The future of technological issues is a huge issue, but it's not the only one. Surely you have opinions on abortion, affirmative action, corporate control of politics, gun control, social security, taxation, foreign affairs policy, trade regulation, or education?
If you insist on voting only on the technology issues, then look at the candidates' overall profile and don't forget there are more than just two candidates.
Like the way things are heading? Vote Gore.
Want more corporate influence? Vote Bush.
Like filtering software? Vote Buchanan?
Want AOL, Microsoft, and the other big bullies to get their paws off the internet? Vote Nader.
Sitting out of the elections and and not voting is the lazy person's version of an ineffective protest. Brilliant strategy:
"You politicians had better shape up, 'cause if you don't, i'll do nothing and say nothing about it!"
If you don't vote, don't bitch when you get screwed by a President you didn't vote for because you didn't vote against him either!
Our system is not a two-party system. The Constitution intentionally has no mention of political parties at all.
A one-party system is a farcical democracy where no choice exists. A two-party system is only one choice bettern than none at all, and the Republicrats are trying to make this de-facto for the US.
Our system has been corrupted by two-party collusion to exclude other parties. These are the same two parties that will never support preferential voting* because they know it would cut into their power base.
The only way we can get it is by voting for third-party candidates like Nader who are pushing for political reforms.
The difference is that Rush tells bald-faced lies, while most of them just distort the facts.
Regardless, if there's a good chance the candidate will meet the guidelines for federal funds, they should be in the "official" debates. The candidates in the major parties should be working to increase democracy by organizing individual debates with smaller party candidates, instead of trying to stifle it by excluding them. Is that what we want from our elected leader?
The only wasted vote is a vote for the Republicrats. A vote for Nader is useful in two ways:
1) Nader could win. Nader's primary audience is the 54% of the nation that did not vote in the last presidential election. These are the people that don't show up in the polls. Usually, less than 25% of American citizens vote for the guy that wins. If Nader got half of the non-voters to vote, then he'd sweep the election. Regular voters who vote Nader are just nails in the Republicrat coffin.
He could do it too. Nader has been holding rallies as his main fundraising technique. He sells out every venue (including Madison Square Garden!) with people paying from $7 to $20 each to attend. Gush and Bore couldn't pay that many people to come to their rallies!
2) Even if Nader doesn't win, a vote for Nader sends a very tangible message to the Republicrats. 5% of the vote guarantees federal matching funds in the next election. That means almost certain access to the debates and television, and forces the others to address his issues, which up to now they've ignored or to which they've only payed lipservice.
The only good reason to vote for a particular candidate is that you believe what they stand for. Nader is responsible for more beneficial legislation (anti-pollution, workplace safety, fraud prevention, automotive safety standards) than Gush and Bore combined. Nader is the only candidate with true integrity. Nader doesn't accept corporate donations and is the only candidate not in the pocket of big business or special-interest groups.
Voting for any candidate simply because you don't want his big-party rival to win is not true democracy. Whether you vote for Gore to keep Bush out of office or you vote for the Republicans, the Republicans are controlling your vote, and vice-versa. Take back your vote and instead of voting for the lesser of two evils, vote for the best candidate!
By all means though, vote for someone. Even if it's for a Republicrat. As Nader has said, "If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you."
Re:I must be a dumb CS graduate then
on
Does P = NP?
·
· Score: 1
Okay, let's say AJ, Miranda, Pitr, the Dust Puppy, and the rest of the gang are all hanging out. The clique problem involves finding how many different ways they can segregate themselves into discrete groups such that everyone feels that the other groups are somehow less cool than they themselves.
The treaty will force all signatories (ie your government) to make illegal the "import and distribution of devices used for hacking".
Sounds like they want to outlaw computers.
There's nothing like an overly-broad wording to turn the most well-intentioned concept into a tool of oppression.
(Though i also doubt the intent of this is entirely noble at heart.)
Just as IANAL and IMHO have gained widespread acceptance, i believe these may be next:
IAUNAKBB - I am usually not a Katz-basher but . . .
KIUAMB - Katz is usually a moron but . . .
Since so many people seem to feel the need to include one or the other of these disclaimers, their use could save us precious seconds of time.
They may also provide another much-needed way to obfuscate our writing so that non-geeks with the gall to read the holy SLASHDOT will think we're cool, hip, and well . . . more geeky.
Personally, I think anyone who would publish material anonymously is either a coward or not strong enough to stand up for his beliefs.
Interesting point, Mr.... What was your name again?
Somehow i doubt you see the irony of your own statement.
Re:MP3.com once the solution, now part of the prob
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 1
I wonder if this was one of the unnoficial terms of the mp3.com/RIAA settlement, possibly even a major part of it? I don't know how the judge could take the "me too"s of what are essentially "competing" services, seriously. And it doesn't help that they are basically in the pocket of the RIAA anyway.
one's marketability is highest right after college and decreases geometrically thereafter.
On the contrary, this is oh so right! I just heard the exact same statement from Intel when they were trying to convince me to come work for them! RCG (recent college grad) candidates get precedence!
Noone is trying to place the blame on anything in particular here. They are looking at one of the factors involved in the increasing violence present in our society at all levels, and trying to understand if it really does pose a threat. To pull a quote from the article:
"In sum, Study 1 indicates that concern about the deleterious effects of violent video games on delinquent behavior, aggressive and nonaggressive, is legitimate. Playing violent video games often may well cause increases in delinquent behaviors, both aggressive and nonaggressive. However, the correlational nature of Study 1 means that causal statements are risky at best. It could be that the obtained video game violence links to aggressive and nonaggressive delinquency are wholly due to the fact that highly aggressive individuals are especially attracted to violent video games. ""
I believe in non-violence. I believe that exposing oneself to violent images, games, discussion (eg role-playing games), and thought (eg I'd like to plant roundhouse kick upside Fred Phelps' head!) are inherently harmful to the human spirit/psyche/whatever. I still love the Matrix, i still like games, and i'd still like to lay the smack down on Phelps. Just because we acknowledge that something is bad for us doesn't mean we have to give it up. Understanding the effect these things have onn us allows us to consciously counteract them. I choose non-violence though i am predisposed to violence. Don't get defensive and lash out at things like these without trying to understand, or you risk becoming more like the mainstream - don't lash out at everything that is different from your view. This is the sort of behavior that fuels the rage of the would-be killers.
Slashdot Mirror
The future of technological issues is a huge issue, but it's not the only one. Surely you have opinions on abortion, affirmative action, corporate control of politics, gun control, social security, taxation, foreign affairs policy, trade regulation, or education?
If you insist on voting only on the technology issues, then look at the candidates' overall profile and don't forget there are more than just two candidates.
Like the way things are heading? Vote Gore.
Want more corporate influence? Vote Bush.
Like filtering software? Vote Buchanan?
Want AOL, Microsoft, and the other big bullies to get their paws off the internet? Vote Nader.
Sitting out of the elections and and not voting is the lazy person's version of an ineffective protest. Brilliant strategy:
"You politicians had better shape up, 'cause if you don't, i'll do nothing and say nothing about it!"
If you don't vote, don't bitch when you get screwed by a President you didn't vote for because you didn't vote against him either!
Our system is not a two-party system. The Constitution intentionally has no mention of political parties at all.
A one-party system is a farcical democracy where no choice exists. A two-party system is only one choice bettern than none at all, and the Republicrats are trying to make this de-facto for the US.
Our system has been corrupted by two-party collusion to exclude other parties. These are the same two parties that will never support preferential voting* because they know it would cut into their power base.
The only way we can get it is by voting for third-party candidates like Nader who are pushing for political reforms.
* aka: Proportional Representation, Instant Runoff Elections, etc.
For more info, check out The Center for Voting and Democracy
The difference is that Rush tells bald-faced lies, while most of them just distort the facts.
Regardless, if there's a good chance the candidate will meet the guidelines for federal funds, they should be in the "official" debates. The candidates in the major parties should be working to increase democracy by organizing individual debates with smaller party candidates, instead of trying to stifle it by excluding them. Is that what we want from our elected leader?
The only wasted vote is a vote for the Republicrats. A vote for Nader is useful in two ways:
1) Nader could win. Nader's primary audience is the 54% of the nation that did not vote in the last presidential election. These are the people that don't show up in the polls. Usually, less than 25% of American citizens vote for the guy that wins. If Nader got half of the non-voters to vote, then he'd sweep the election. Regular voters who vote Nader are just nails in the Republicrat coffin.
He could do it too. Nader has been holding rallies as his main fundraising technique. He sells out every venue (including Madison Square Garden!) with people paying from $7 to $20 each to attend. Gush and Bore couldn't pay that many people to come to their rallies!
2) Even if Nader doesn't win, a vote for Nader sends a very tangible message to the Republicrats. 5% of the vote guarantees federal matching funds in the next election. That means almost certain access to the debates and television, and forces the others to address his issues, which up to now they've ignored or to which they've only payed lipservice.
The only good reason to vote for a particular candidate is that you believe what they stand for. Nader is responsible for more beneficial legislation (anti-pollution, workplace safety, fraud prevention, automotive safety standards) than Gush and Bore combined. Nader is the only candidate with true integrity. Nader doesn't accept corporate donations and is the only candidate not in the pocket of big business or special-interest groups.
Voting for any candidate simply because you don't want his big-party rival to win is not true democracy. Whether you vote for Gore to keep Bush out of office or you vote for the Republicans, the Republicans are controlling your vote, and vice-versa. Take back your vote and instead of voting for the lesser of two evils, vote for the best candidate!
By all means though, vote for someone. Even if it's for a Republicrat. As Nader has said, "If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you."
Okay, let's say AJ, Miranda, Pitr, the Dust Puppy, and the rest of the gang are all hanging out. The clique problem involves finding how many different ways they can segregate themselves into discrete groups such that everyone feels that the other groups are somehow less cool than they themselves.
User Friendly
But imo Waiting for Bob is funnier.
The treaty will force all signatories (ie your government) to make illegal the "import and distribution of devices used for hacking".
Sounds like they want to outlaw computers.
There's nothing like an overly-broad wording to turn the most well-intentioned concept into a tool of oppression.
(Though i also doubt the intent of this is entirely noble at heart.)
Just as IANAL and IMHO have gained widespread acceptance, i believe these may be next:
IAUNAKBB - I am usually not a Katz-basher but . . .
KIUAMB - Katz is usually a moron but . . .
Since so many people seem to feel the need to include one or the other of these disclaimers, their use could save us precious seconds of time.
They may also provide another much-needed way to obfuscate our writing so that non-geeks with the gall to read the holy SLASHDOT will think we're cool, hip, and well . . . more geeky.
Interesting point, Mr. ... What was your name again?
Somehow i doubt you see the irony of your own statement.
I wonder if this was one of the unnoficial terms of the mp3.com/RIAA settlement, possibly even a major part of it?
I don't know how the judge could take the "me too"s of what are essentially "competing" services, seriously. And it doesn't help that they are basically in the pocket of the RIAA anyway.
one's marketability is highest right after college and decreases geometrically thereafter.
On the contrary, this is oh so right! I just heard the exact same statement from Intel when they were trying to convince me to come work for them! RCG (recent college grad) candidates get precedence!
Noone is trying to place the blame on anything in particular here. They are looking at one of the factors involved in the increasing violence present in our society at all levels, and trying to understand if it really does pose a threat.
To pull a quote from the article:
"In sum, Study 1 indicates that concern about the deleterious effects of violent video games on delinquent behavior, aggressive and nonaggressive, is legitimate. Playing violent video games often may well cause increases in delinquent behaviors, both aggressive and nonaggressive. However, the correlational nature of Study 1 means that causal statements are risky at best. It could be that the obtained video game violence links to aggressive and nonaggressive delinquency are wholly due to the fact that highly aggressive individuals are especially attracted to violent video games. ""
I believe in non-violence. I believe that exposing oneself to violent images, games, discussion (eg role-playing games), and thought (eg I'd like to plant roundhouse kick upside Fred Phelps' head!) are inherently harmful to the human spirit/psyche/whatever. I still love the Matrix, i still like games, and i'd still like to lay the smack down on Phelps.
Just because we acknowledge that something is bad for us doesn't mean we have to give it up. Understanding the effect these things have onn us allows us to consciously counteract them. I choose non-violence though i am predisposed to violence.
Don't get defensive and lash out at things like these without trying to understand, or you risk becoming more like the mainstream - don't lash out at everything that is different from your view. This is the sort of behavior that fuels the rage of the would-be killers.