like to avoid people with bad habits:
- Smoking is bad and destroys the lungs, causes high blood pressure, and premature skin aging
- Drinking is bad and destroys the liver, the kidney, causes high blood pressure, and even brain damage
- Overeating is bad and destroys the heart, the arteries, blocks bloodflow to the extremities, and causes brain damage.
While this is a free country, and if you want to commit suicide that's your choice, there is absolutely no way you can justify any of these as an "intelligent" choice, and I consider that when choosing my mates.
I reviewed your google link, and it appears that it's just ONE study that showed these unusual results.
That's not enough to throw-out the literally millions of other studies which show being overweight is bad. QUOTE: "It's just rubbish," said Walter Willett, the professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. "It's just ludicrous to say there is no increased risk of mortality from being overweight." Such slightly-overweight patients may simply have deeper bodily reserves to draw on in times of medical crisis like surgery or Swine's Flu, not necessarily more healthy.
You could just say, "A walking heart attack (or stroke) waiting to happen." (see my previous link with Pierce Brosnan's wife)
>>>evidence being slightly overweight is ok
Please show me evidence of this. I have my doubts health organizations would be saying BMI>25 (or even 23 in Japan) is bad if it were not true.
>>>Any male, twenty or over and somewhat attractive, who has ever had to spend time around high school girls can tell you that they get just as stupid around guys they think are hot.
Young teen or college-aged women who have a crush on you are fun to play with:
- "Hello... would you like to see a movie?" "Seriously???"
- "Of course! Just one little catch." "Okay."
- "You ever see those European beaches where the women go topless? I'd like you to do that for me, somewhere private of course." "Uhhhh...."
- "Come on. Europeans do it all the time. It's no big deal." "ooookay."
- "Thank you. You are such a sweetie." "(smiles)"
P.S.
I want to add that anyone who thinks being fat is "okay" is being hypocritical, because these same persons don't tolerate smokers, or alcoholics, or druggies. Why? Because they know those things are bad for your health. Overeating is no different.
I used to get tongue-tied thinking I was unworthy of this gorgeous woman & becoming nervous & basically being an idiot. But now with advancing age I realize Beauty is only transitory. Today's "hottie" will probably be a "fatty" by the time she's 30 or 40 (see Pierce Brosnan's wife as an excellent example).*
In other words, they all get ugly eventually, just like me. So that gives me confidence.
*
* http://www.beforeandaftermarriage.com/celebrity/fat-keely-shaye-smith
Other things worthy of note:
- If it doesn't happen, the result could be disastrous for Sun, which reported last week that it lost $147 million in the April-June quarter as revenue dropped 31 percent. IBM and Hewlett-Packard Co. have been trying to stir up fears among Sun's customers about what Oracle's plans for the company might be. And those tactics may have worked. Sun's server market share fell 9 percent in the second quarter
- Oracle shares fell 27 cents, 1.2 percent, to $21.50 in afternoon trading. Sun shares fell 18 cents....
- A key reason the deal got done in the first place was because Oracle was seen as a safer suitor than IBM Corp., which also bid for Sun. IBM was viewed as a bigger antitrust risk because it and Sun overlap in the server and data-storage markets, but now SUN finds themselves being investigated anyway.
- Peter Alexiadis, a partner at the Brussels office of law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, said he was surprised that the EU was taking a different tack from the U.S. on the deal. "If ever there was a case for the U.S. and the EU seeing eye to eye, I would have imagined that this was an appropriate one," he said, "If the commission goes down the path of defining narrow database markets, they might be going down a path they may regret."
>>>Nobody on /. seems to mind when they take Microsoft to task
That's because Microsoft controls 90% of the OS market, and 85% of the web market, and 95% of the office productivity software market, and..... well you get the point. They SHOULD be investigated by both side of the Atlantic, and they were investigated by both sides, and still are under investigation. But Oracle/Sun is not doing anything worthy of anti-monopoly investigation. They're just merging - big deal. There are still tons of other competitors out there, like the aforementioned IBM. The EU's move to delay this merger another six months seems suspicious to me. Here's some more from the MSNBC article I quoted:
EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said regulators needed to examine whether customers could have fewer choices or see higher prices "when the world's biggest proprietary database company proposes to take over the world's leading open-source database company." The European Commission now has until Jan. 19 before it makes a final decision to clear the deal or block it.....
Oracle is the database leader with 37 percent of the overall market, followed by IBM Corp. and Microsoft Corp., according to the IDC research firm. MySQL, a Swedish company that Sun bought for $1 billion last year, is a tiny player, with just 0.2 percent market share, but is the reason European regulators are worried. The EU officials claim that MySQL, already popular among Web-based companies, will increasingly threaten Oracle's database software as it adds features and attracts more customers. The regulators questioned "Oracle's incentive to further develop MySQL as an open source database."
That last paragraph makes me suspect politics are in play - trying to protect an european company. Therefore anyone who claims the European Commission is "less beholden to corporations than their counterparts in the US" is just naive. They are controlled - by their own home companies.
Riiiiight. I'm off-topic. Okay then - read this:
This just in from MSNBC.com (1:06 p.m. ET, Thursday)
European Union regulators applied the brakes Thursday, launching a formal antitrust probe that shatters Oracle's goal of completing the acquisition this summer. The U.S. Department of Justice has already approved the deal.
Who here still thinks the European Commission is just a "neutral party" and not, to quote the summary, "seems to get off on abusing American firms"?
It seems odd how they are dragging their feet like this, especially after the U.S. DOJ already provided approval. We're just talking about the merger of two companies - why create an anti-monopoly investigation for that?
>>>European Commission is just slightly less beholden to corporations than their counterparts in the US.
Are they? When the European Daimler wanted to merge with Chrysler, the EU signed-off on the deal so fast my head spun. I'm sure others with more familiarity with EU politics could name other examples. The EU seems very proactive when it comes to their own home-grown corporations. So really they are no different than the U.S. government in that respect.
It would be a shame if Sun went under.
I have a friend who has a great job where he's only required to come to work on Tuesday/Thursday. The rest of the time he works from home in New Hampshire. Knowing his personality he'd probably go nuts (like me) if he had to dutifully sit in an office day-after-day like us other poor schlubs. The 1.5 hour commute to Boston would probably be zero fun as well.
Well if Gore can lay claim to "creating" the internet, then I'm going to make a bold public announcement. Reporters, please gather round:
- "During my service as a stockholder, I took the initiative in creating the Microsoft corporation. I bought their stock in 1983. You can all send your letters of thanks to my office."
I sometimes wonder if TV producer Bellisarius got the name "Quantum Leap" from Quantum Link. They certainly have the same "tone" to them.
As for charges, I was able to avoid them for the most post. There were plenty of free forums to chat with other people, and since it was nationwide the quality of the conversations was better than the local BBSes. The other stuff like games/newspapers didn't interest me, but it made sense you would have to pay for that content, just like we pay for it today (via advertisements).
BTW you can try Quantum Link yourself, and "feel" what it was like in the late 1980s, by going to this link. It takes maybe 15 minutes to setup the required software, and then you can start chatting with other people:
http://www.quantumlink.tk/
http://web.archive.org/web/20071206123549/http://quantumlink.tk/index.html