Re:"Abadoned"? They're refusing to look very hard.
on
Warez and Abandonware
·
· Score: 1
Yes, unfortunally there are lots of warez sites out there that try to masquerade as abandonware sites.:(
There are also sites that are very serious about the content that they are publishing. One example is theunderdogs.org that even links to where you can get the game if it is still being sold. (Of course theunderdogs.org isn't just an abandonware site but more of underdogs collection:)
I never did say that the number of electoral votes should be representative of a state's population though.:)
What I said was to keep the current number of electorial votes in each state, but instead of having majority take all in the state, split it among the parties percentagewise.
The reason I want to keep the current number of votes for each state is because otherwise large cities with lots of inhabitants will be the only focus of the voting campaigns.
The discussion about wether this is better or worse than pure majority vote can be discussed and is much a matter of opinion. I am not going to get involved in that discussion tonight:)
The election system is based on electorial votes and not on who gets the most votes in the country. Because of this there are lots of people that live in non battleground states that simply don't go and vote because they think it doens't matter. The popular vote doesn't correctly express the opinion of the people because of this.
This doesn't mean that the electorial system used right now is a good one. I personally like the electorial votes because it gives the smaller states a little more weight in the election, but I don't like that a single party gets all the votes in a state. I think it would be much better if the votes where split according to how many percent each party got in that state.
Hehe, you are right. Protest voting sucks and is the most pointless thing to do.
What I meant to say in my post above is that voting for the candidate you like is even more important in a swing state because your vote will more likely be noticed and cause politicians to react and adept.
If you like Gore vote Gore, if you like Bush vote Bush and if you like Nader vote Nader....and so on with the rest of the candidates.
Voting for the person that you think is the best for the post is a reasonable thing to do. The problem is convincing everyone to do it.
And if you don't like any of the candidates, lobby for a vote for 'None of the Above' as an option.
The only alternative to voting for the best candidate is do as the major candidates want you to do and vote against the other major candidate, but I don't see a point in doing this since they have pretty much the same politic views. (Of course it differs some, but the difference is minimal if you compare to many of the other candidates)
It isn't affecting the result in this election that is the important thing. I could care less about who of Gore or Bush are elected. Neither of them represent my views very well and they aren't very different politically.
What is the important thing is that if you vote for a third party candidate and it cause a swing in who wins, the major parties will look at that third party candidates view and try too win those votes for the next election.
If I had voted for one of the major candidates they would just try to adept to each other and as I said above, I don't agree with neither of their politics.
Hope I expressed myself a little better this time.
If you voted for Bush, you told Gore to be more like Bush in the next election.
If you voted for Nader, you told Gore to be more like Nader in the next election.
See the difference. Of course, most people are too short sighted to see several years into the future. And I don't really blame them. It is just what happens when the big powers in society plays with psychology.
I am not afraid about Gore or Bush. What frightens me is the powerful coorporations and other lobbying groups that are behind the static goverment.
I don't understand your reasoning. If I lived in USA and in a swing state, I would definatly vote for a third party candidate.
A vote for a third party candidate is not a waste. It is the exactly opposite in a swing state. If your vote changes who wins you have just shown that your vote matters. Of course most americans don't seem to understand this because of decades of propaganda.
The following example is pretty extreme, but it does make a point.
If I told you to select one of the following three options:
1. You are to be executed with a gun
2. You are to be executed using hanging
3. You are allowed to live
I also told you that lots of other people had also voted and the third option would not do anything for you. Would you in that case not choose the third option?
Yup, maybe that is the reason RIAA:s is going after companys like mp3.com and napster.
They don't really care about their own artists getting free publicity via pirated mp3s, but the fact that none RIAA artists also are getting alot of attention is not something that favors RIAA.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, unfortunally there are lots of warez sites out there that try to masquerade as abandonware sites. :(
:)
There are also sites that are very serious about the content that they are publishing. One example is theunderdogs.org that even links to where you can get the game if it is still being sold. (Of course theunderdogs.org isn't just an abandonware site but more of underdogs collection
I never did say that the number of electoral votes should be representative of a state's population though. :)
:)
What I said was to keep the current number of electorial votes in each state, but instead of having majority take all in the state, split it among the parties percentagewise.
The reason I want to keep the current number of votes for each state is because otherwise large cities with lots of inhabitants will be the only focus of the voting campaigns.
The discussion about wether this is better or worse than pure majority vote can be discussed and is much a matter of opinion. I am not going to get involved in that discussion tonight
The election system is based on electorial votes and not on who gets the most votes in the country. Because of this there are lots of people that live in non battleground states that simply don't go and vote because they think it doens't matter. The popular vote doesn't correctly express the opinion of the people because of this.
This doesn't mean that the electorial system used right now is a good one. I personally like the electorial votes because it gives the smaller states a little more weight in the election, but I don't like that a single party gets all the votes in a state. I think it would be much better if the votes where split according to how many percent each party got in that state.
Use a site like http://www.anonymizer.com/ to surf to the website you want to check.
Another method to use if it is your dns server that has gone crazy is to use http://www.network-tools.com as mentioned in another post.
Hehe, you are right. Protest voting sucks and is the most pointless thing to do.
What I meant to say in my post above is that voting for the candidate you like is even more important in a swing state because your vote will more likely be noticed and cause politicians to react and adept.
If you like Gore vote Gore, if you like Bush vote Bush and if you like Nader vote Nader....and so on with the rest of the candidates.
Voting for the person that you think is the best for the post is a reasonable thing to do. The problem is convincing everyone to do it.
And if you don't like any of the candidates, lobby for a vote for 'None of the Above' as an option.
The only alternative to voting for the best candidate is do as the major candidates want you to do and vote against the other major candidate, but I don't see a point in doing this since they have pretty much the same politic views. (Of course it differs some, but the difference is minimal if you compare to many of the other candidates)
I am non-US myself so I can't do any voting.
It isn't affecting the result in this election that is the important thing. I could care less about who of Gore or Bush are elected. Neither of them represent my views very well and they aren't very different politically.
What is the important thing is that if you vote for a third party candidate and it cause a swing in who wins, the major parties will look at that third party candidates view and try too win those votes for the next election.
If I had voted for one of the major candidates they would just try to adept to each other and as I said above, I don't agree with neither of their politics.
Hope I expressed myself a little better this time.
/wildclaw
It isn't the same as voting for Bush.
If you voted for Bush, you told Gore to be more like Bush in the next election.
If you voted for Nader, you told Gore to be more like Nader in the next election.
See the difference. Of course, most people are too short sighted to see several years into the future. And I don't really blame them. It is just what happens when the big powers in society plays with psychology.
I am not afraid about Gore or Bush. What frightens me is the powerful coorporations and other lobbying groups that are behind the static goverment.
This is shows that anyone who lives in Nevada and hasn't voted is a lazy bastard. :)
I don't understand your reasoning. If I lived in USA and in a swing state, I would definatly vote for a third party candidate.
A vote for a third party candidate is not a waste. It is the exactly opposite in a swing state. If your vote changes who wins you have just shown that your vote matters. Of course most americans don't seem to understand this because of decades of propaganda.
The following example is pretty extreme, but it does make a point.
If I told you to select one of the following three options:
1. You are to be executed with a gun
2. You are to be executed using hanging
3. You are allowed to live
I also told you that lots of other people had also voted and the third option would not do anything for you. Would you in that case not choose the third option?
Heh, did a search for slashdot on ebay and found this:
e m&item=485096924
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewIt
Had it bookmarked, here is the link to it:
7 1690735/ewtoc.html
http://www.itknowledge.com/reference/archive/15
Easy reasoning. This person(company) is interested in these two domains because they can effectivly be used for filtering.
.xxx to remove xxx contents
.kids for kid friendly material.
Filter away
Filter everything but
Yup, maybe that is the reason RIAA:s is going after companys like mp3.com and napster.
They don't really care about their own artists getting free publicity via pirated mp3s, but the fact that none RIAA artists also are getting alot of attention is not something that favors RIAA.