Great--people 10,000 years from now will think we're all loonie toons. Then again, by that time, maybe we'll have evolved out of our bodies and just be clear Thetans floating around watching John Travolta movies.
Anyone know if Kirstie Alley is still a Scientologist? Considering they believe body fat stores toxins and radiation and bad thetans (oh my), she must not be a very good Scientologist. Maybe she didn't get zapped enough. (Not meant as a slam on overweight people, but on L.Ron).
Personally, I think provisional ballots are a much better compromise between preventing fraud and not allowing harmless mistakes to disenfranchise someone, and I'm glad they are starting to be used
Personally I think the provisional ballot thing is pretty much stupid and just asking for trouble. My state (Wisconsin) instead allows election day registration. Rather than putting votes on hold and only counting them if the margin of victory is less than the provisional ballots the person can register right then and there provided they have proof of ID and address. Sure it slows things down some but not compared to 11 days! The other thing--what about the other elections on the ballot? Do they count the provisonals if the Senate race is close enough? What about county treasurer? Just seems better to me to make the decision on the spot whether the person can be validly registerd and vote or not.
At least from what I've read, the Ohio law says that if the margin of victory is less than the number of provisional ballots, then they must be counted. Regardless of concessions and whatever else happens, to not count them would be breaking the law. We can argue and fight and do whatever we can to change election laws for 364 days. But on election day, we must follow the laws in place on that day as closely as possible. Any successful effort to change the rules during or after the fact are infinitely more destructive to the republic than putting one candidate into office.
As far as taking a lot of work, while Ohio has a lot of punchcard ballots (70%?!?) they do have a uniform criteria in place to determine whether a "hanging chad" is valid or not, unlike Florida 2000.
No a concession most certainly is not binding and Kerry still could be President (though it's extremely unlikely). The President is determed by a vote of the electoral representatives of each state (and DC) States are free to decide how they make their electoral votes. Some states require the electors to vote according to the state's popular vote, others do not. Maine gives two to the winner of the popular vote and one for the winner of each district. I believe Ohio is a state with a law binding electors to vote with the state's popular vote. Ohio's laws dictate if the difference between the candidates is less than the number of provisional ballots, the provisional ballots must be counted. So they will. For that matter all the states that have been called have no real effect on who gets elected. The ballots will be counted and certified (hopefully) in accordance the laws on record right now. And once that is done the electoral college will vote based on the laws governing them and the President will be elected. Which is not to say that it's at all likely for things to be different than the way the networks call it--they use mathematical formulas based on votes, outstanding votes & provisionals, as well as polling & previous voting by precint and are very rarely wrong.
You don't have to be a rude about it and I'm not trying to make up crap excuses. I guess I didn't get the memo detailing the conspiracy to steal the election again. I was trying to logically think through reasons the polls may not have been an accurate representation of the actual vote. Ultimately it may very well be that the polls were right and for some reason the voting was wrong--but that seems a lot less likely (because polls are wrong all the time) and the burden of proof on that should be a hell of a lot higher. Regardless, I find your tone offensive and while I usually enjoy going back and forth with some one with different views, I don't think it's worth my time as you'd rather label my ideas "crap" and "B.S. excuses" than discuss them intelligently.
Kerry isn't giving Bush anything. The votes will still be counted because that's what the laws say. If the difference between the two is less than the number of provisional ballots, the law says they will be counted, so they will. Though it looks extremelly unlikely, when all the votes are finally counted, if Kerry ends up with more than Bush he'll win Ohio. All the concessions in the world don't determine the winner, the count of the votes in accordance with the laws determine who wins. Though it's not binding in any way shape or form, Kerry's concession is classy move. Bush said he'd do the same thing though obviously we'll never know for sure. The most important thing on election day is to follow the laws and rules established--if something isn't right (personally I think the whole provisional ballot thing is stupid, they should just allow election day registration like my state does) the time to change it is the other 364 days.
Sure because that's the only effect that could have. Whatever. I'm interesting in seeing some polling of how this effected the way people voted--for some people I definitely believe it could have pushed them a bit to Bush (if they were undecided or weren't going to vote). But I also think that for many people seeing Osama again and being reminded that Bush's military actions have still not been able to capture/kill him would have the exact opposite effect. Either way, the effects are probably greatly overrated anyway--I would say the percentage of people who were undecided, changed their mind or were actually motivated to vote as a result of the Osama video was extremely small.
Whatever channel I happened to be watching at the time had a brief discussion on the whole accuracy of exit polls top. First and foremost they emphasized that exit polls were never meant to be used in predicting actual votes, only why people voted the way they did.
They made a few very good points about reasons exit polls may favor Democrats over Republicans which logically sounded rather plausible to me. Republican voters tend to be older--in particular the 65+ people, but even down to 50+ These people tend to be a lot more private in regards to a lot of things--in particular, personal money & politics. I think it's very much a generational thing. When asked by a pollster, a lot of them are going to kindly say "none of your damn business." On top of that, I think though to a lesser degree, Republicans of all ages are less likely to chat about how they voted & why. One last think and this is a bit off the wall--so much is made of the young vote going overwhelmingly towards the Democrats. I'd bet that there are some younger people who vote Republican, but when asked will either defer or even say they voted for the Democrat because they think that's what's expected of them.
If any one of these things is true, even a little bit, then it would definitely be enough to throw off exit polls by at least a percent or two and maybe more.
Look, your site just got posted twice to Slashdot, not to mention Fark a few times, and is trumpeting itself as one of the best statistical predictors.
And you left off the real biggie--google for electoral map, electoral vote, electoral college map (and probably others) and his site will be the top result. Considering everyone I know uses google often out of habbit even when they actually know the URL, that's some major traffic. Dude, you've made a popular site that, because of the election, is extremely susseptible to flashmobs. Get over it.
I don't like that one at all--showing the relative proportion of electoral votes is a good enough idea, but I've seen better implementations, this one just looks kinda silly. Also it has the following text on top of the page: "Note: This feature is no longer being updated. Complete results are available here." But the link has everything blank yet (which is fine, no final results yet but wiping out the poll info makes it pretty worthless). Anyway, you can't change it on your own to see the numbers. IMHO, two much better interactive charts are:
The PBS electoral vote map which lets you play with the numbers and provides previous presidential election maps and
The LA Times Electoral Vote Trackerwhich also lets you switch each state's results as well as providing more info on polls plus how each state went in past elections by the state rather than by the year (like the PBS one)
See all you flash bashers, there are some good uses for flash.
We don't live in a democracy, we live in a democratic republic. As such the Constitution set things up so that the states elect the President. Individual states can dole out their electoral votes any way they see fit--generally winner (of the popular vote) take all but there are exceptions. This is probably one of the last vestiges of federalism left.
You definitely aren't the only one who feels the way you do, and you most certainly are being a good citizen by expressing your concern. But I wish people were more careful with throwing the d-word around--the more it's used trivially, the less powerful it is. Your vote counted according to the rules in effect when you voted.
If you don't like the system, find out more about it--if you still don't like it, try to change it.
As far as Colorado goes I think most states are foolish to split their electoral votes. On average, voting is 50-50 and the candidates will not bother working to get one electoral vote. The best thing a state can do to make a candidate visit and address their issues is keep their electoral votes as one block.
His comment that they won't let him come to court is valid too.
Am I missing something? Is there some way the FCC is able to prevent Stern and/or Viacom from filing a lawsuit? They're free to sue--oh wait while there are outstanding fines, they can't buy any more stations? If they can't go that long without buying more stations it's kinda hard to feel for them. They could always pay the fines and still sue and recover their payment if they win.
Hell, I've heard plenty of nasty stuff on dial-in Teeny Loveline shows.
Which is still nothing compared to the Sunday Night Sex Show or Talk Sex with Sue Johanson. Something these have in common however is that they're on cable. Which is for the most part, outside the FCC's authority compared to radio and over the air TV that uses public airwaves. Should it matter? I don't know but historically there's been a line drawn.
I think Stern's real point is valid. If there are limits, they need to be clearly defined and uniformly applied
If there are limits then they're determined by the general public. I don't know whether it's fair or not but things broadcast over public airwaves are subject to the whims of society in general. If some one says or does something that's broadcast on public airwaves and the FCC gets a ton of complaints, they'll take some sort of action. While Howard Stern and Oprah may from time to time use the same words or discuss similar topics, big picture, anyone who says their programs are remotely comparable is smoking something funny. And I seriously doubt it would make any difference if specific words & phrases were defined--the whole point of Stern & shock jocks is to push the envelope and be edgy. That's just what he does. Explicitly state that you can't say X and he'll say things that sound close to X, imply X, partially say X and eventually say X. It's part and partial to being edgy. Move the line and he'd either move with it, or a lot less people would listen/watch. And I don't listen to him on the radio but I do watch him on E! sometimes. I don't think he'd be nearly as amusing if he's not flirting with what he can and can't say.
I don't see how Desktop Search is going to affect families one whit since whatever the family member exploits could just as easily be exploited by using the built-in search engine.
Ahh but the built-in search is so slow no one would actually have the patience to wait for it to uncover the smut. Whereas Google's Desktop Search finds it fast.
Um no. I'm pretty sure if you wash your car and want it to rain, it will hail. Basketball-sized hail. When you're at the furthest point you could be away from shelter.
Not only do things go wrong because they can, and Unapplicable Law means you can't reverse psychology Murphy, but but the larger issue is it will always be something you can't predict and will always screw you.
Not going to touch the IQ bit--so loony it's just not even worth the breath.
But I have a couple of questions for you.
The problems are not at all related to intelligence, but to simple confusion. Senior citizens who have voted in the same schoolhouse for 20 years are finding themselves re-routed to a new church building several miles away because their neighborhood was re-districted after the last election (we won't mention the fact that some folks may have some very strong opinions about being forced to vote in a place of worship not of their religious preference).
Do you have any examples of that? I live an a somewhat rural area with a lot of small municipalities around me and the elections always take place in municipal buildings. Is my area the exception or are you making that up?
Agreed that there should be consistency and uniformity in voting methods. Unfortunately it's the local municipality who has to pay for the voting machines so unless there is a major federal funding initiative (which might be a good idea) you can't require them to replace all of their machiens. Which gets to the other point--while there are a ton of variations on voting machines, the fact is at any given site they generally don't change all that often. Local municipalities don't run out and get new machines unless they absolutely have to.
US elections are still very much in need of the reforms promised after the 2000 election. I'm very angry for politicians not addressing them. But I also have very little sympathy for people who only vote every 4 years and people who make a mistake or are confused and don't ask for help. While usability needs to improve and be a major point of emphasis, in my experience the people working the polls have always been very nice, explained things well and emphasized that they would be happy to help if I had any questions.
Maybe I've just been lucky, but I don't have anything to go on besides my own experience.
It really wasn't a matter of not allowing software patents at the time, or that today's copyright infringement would have prevented it. Neither matter because it was a different time. Programming and computers in general were just beyond what the general public and the legal system could understand then. You have to let a new industry grow and see what it can become before you start placing too many restrictions on it. While I lament the misfortunes of Kildall (and many many others) and most certainly don't care much for Gates and his business practices, I think that strict IP laws including software patents would have killed the industry before it really reached critical mass.
since it is mere political theatre, by definition, you cannot trust that the issue is dead.
But using exactly the same logic, since the bill was an obvious act of political theatre in the first place, you cannot trust the issue is alive either. It is using the bills themselves (which we seem to to roughly agree about) as evidence of a plan to reinstate the draft that I find so distasteful.
I did read Gillespie's letter though just now, I hadn't when I initiall posted. I don't for a minute think Gillespie isn't a slimeball or that he does anything without self/RNC-serving interests. There is now a link on the Rock the Vote site, to an article addressing most of the false rumors. Of course any discussion threads they link to are filled with hundreds of posts of people who apparently haven't read that link or lack the attention span to actually process it (ooh a shiny quarter!).
Ultimately, the President and the rest of the current administration have been clear that they have no intention of reinstating the draft. Senator Kerry has expressed the same. Both candidates gave fairly lengthy answers at two of the three debates, responding to the question of their position on the draft as well as how they would handle the situation of having a shortage of volunteer military personnel. SO anyone who makes the claim that the government will be instituting a draft needs to provide some semblance of factual basis that counters the sizable evidence to the contrary.
Maybe I'm picking nits here but sometimes semantics matter:
As long as my data doesn't go back to Google, I couldn't care less."
Is not the same thing as
Except that it DOES transmit some of that information back to Google (and partners).
Theres a huge difference between transmitting usage information of how the program is used and transmitting personal information and/or data files. Everything I've seen so far has said the software clearly states it will send the usage/debug info and you can disable this function. Both Mac OS X and Windows have a built in function to submit debug info when programs crash. Are they spyware too?
But the draft crap is fearmongoring plain and simple. Some guy telling an organization to stop lying isn't exactly censorship. There is absolutly no factual basis for saying that Bush is going to reinstate the draft. It is in fact an urban myth because blatantly false information is passed on as fact. Like the "pending legislation." A transparently phony vote? What a load of crap. The bills were written by Democrats to make a political point (one I didn't disagree with) but never had any intention of being passed. To turn around and use those Bills of evidence of a malicious plan to bring back the draft is intentionally lying. The House's "phony" vote was to try and counter the FUD. Though I have to question what exactly makes an on-the-record vote "tansparently phony?"
By your logic, there should be no debate about anything that you disagree with.
MTV and those wonderful emails rolling around are not debate--a debate has two or more opposing viewpoints. They are trying to scare gullable people (especially young people) into believing something that is unlikely by presenting one side and presenting false information as true. The fact that the Urban Legends site has as an entry & directly disproves some of the references MTV and others have made should be enough.
Perhaps most amusing: Anyone who thinks that the youth of America are going to take a politician's word on this topic is living on another planet.
Yeah because MTV most certainly wants kids to think for themselves... So long as they listen to the music and watch exactly what they are spoonfed. And go out and be good consumers. MTV not only knows their viewers will take whatever they hear on TV as true, they bank on it.
Hate to defend Bill (eewww) but on this particular point, he's probably right. And I don't think the seatbelt analogy is terribly accurate. Unless/until they move to a Palladium type architecture were you can only run signed programs--which most of us despise, AV/spyware protection will always have to be frequently updated to be effective. Brakes and seatbelts are just installed and work. Throw in that you literally can't drive without breaks and that seatbelts were probably only put in vehicles because they were required by law. Now MS should most certainly do a better job of securing Windows & IE so viruses & adware can't get in so easily. The other thing is if they rolled in full blown AV & spyware protection in Windows, they'd probably get killed for putting Symantec, McAffee and others out of business by leveraging their OS monopoly.
I defended MS, I think I need a shower, I feel so dirty.
I haven't read that particular article yet but the comment that Walmart is the catalyst for the rush to offshore manufacturing is amusing considering Walmart CIO Linda Dillman's recent interview in Information Week. The quote from the interview which made the cover was, "We'd be nuts to outsource." Walmart is a big evil corporation, hell-bent on productivity but ultimately, if IT managers are paying attention to them, they may just save some of our jobs. If big evil, profit above all else Walmart has decided offshoring IT functions, then maybe your company should re-think whether it should really be doing it as well.
Wow, that message was actaully clear and informative. I don't mind companies that make a business decision to support MS or IE first because of the larger market (at least for now). It seems like they haven't done anything to exclude other browsers, it's just a matter of being quite ready to fully support them. It's things like this that are the reasons I continue to give them the benefit of the doubt where as MS & others get my instant skeptism.
Taxes should be levied on wealth, and taxes on income reduced
Taxes should be levied on money spent, not income and sure as hell not wealth. Since you don't have any support I won't bother either.
Your federal taxes have been reduced, and the federal aid to highways, schools, and social programs dramatically cut.
If that's true, then why did the deficit explode? Taxes were reduced, revenues dropped with the downturn in the economy, and government spending wasn't cut. I think that must be what he meant by "compassionate conservative"--he cut taxes like a conservative and was too compassionate to cut any spending. Saying Bush cut federal funding to education is an outright lie. You can certainly argue that the requirements in No Child Left Behind will cost some school districts more to meet than the amount of federal funding they receive--the unfunded mandate charge is justified for some schools, especially the most underperforming ones. But Bush's education bill was the largest federal funding of education in history. Department of Education funding increased 58% during his first 3 years which was a bigger increase than the entire 8 years of Clinton's presidency.
Or perhaps by way of returning the favor, I won't ask if I can disable their DRM. Fair enough? If they can hijack my property, why can't I hijack theirs?
What property of yours are they hijacking? They're controlling how their property appears when viewed through your web browser. As long as it doesn't affect how other sites look or do anything nasty like install software, delete data, etc and only affects how their site looks & behaves while you view it, that's their right. You don't like it, don't go there. But it works both ways. They can publish what they want, and you can do what you want to view what they publish. If you want to change the settings or code on your web browser to see their website in a different way (ie without the DRM) then that's your choice too. If they don't want to play the game, they can choose not to publish. As far as I'm concerned, it's like a newspaper publisher trying to prohibit you from using a magnifying glass. Once they publish something, the world can look at it however they please.
Of course Terms of Service "Agreements" (yeah right) are typically how website publishers get around this, but as fair as I'm concerned, TOS should not be binding any more for a website than it would be for a newspaper.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone know if Kirstie Alley is still a Scientologist? Considering they believe body fat stores toxins and radiation and bad thetans (oh my), she must not be a very good Scientologist. Maybe she didn't get zapped enough. (Not meant as a slam on overweight people, but on L.Ron).
The State of the Art and Practice in Digital Preservation and
Research Challenges in Digital Archiving and Long-term Preservation
Personally I think the provisional ballot thing is pretty much stupid and just asking for trouble. My state (Wisconsin) instead allows election day registration. Rather than putting votes on hold and only counting them if the margin of victory is less than the provisional ballots the person can register right then and there provided they have proof of ID and address. Sure it slows things down some but not compared to 11 days! The other thing--what about the other elections on the ballot? Do they count the provisonals if the Senate race is close enough? What about county treasurer? Just seems better to me to make the decision on the spot whether the person can be validly registerd and vote or not.
As far as taking a lot of work, while Ohio has a lot of punchcard ballots (70%?!?) they do have a uniform criteria in place to determine whether a "hanging chad" is valid or not, unlike Florida 2000.
No a concession most certainly is not binding and Kerry still could be President (though it's extremely unlikely). The President is determed by a vote of the electoral representatives of each state (and DC) States are free to decide how they make their electoral votes. Some states require the electors to vote according to the state's popular vote, others do not. Maine gives two to the winner of the popular vote and one for the winner of each district. I believe Ohio is a state with a law binding electors to vote with the state's popular vote. Ohio's laws dictate if the difference between the candidates is less than the number of provisional ballots, the provisional ballots must be counted. So they will. For that matter all the states that have been called have no real effect on who gets elected. The ballots will be counted and certified (hopefully) in accordance the laws on record right now. And once that is done the electoral college will vote based on the laws governing them and the President will be elected. Which is not to say that it's at all likely for things to be different than the way the networks call it--they use mathematical formulas based on votes, outstanding votes & provisionals, as well as polling & previous voting by precint and are very rarely wrong.
You don't have to be a rude about it and I'm not trying to make up crap excuses. I guess I didn't get the memo detailing the conspiracy to steal the election again. I was trying to logically think through reasons the polls may not have been an accurate representation of the actual vote. Ultimately it may very well be that the polls were right and for some reason the voting was wrong--but that seems a lot less likely (because polls are wrong all the time) and the burden of proof on that should be a hell of a lot higher. Regardless, I find your tone offensive and while I usually enjoy going back and forth with some one with different views, I don't think it's worth my time as you'd rather label my ideas "crap" and "B.S. excuses" than discuss them intelligently.
Kerry isn't giving Bush anything. The votes will still be counted because that's what the laws say. If the difference between the two is less than the number of provisional ballots, the law says they will be counted, so they will. Though it looks extremelly unlikely, when all the votes are finally counted, if Kerry ends up with more than Bush he'll win Ohio. All the concessions in the world don't determine the winner, the count of the votes in accordance with the laws determine who wins. Though it's not binding in any way shape or form, Kerry's concession is classy move. Bush said he'd do the same thing though obviously we'll never know for sure. The most important thing on election day is to follow the laws and rules established--if something isn't right (personally I think the whole provisional ballot thing is stupid, they should just allow election day registration like my state does) the time to change it is the other 364 days.
Sure because that's the only effect that could have. Whatever. I'm interesting in seeing some polling of how this effected the way people voted--for some people I definitely believe it could have pushed them a bit to Bush (if they were undecided or weren't going to vote). But I also think that for many people seeing Osama again and being reminded that Bush's military actions have still not been able to capture/kill him would have the exact opposite effect. Either way, the effects are probably greatly overrated anyway--I would say the percentage of people who were undecided, changed their mind or were actually motivated to vote as a result of the Osama video was extremely small.
They made a few very good points about reasons exit polls may favor Democrats over Republicans which logically sounded rather plausible to me. Republican voters tend to be older--in particular the 65+ people, but even down to 50+ These people tend to be a lot more private in regards to a lot of things--in particular, personal money & politics. I think it's very much a generational thing. When asked by a pollster, a lot of them are going to kindly say "none of your damn business." On top of that, I think though to a lesser degree, Republicans of all ages are less likely to chat about how they voted & why. One last think and this is a bit off the wall--so much is made of the young vote going overwhelmingly towards the Democrats. I'd bet that there are some younger people who vote Republican, but when asked will either defer or even say they voted for the Democrat because they think that's what's expected of them.
If any one of these things is true, even a little bit, then it would definitely be enough to throw off exit polls by at least a percent or two and maybe more.
And you left off the real biggie--google for electoral map, electoral vote, electoral college map (and probably others) and his site will be the top result. Considering everyone I know uses google often out of habbit even when they actually know the URL, that's some major traffic. Dude, you've made a popular site that, because of the election, is extremely susseptible to flashmobs. Get over it.
The PBS electoral vote map which lets you play with the numbers and provides previous presidential election maps and
The LA Times Electoral Vote Trackerwhich also lets you switch each state's results as well as providing more info on polls plus how each state went in past elections by the state rather than by the year (like the PBS one)
See all you flash bashers, there are some good uses for flash.
You definitely aren't the only one who feels the way you do, and you most certainly are being a good citizen by expressing your concern. But I wish people were more careful with throwing the d-word around--the more it's used trivially, the less powerful it is. Your vote counted according to the rules in effect when you voted.
If you don't like the system, find out more about it--if you still don't like it, try to change it.
As far as Colorado goes I think most states are foolish to split their electoral votes. On average, voting is 50-50 and the candidates will not bother working to get one electoral vote. The best thing a state can do to make a candidate visit and address their issues is keep their electoral votes as one block.
Am I missing something? Is there some way the FCC is able to prevent Stern and/or Viacom from filing a lawsuit? They're free to sue--oh wait while there are outstanding fines, they can't buy any more stations? If they can't go that long without buying more stations it's kinda hard to feel for them. They could always pay the fines and still sue and recover their payment if they win.
Hell, I've heard plenty of nasty stuff on dial-in Teeny Loveline shows.
Which is still nothing compared to the Sunday Night Sex Show or Talk Sex with Sue Johanson. Something these have in common however is that they're on cable. Which is for the most part, outside the FCC's authority compared to radio and over the air TV that uses public airwaves. Should it matter? I don't know but historically there's been a line drawn.
I think Stern's real point is valid. If there are limits, they need to be clearly defined and uniformly applied
If there are limits then they're determined by the general public. I don't know whether it's fair or not but things broadcast over public airwaves are subject to the whims of society in general. If some one says or does something that's broadcast on public airwaves and the FCC gets a ton of complaints, they'll take some sort of action. While Howard Stern and Oprah may from time to time use the same words or discuss similar topics, big picture, anyone who says their programs are remotely comparable is smoking something funny. And I seriously doubt it would make any difference if specific words & phrases were defined--the whole point of Stern & shock jocks is to push the envelope and be edgy. That's just what he does. Explicitly state that you can't say X and he'll say things that sound close to X, imply X, partially say X and eventually say X. It's part and partial to being edgy. Move the line and he'd either move with it, or a lot less people would listen/watch. And I don't listen to him on the radio but I do watch him on E! sometimes. I don't think he'd be nearly as amusing if he's not flirting with what he can and can't say.
Ahh but the built-in search is so slow no one would actually have the patience to wait for it to uncover the smut. Whereas Google's Desktop Search finds it fast.
Not only do things go wrong because they can, and Unapplicable Law means you can't reverse psychology Murphy, but but the larger issue is it will always be something you can't predict and will always screw you.
But I have a couple of questions for you. The problems are not at all related to intelligence, but to simple confusion. Senior citizens who have voted in the same schoolhouse for 20 years are finding themselves re-routed to a new church building several miles away because their neighborhood was re-districted after the last election (we won't mention the fact that some folks may have some very strong opinions about being forced to vote in a place of worship not of their religious preference).
Do you have any examples of that? I live an a somewhat rural area with a lot of small municipalities around me and the elections always take place in municipal buildings. Is my area the exception or are you making that up?
Agreed that there should be consistency and uniformity in voting methods. Unfortunately it's the local municipality who has to pay for the voting machines so unless there is a major federal funding initiative (which might be a good idea) you can't require them to replace all of their machiens. Which gets to the other point--while there are a ton of variations on voting machines, the fact is at any given site they generally don't change all that often. Local municipalities don't run out and get new machines unless they absolutely have to.
US elections are still very much in need of the reforms promised after the 2000 election. I'm very angry for politicians not addressing them. But I also have very little sympathy for people who only vote every 4 years and people who make a mistake or are confused and don't ask for help. While usability needs to improve and be a major point of emphasis, in my experience the people working the polls have always been very nice, explained things well and emphasized that they would be happy to help if I had any questions.
Maybe I've just been lucky, but I don't have anything to go on besides my own experience.
It really wasn't a matter of not allowing software patents at the time, or that today's copyright infringement would have prevented it. Neither matter because it was a different time. Programming and computers in general were just beyond what the general public and the legal system could understand then. You have to let a new industry grow and see what it can become before you start placing too many restrictions on it. While I lament the misfortunes of Kildall (and many many others) and most certainly don't care much for Gates and his business practices, I think that strict IP laws including software patents would have killed the industry before it really reached critical mass.
But using exactly the same logic, since the bill was an obvious act of political theatre in the first place, you cannot trust the issue is alive either. It is using the bills themselves (which we seem to to roughly agree about) as evidence of a plan to reinstate the draft that I find so distasteful.
I did read Gillespie's letter though just now, I hadn't when I initiall posted. I don't for a minute think Gillespie isn't a slimeball or that he does anything without self/RNC-serving interests. There is now a link on the Rock the Vote site, to an article addressing most of the false rumors. Of course any discussion threads they link to are filled with hundreds of posts of people who apparently haven't read that link or lack the attention span to actually process it (ooh a shiny quarter!).
Ultimately, the President and the rest of the current administration have been clear that they have no intention of reinstating the draft. Senator Kerry has expressed the same. Both candidates gave fairly lengthy answers at two of the three debates, responding to the question of their position on the draft as well as how they would handle the situation of having a shortage of volunteer military personnel. SO anyone who makes the claim that the government will be instituting a draft needs to provide some semblance of factual basis that counters the sizable evidence to the contrary.
As long as my data doesn't go back to Google, I couldn't care less."
Is not the same thing as
Except that it DOES transmit some of that information back to Google (and partners).
Theres a huge difference between transmitting usage information of how the program is used and transmitting personal information and/or data files. Everything I've seen so far has said the software clearly states it will send the usage/debug info and you can disable this function. Both Mac OS X and Windows have a built in function to submit debug info when programs crash. Are they spyware too?
By your logic, there should be no debate about anything that you disagree with.
MTV and those wonderful emails rolling around are not debate--a debate has two or more opposing viewpoints. They are trying to scare gullable people (especially young people) into believing something that is unlikely by presenting one side and presenting false information as true. The fact that the Urban Legends site has as an entry & directly disproves some of the references MTV and others have made should be enough.
Perhaps most amusing:
Anyone who thinks that the youth of America are going to take a politician's word on this topic is living on another planet.
Yeah because MTV most certainly wants kids to think for themselves... So long as they listen to the music and watch exactly what they are spoonfed. And go out and be good consumers. MTV not only knows their viewers will take whatever they hear on TV as true, they bank on it.
I defended MS, I think I need a shower, I feel so dirty.
I haven't read that particular article yet but the comment that Walmart is the catalyst for the rush to offshore manufacturing is amusing considering Walmart CIO Linda Dillman's recent interview in Information Week. The quote from the interview which made the cover was, "We'd be nuts to outsource." Walmart is a big evil corporation, hell-bent on productivity but ultimately, if IT managers are paying attention to them, they may just save some of our jobs. If big evil, profit above all else Walmart has decided offshoring IT functions, then maybe your company should re-think whether it should really be doing it as well.
Wow, that message was actaully clear and informative. I don't mind companies that make a business decision to support MS or IE first because of the larger market (at least for now). It seems like they haven't done anything to exclude other browsers, it's just a matter of being quite ready to fully support them. It's things like this that are the reasons I continue to give them the benefit of the doubt where as MS & others get my instant skeptism.
Taxes should be levied on money spent, not income and sure as hell not wealth. Since you don't have any support I won't bother either.
Your federal taxes have been reduced, and the federal aid to highways, schools, and social programs dramatically cut.
If that's true, then why did the deficit explode? Taxes were reduced, revenues dropped with the downturn in the economy, and government spending wasn't cut. I think that must be what he meant by "compassionate conservative"--he cut taxes like a conservative and was too compassionate to cut any spending. Saying Bush cut federal funding to education is an outright lie. You can certainly argue that the requirements in No Child Left Behind will cost some school districts more to meet than the amount of federal funding they receive--the unfunded mandate charge is justified for some schools, especially the most underperforming ones. But Bush's education bill was the largest federal funding of education in history. Department of Education funding increased 58% during his first 3 years which was a bigger increase than the entire 8 years of Clinton's presidency.
What property of yours are they hijacking? They're controlling how their property appears when viewed through your web browser. As long as it doesn't affect how other sites look or do anything nasty like install software, delete data, etc and only affects how their site looks & behaves while you view it, that's their right. You don't like it, don't go there. But it works both ways. They can publish what they want, and you can do what you want to view what they publish. If you want to change the settings or code on your web browser to see their website in a different way (ie without the DRM) then that's your choice too. If they don't want to play the game, they can choose not to publish. As far as I'm concerned, it's like a newspaper publisher trying to prohibit you from using a magnifying glass. Once they publish something, the world can look at it however they please.
Of course Terms of Service "Agreements" (yeah right) are typically how website publishers get around this, but as fair as I'm concerned, TOS should not be binding any more for a website than it would be for a newspaper.