"List all the elections won where they were clearly losing in the polls. Come on, do it. Just like the bald faced lie in this Wire article you point to no major poll (by link please) the backs your claim."
So I listed an election (Ga governor Roy Barnes' loss) and linked to the polls (2 of them) that showed him winning by 10 points.
You say:
"Zogby had different results in November, showing Cleland and Chamliss nearly neck to neck."
But that doesn't really relate to the election I'm describing except perpherally. In fact, from Zogby's on website, I found the following article:
"Similarly, no polls predicted the upset victory in Georgia of Republican Sonny Perdue over incumbent Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes. Perdue won by a margin of 52 to 45 percent. The most recent Mason Dixon Poll had shown Barnes ahead 48 to 39 percent last month with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 points."
No poll even showed them close. I'm not saying it's impossible that the polls were wrong (polls often are wrong), or that the republicans didn't push hard in the last month, or anything. I'm just agreeing that IF there was a problem with the voting machines, it COULD explain the disparity, and there IS a disparity.
And by the way, just because Georgia democrats lost across the board doesn't disprove fraud. A conspiracy-theorist would say it just demonstrates successful fraud across the board.
"Democratic incumbents are leading the two big races on the Georgia ballot next month, a new survey indicates. Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes leads Republican Sonny Perdue 48 percent to 39 percent. Democratic Sen. Max Cleland leads Republican Saxby Chambliss 47 percent to 41 percent."
Barnes lost 51-47, by the way. So to say that there was a lot of anger at Barnes, where does that appear in the poll?
Incidentally, leading up to the election, polls were fairly consistent too:
"An Atlanta Journal-Constitution and WSB-TV survey earlier this month showed Barnes leading Perdue 49 percent to 42 percent, with 9 percent undecided or supporting someone else, and Cleland leading Chambliss 51 percent to 42 percent with 7 percent undecided and 1 percent supporting someone else.
That poll was conducted Sept. 26-Oct. 1... "
If anything, Barnes had momentum leading up to the election.
"I think you're forgetting that the two parties both have primary elections just to narrow it down to the two front-runners."
Well, no, actually, I'm not forgetting that at all. That's how parties normally work. And that's why a minor-third-party (like the Reform party in 1992 or the Greens in 2000) really screws things up, but doesn't if we use instant-runoff voting.
Also, it's important to remember that ANY candidate who doesn't get the nomination CAN run as an independent. Surely they would be considered a non-front-runner. This would happen more often, I believe, if they knew they wouldn't be spoilers.
Your analysis is valid, but you are certainly making an assumption: the lack of 2 front-runners, which is a given in our current two-major-party system.
In other words, a more likely tally would be:
6 voters prefer X over Y over Z 2 voters prefer X over Y over Z * 2 voters prefer Y over Z over X 7 voters prefer Z over X over Y
vs.
6 voters prefer X over Y over Z 2 voters prefer Y over X over Z * 2 voters prefer Y over Z over X 7 voters prefer Z over X over Y
Which both result in Z winning. Because Z will never be eliminated in the first round if he's a front-runner.
In other words, YES, instant-runoff voting is imperfect, but it's better than what we have now, in that it doesn't make "minor-party" candidates into spoilers over the "major-party" as happened in 1992 (Perot got only 12%, I believe) and also in 2000 (Nader got 3%).
They're cutting jobs! That means for some people, no job. For others, more work.
They're cutting pay! That means less money in the teacher's pockets.
Look, teachers don't make much money, and they don't pay much in taxes, so tax raises don't affect them as much.
Your "bureacracies give you back less than what you put in" argument is spurious, since it assumes that the people paying the taxes (putting in) are the people receiving the services (getting back). In fact, that tends not to be the case. The social contract is that EVERYBODY benefits even though SOME people pay more than others. Sheesh...
If the world worked the way you suggest, we'd have no police force, no water utility, no power lines, no road construction, no public schools, no order. And finally, more of the same BS that happened in the deregulation-addled Northeast. Want more black-outs? Keep cutting those taxes!
"I'm not saying that the Supreme Court is wrong (I haven't read the opinion yet), but the whole idea of making the filters switchable seems unlikely to be implemented. The filters will be on 100% and that will be that."
Yes, well, that's how our legal system works. As soon as someone is stopped from turning off the filter, they can sue the Library themselves, and we get another opinion. Constitutional law is fluid, and if the Supremes can't see a problem with a law, perhaps this just wasn't the case to make them see it.
"If you go to a store, and buy a CD the old fashioned way with your credit card you run plenty of chances to have your number stolen:"
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty careful with my credit cards, so I buy stuff with cash. Or gift certificates from friends.
Can I pay cash with iTunes music store? No? Well, surely I can send them 50 bucks and get a gift certificate? No? Then I'd say it's not quite as safe as real life stores.
Yeah, good idea. I understand that line of thought. I had a lot of jobs in college. Good ones too. My favorite was when I worked in the computer lab, so I could download music all night and ALSO make money to buy the things I wanted. Good use of my free time, if you ask me.
One thought, though... Suppose someone has a job, that pays for their college education and not much else (and likely student loans too), and they have tests to study for, but not all the time. Would you advise that person to get another job?
Good question. How about publishing the summaries of your content, but then requiring a direct connection (including the advertising) to read the content itself.
I've played a bit with the IIS WebDAV implementation, and it is mostly standard, but (as usual) with a few quirks to make things scary (extra properties, NT-Authentication).
On the client side, many different applications support webDAV natively now, including (IIRC) the entire Adobe line of products and MSOffice.
Also, if you use Windows and don't have XP, you can still use "Web Folders" to hook into a WebDAV server (mount a network server via the windows explorer).
If you use Linux, you have fewer options, but here's what's out there:
OpenOffice.org now supports WebDAV (as of version 1.0.2), but doesn't implement locking correctly, so be extra careful not to overwrite other people's changes if you take advantage of it.
Gnome's Nautilus file browser will mount webdav shares (just type the URL and select "show as list" or "show as icons").
Finally, there is a DAV File System (http://sourceforge.net/projects/dav/) that ships with Mandrake 9. It works for me.
Finally, a plug, Xythos, the company I work for, makes a Web File Server and a Web File Client (the client is a more secure and featured replacement for the XP-redirector and Web Folders).
You can try out our WebDAV server (the Oracle-backed version - we also support DB2, MSSqlServer and PostgreSQL) by getting a free account at http://www.sharemation.com
Ah, I see the problem now. Yes, I suspect there are some servers out there that don't test as much as we do. We definitely had to work-around some issues with the XP connector.
As for writing to me directly, you could try my account name @xythos.com
WebDAV is more like a VPN. Sure, you COULD set it up poorly and give everybody access to all your documents.
On the other hand, using any number of authentication schemes (including through an LDAP server, behind a firewall), you can lock it down as tightly as you'd like. And yes, it runs over HTTPS as well as HTTP, so even your port 80 crack is laughable.
Or perhaps you think all web-based applications are inherently insecure? (I'd like some evidence to back this one up)
Have you tried it with a professionally developed WebDAV server? Get yourself a free account at http://www.sharemation.com and give it a try. You can even write to support@xythos.com if it doesn't work for you (NOTE: it has always worked for me).
This comment is a classic troll. You've made a blatant overstatement. Let's see some evidence, even anecdotal. Has anybody here really tried to contribute documentation or art to a project, but were dissed or not given credit?
I think that those few writers, artists, and interface people working on open source projects are extremely underrated and aren't getting the credit they deserve..
I think you overstate this. All documentation writers and artists receive credit on the OSS projects I'm involved with.
"In case you don't recognize it yet, this is the slippery slope of slavery. Tred carefully."
Well, I disagree for several reasons. First, it has NOTHING TO DO with slavery. I'm not a corporation, I'm a human being, so no, you can't compel ME to do anything directly. (NOTE: you certainly can compel me to NOT do things, but that's different. You have rights, and I can't tred on them.)
On the other hand, SouthWest is a corporation. We GIVE corporations ALL their rights in this country. That's the deal. In fact, we give corporations tax-breaks, government contracts, and corporations can't even go to jail. It's We the People, not We the Corporations. "We The People" can compel corporations to do whatever we want (assuming we're talking about legislation or judicial prudence here, not just the whim some unofficial group)
Furthermore, the slippery slope argument isn't logically valid anyway. It's like saying "If I give you a dollar just to be nice, then next thing you know I'll be giving you all my money." At any step along the way, I can determine for myself when to stop giving you money. With private matters, I draw the line.
In a similar fashion, Judges (through rulings) and Congress (through new laws) can make decisions about where the line is drawn.
"Can we compel someone to do some small thing they already ought to do just because it also benefits some other person or group?"
If that someone is a corporation, then YES, YES, A THOUSAND TIMES, YES! Are you a corporation? If so, then I can compel you to: (depending on your size, in some cases...)
1)Release information about political contributions 2)Not discriminate based on race, creed, ethnicity, gender in hiring practices. 3)Not use your monopoly power to take control over new markets. 4)Ensure that your products are safe (if they're for kids, for example) and sue them if they aren't. 5)Etc.
In exchange, you get the ability to do business in this country. By receiving the ability to do business in this country, you must agree to the laws of the land, and do the things "we the people" have mandated (that don't necessarily benefit you directly, but that institute a level of fairness that would otherwise be non-existant).
If you don't want to do those things, then DON'T DO BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES. And by the way, good luck finding a better deal elsewhere.
"Did you sit down with a blind fold and a screen reader and try to use your own site?"
Actually, no, I didn't, you have a point there. On the other hand, Bobby did a good enough job that people who have tested our product for ADA compliance were impressed enough to buy it.
Note, however, that I still think there may be complaints in the future, which we will address at the time. That's all part of good software maintainance.
"Specifically, certain uses of tables can render pages completely unusable from what I've heard "
Bobby makes a point of checking that your tables have summaries, and suggests that all tables that are for presentation of info in columns and rows (not just layout of images) have table headers, specifically because of the issues you've mentioned.
In other words, Bobby may not be a panacea, but it does a good job of bringing up the major issues. Plus, it's easy to use, just plug in your URL and you're good to go.
Re:I'm sorry to say I agree with the court ruling
on
ADA Doesn't Apply to Web
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well, IANAL, but I'd say:
If I try and I fail, but I respond adequately to complaints, that's called Due Diligence, and I'm within the law.
If I don't even try, and I ignore complaings, then I'm probably breaking the law.
Re:I'm sorry to say I agree with the court ruling
on
ADA Doesn't Apply to Web
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"1. The cost to existing and new websites would be extremely high to implement ADA standards."
Are you sure about this or just talking out of your ass? Seriously, it's not that hard. You run your website through bobby and then change the code where needed.
It's mostly common-sense stuff, like including alt-tags on images. People should be doing this stuff anyway!
And yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I led-up a project on ADA complicance at my job, where I develop JSP-based web applications.
"A federal judge ruled that the Atlanta mass transit agency violated the ADA by constructing a website that was inaccessible for people with visual disabilities."
My experience was ugh to bad. The first big problem I had was copying text from webpages. For some reason, moz always thought I was gesturing. Well, no.
Nice troll?
Seriously, I don't know what planet you're on, but for me, mouse gesturing only happens when I click the RIGHT mouse button. I select text with the LEFT mouse button. I scroll with the MIDDLE button. I'm surprised you don't complain about getting the "context pop-up menu" when you try to select text as well.
The situation you're describing has (literally) NEVER happened to me and I've been using mouse-gesturing/pie-menus for a few months now.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I did. You said, and I quote:
D =4 864
"List all the elections won where they were clearly losing in the polls. Come on, do it. Just like the bald faced lie in this Wire article you point to no major poll (by link please) the backs your claim."
So I listed an election (Ga governor Roy Barnes' loss) and linked to the polls (2 of them) that showed him winning by 10 points.
You say:
"Zogby had different results in November, showing Cleland and Chamliss nearly neck to neck."
But that doesn't really relate to the election I'm describing except perpherally. In fact, from Zogby's on website, I found the following article:
http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?I
"Similarly, no polls predicted the upset victory in Georgia of Republican Sonny Perdue over incumbent Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes. Perdue won by a margin of 52 to 45 percent. The most recent Mason Dixon Poll had shown Barnes ahead 48 to 39 percent last month with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 points."
No poll even showed them close. I'm not saying it's impossible that the polls were wrong (polls often are wrong), or that the republicans didn't push hard in the last month, or anything. I'm just agreeing that IF there was a problem with the voting machines, it COULD explain the disparity, and there IS a disparity.
And by the way, just because Georgia democrats lost across the board doesn't disprove fraud. A conspiracy-theorist would say it just demonstrates successful fraud across the board.
ok, how about this one:
/ 20 02-11-05/perdue_barnes.asp
/ 20 02-10-21/barnes_cleland.asp
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/politics/articles
"Perdue said there was no mystery about his victory, despite a pre-election poll suggesting Barnes was virtually a shoo-in."
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/politics/articles
And the poll:
"Democratic incumbents are leading the two big races on the Georgia ballot next month, a new survey indicates. Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes leads Republican Sonny Perdue 48 percent to 39 percent. Democratic Sen. Max Cleland leads Republican Saxby Chambliss 47 percent to 41 percent."
Barnes lost 51-47, by the way. So to say that there was a lot of anger at Barnes, where does that appear in the poll?
Incidentally, leading up to the election, polls were fairly consistent too:
"An Atlanta Journal-Constitution and WSB-TV survey earlier this month showed Barnes leading Perdue 49 percent to 42 percent, with 9 percent undecided or supporting someone else, and Cleland leading Chambliss 51 percent to 42 percent with 7 percent undecided and 1 percent supporting someone else.
That poll was conducted Sept. 26-Oct. 1... "
If anything, Barnes had momentum leading up to the election.
"I think you're forgetting that the two parties both have primary elections just to narrow it down to the two front-runners."
Well, no, actually, I'm not forgetting that at all. That's how parties normally work. And that's why a minor-third-party (like the Reform party in 1992 or the Greens in 2000) really screws things up, but doesn't if we use instant-runoff voting.
Also, it's important to remember that ANY candidate who doesn't get the nomination CAN run as an independent. Surely they would be considered a non-front-runner. This would happen more often, I believe, if they knew they wouldn't be spoilers.
Your analysis is valid, but you are certainly making an assumption: the lack of 2 front-runners, which is a given in our current two-major-party system.
In other words, a more likely tally would be:
6 voters prefer X over Y over Z
2 voters prefer X over Y over Z *
2 voters prefer Y over Z over X
7 voters prefer Z over X over Y
vs.
6 voters prefer X over Y over Z
2 voters prefer Y over X over Z *
2 voters prefer Y over Z over X
7 voters prefer Z over X over Y
Which both result in Z winning. Because Z will never be eliminated in the first round if he's a front-runner.
In other words, YES, instant-runoff voting is imperfect, but it's better than what we have now, in that it doesn't make "minor-party" candidates into spoilers over the "major-party" as happened in 1992 (Perot got only 12%, I believe) and also in 2000 (Nader got 3%).
Read more carefully...
They're cutting jobs! That means for some people, no job. For others, more work.
They're cutting pay! That means less money in the teacher's pockets.
Look, teachers don't make much money, and they don't pay much in taxes, so tax raises don't affect them as much.
Your "bureacracies give you back less than what you put in" argument is spurious, since it assumes that the people paying the taxes (putting in) are the people receiving the services (getting back). In fact, that tends not to be the case. The social contract is that EVERYBODY benefits even though SOME people pay more than others. Sheesh...
If the world worked the way you suggest, we'd have no police force, no water utility, no power lines, no road construction, no public schools, no order. And finally, more of the same BS that happened in the deregulation-addled Northeast. Want more black-outs? Keep cutting those taxes!
Libertarians...
"I'm not saying that the Supreme Court is wrong (I haven't read the opinion yet), but the whole idea of making the filters switchable seems unlikely to be implemented. The filters will be on 100% and that will be that."
Yes, well, that's how our legal system works. As soon as someone is stopped from turning off the filter, they can sue the Library themselves, and we get another opinion. Constitutional law is fluid, and if the Supremes can't see a problem with a law, perhaps this just wasn't the case to make them see it.
Well, for some, freedom(tm) the concept is more important than money. For others, money is the highest ideal.
Those in the first category are frequently referred to as revolutionaries. Those in the second category are often referred to as capitalists.
Sometimes, one can be both. Sometimes one must choose one or the other. I guess for Justin, the time has come to be a revolutionary again.
"What kinds of features can we expect in Longhorn that Apple won't already have had for awhile by the time it ships?"
Well, for one thing, support for the x86-based processor family...
"If you go to a store, and buy a CD the old fashioned way with your credit card you run plenty of chances to have your number stolen:"
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty careful with my credit cards, so I buy stuff with cash. Or gift certificates from friends.
Can I pay cash with iTunes music store? No? Well, surely I can send them 50 bucks and get a gift certificate? No? Then I'd say it's not quite as safe as real life stores.
"Get a job. No, really, I mean it."
Yeah, good idea. I understand that line of thought. I had a lot of jobs in college. Good ones too. My favorite was when I worked in the computer lab, so I could download music all night and ALSO make money to buy the things I wanted. Good use of my free time, if you ask me.
One thought, though... Suppose someone has a job, that pays for their college education and not much else (and likely student loans too), and they have tests to study for, but not all the time. Would you advise that person to get another job?
Good question. How about publishing the summaries of your content, but then requiring a direct connection (including the advertising) to read the content itself.
Fun reply, thanks.
Feel free to elaborate. Defend your points, and I'd be happy to explain.
I've played a bit with the IIS WebDAV implementation, and it is mostly standard, but (as usual) with a few quirks to make things scary (extra properties, NT-Authentication).
On the client side, many different applications support webDAV natively now, including (IIRC) the entire Adobe line of products and MSOffice.
Also, if you use Windows and don't have XP, you can still use "Web Folders" to hook into a WebDAV server (mount a network server via the windows explorer).
If you use Linux, you have fewer options, but here's what's out there:
OpenOffice.org now supports WebDAV (as of version 1.0.2), but doesn't implement locking correctly, so be extra careful not to overwrite other people's changes if you take advantage of it.
Gnome's Nautilus file browser will mount webdav shares (just type the URL and select "show as list" or "show as icons").
Finally, there is a DAV File System (http://sourceforge.net/projects/dav/)
that ships with Mandrake 9. It works for me.
Finally, a plug, Xythos, the company I work for, makes a Web File Server and a Web File Client (the client is a more secure and featured replacement for the XP-redirector and Web Folders).
You can try out our WebDAV server (the Oracle-backed version - we also support DB2, MSSqlServer and PostgreSQL) by getting a free account at http://www.sharemation.com
-marick at xythos.com
Ah, I see the problem now. Yes, I suspect there are some servers out there that don't test as much as we do. We definitely had to work-around some issues with the XP connector.
As for writing to me directly, you could try my account name @xythos.com
WebDAV is more like a VPN. Sure, you COULD set it up poorly and give everybody access to all your documents.
On the other hand, using any number of authentication schemes (including through an LDAP server, behind a firewall), you can lock it down as tightly as you'd like. And yes, it runs over HTTPS as well as HTTP, so even your port 80 crack is laughable.
Or perhaps you think all web-based applications are inherently insecure? (I'd like some evidence to back this one up)
Uh...
Have you tried it with a professionally developed WebDAV server? Get yourself a free account at http://www.sharemation.com and give it a try. You can even write to support@xythos.com if it doesn't work for you (NOTE: it has always worked for me).
Yes, but they are also banned on sidewalks. Of course, people break that ban all the time...
This comment is a classic troll. You've made a blatant overstatement. Let's see some evidence, even anecdotal. Has anybody here really tried to contribute documentation or art to a project, but were dissed or not given credit?
I think that those few writers, artists, and interface people working on open source projects are extremely underrated and aren't getting the credit they deserve..
I think you overstate this. All documentation writers and artists receive credit on the OSS projects I'm involved with.
Will we have massive Star War fans calling in sick everyday in attempts to become a jedi?
Do you work with Jabba the Hut?
"In case you don't recognize it yet, this is the slippery slope of slavery. Tred carefully."
Well, I disagree for several reasons. First, it has NOTHING TO DO with slavery. I'm not a corporation, I'm a human being, so no, you can't compel ME to do anything directly. (NOTE: you certainly can compel me to NOT do things, but that's different. You have rights, and I can't tred on them.)
On the other hand, SouthWest is a corporation. We GIVE corporations ALL their rights in this country. That's the deal. In fact, we give corporations tax-breaks, government contracts, and corporations can't even go to jail. It's We the People, not We the Corporations. "We The People" can compel corporations to do whatever we want (assuming we're talking about legislation or judicial prudence here, not just the whim some unofficial group)
Furthermore, the slippery slope argument isn't logically valid anyway. It's like saying "If I give you a dollar just to be nice, then next thing you know I'll be giving you all my money." At any step along the way, I can determine for myself when to stop giving you money. With private matters, I draw the line.
In a similar fashion, Judges (through rulings) and Congress (through new laws) can make decisions about where the line is drawn.
"Can we compel someone to do some small thing they already ought to do just because it also benefits some other person or group?"
If that someone is a corporation, then YES, YES, A THOUSAND TIMES, YES! Are you a corporation? If so, then I can compel you to: (depending on your size, in some cases...)
1)Release information about political contributions
2)Not discriminate based on race, creed, ethnicity, gender in hiring practices.
3)Not use your monopoly power to take control over new markets.
4)Ensure that your products are safe (if they're for kids, for example) and sue them if they aren't.
5)Etc.
In exchange, you get the ability to do business in this country. By receiving the ability to do business in this country, you must agree to the laws of the land, and do the things "we the people" have mandated (that don't necessarily benefit you directly, but that institute a level of fairness that would otherwise be non-existant).
If you don't want to do those things, then DON'T DO BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES. And by the way, good luck finding a better deal elsewhere.
"Did you sit down with a blind fold and a screen reader and try to use your own site?"
Actually, no, I didn't, you have a point there. On the other hand, Bobby did a good enough job that people who have tested our product for ADA compliance were impressed enough to buy it.
Note, however, that I still think there may be complaints in the future, which we will address at the time. That's all part of good software maintainance.
"Specifically, certain uses of tables can render pages completely unusable from what I've heard "
Bobby makes a point of checking that your tables have summaries, and suggests that all tables that are for presentation of info in columns and rows (not just layout of images) have table headers, specifically because of the issues you've mentioned.
In other words, Bobby may not be a panacea, but it does a good job of bringing up the major issues. Plus, it's easy to use, just plug in your URL and you're good to go.
Well, IANAL, but I'd say:
If I try and I fail, but I respond adequately to complaints, that's called Due Diligence, and I'm within the law.
If I don't even try, and I ignore complaings, then I'm probably breaking the law.
"1. The cost to existing and new websites would be extremely high to implement ADA standards." Are you sure about this or just talking out of your ass? Seriously, it's not that hard. You run your website through bobby and then change the code where needed. It's mostly common-sense stuff, like including alt-tags on images. People should be doing this stuff anyway! And yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I led-up a project on ADA complicance at my job, where I develop JSP-based web applications.
"A federal judge ruled that the Atlanta mass transit agency violated the ADA by constructing a website that was inaccessible for people with visual disabilities."
Read it here
I guess what makes these cases different is that one is a private company, the other a public service organization.
My experience was ugh to bad. The first big problem I had was copying text from webpages. For some reason, moz always thought I was gesturing. Well, no.
Nice troll?
Seriously, I don't know what planet you're on, but for me, mouse gesturing only happens when I click the RIGHT mouse button. I select text with the LEFT mouse button. I scroll with the MIDDLE button. I'm surprised you don't complain about getting the "context pop-up menu" when you try to select text as well.
The situation you're describing has (literally) NEVER happened to me and I've been using mouse-gesturing/pie-menus for a few months now.
-Michael