Seriously, what can they do about this? It seems to me like there's nothing they can legally do. Of course, IANAL.
Ballots like this are in use all over the country. My ballot a couple years ago was fairly simular to that one. Personally, I *always* study my ballot and make sure I understand it *before* I vote.
And as for the ballots that were disqualified because people "voted" for more than one candidate...there's nothing you can do about that! There are warnings all over the ballot that say not to do that!
Just my 2 billion nanocents.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Well, maybe you're partially right. Contrary to popular belief in Minnesota (not trying to flame here), jesse ventura probably wouldn't have much of a chance in the rest of the country. But the "third"-party movement has been getting a lot more attention lately than usual, what with the new reform and independence parties, and all the attention being given to nader and the greens lately...not to mention the libertarians. Of course, with several parties (that is, several parties that could each at least get a few percent of the vote), the person who is elected will have less and less of a majority most likely. I don't think this is all bad...I'd rather have more realistic choices. After all, I'd rather be right than have my candidate be president.:)
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Are the reports on this just speculative right now? That is, can they say with confidence that a certain number of ballots were counted for buchanan when they should have been for gore? It seems like the only way to fix it would be to have everybody that voted in that precinct to come and vote again. Otherwise how could they know?
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
A guy I work with said they're going to re-count wisconsin too. Unfortunately I can't find a link at this time. So I suppose it's more or less a rumor as far as I'm concerned. But thought I'd mention it.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
1- I wish tv stations and news websites would be more careful with their predictions
2- Why does it take so freaking long to count the votes cast at precints? (not-absentees)
3- A recount...ugh...the suspense is killing me!
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Republicrats? Hrm...I've been hearing some people use that word lately. A couple years ago (well, maybe more like a year ago) I decided that when I run for president, it will be on the Republicrat ticket...as a better alternative to reps and dems, not as a "same as them" candidate. Heh, I thought I was the first to come up with that term too. Well, I guess maybe I'll have to give my party a different name. I would most prefer to run as an independent, but having a party would simplify things for me.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
I don't know what happened, but some of the text from that message got cut out. It was supposed to say I posted a message on a thread dealing with this yesterday that seems to fairly accurate.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
I doubt that it would have much effect if gore or bush did respond. Now, think about it. I notice a recurring theme in many posters' comments. "I don't like gore, but I hate bush," etc etc etc. There seem to be a LOT of people that are saying that, that don't want bush to be elected no matter what. So, what if Bush responded to the questions and gore didn't? People, insted of focusing on the fact that he responded at all (like they are currently focusing on the fact that he hasn't), would tear him to shreds for his answers, no matter what they were. If gore responded and bush didn't, the same thing would happen but to a lesser extent I think, because the bush-supporting slashdot readers seem to be a minority, and not as vocal as those who hate him. There are, of course, those who haven't decided yet or might still change their minds, but in all likeliness probably not as many as would be required for the responses to have any kind of impact.
But some of the questions dealt with topics that both bush and gore are probably unprepared to answer, or haven't spent much time defining their positions on. So maybe it would be beneficial to *both* of them to choose not to answer the questions at this point, since it probably wouldn't go over too well if they answered some of them with "no answer."
Maybe you will think I'm a troll or flamebait, but I just don't think that there are many readers here who would give bush OR gore a chance and read their responses BEFORE choosing who to vote for.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
So, write a program that can decode Minesweeper for any size board, and you will join the pantheon of mathematical greats, alongside Euler and Pythagoras.
Decode it? Does that just mean solve it?
I mean, given a minesweeper board of any size, there could be lots of potential solutions. If this is just a matter of writing a program to find a solution...i.e. unconver a square (the first one is never a mine), and go from there, looking at each surrounding square and the ones near that, etc, etc, etc...in other words, write a program to do what the player is trying to do...well...I don't think that is possible. There are probably lots of cases where such a program would work, but there have been so many times that I've, for instance, come down to a point where there are 2 squares left, 1 mine left, and EITHER ONE of them could be the mine. At that point, it's just a guess. There have been a few times where that foiled my attempt to beat my best time of 60 seconds for expert mode. Since a program cannot truly guess the correct answer every time, then this is not possible. If the program was written with knowledge of the algorithms used to place mines, or somehow actually knew where to look, well, it might be possible then, but it wouldn't be a guess then...that would be cheating.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
but *gasp* your efforts ARE being explioted by predatory entities who don't give a damn about the population at large.
Exploited? Ha! I still can't believe that I am actually getting *paid* to program! I love my job, and I get paid well for it. And I'm probably making less than a lot of people doing the same thing. I don't feel exploited at all. And predatory entities? Do you mean our employers? I like my employer! Not everybody feels the same way about their's as you do. Not everybody feels exploited, either. My company didn't *have* to hire me, but they did. And I am grateful. If anything, I am exploiting them, because I'm taking so much money for doing what I absolutely love to do!
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
You're saying that because you live a privileged life. If you're an immigrant, or someone up for trial, your life depends on what your elected leaders decide. They make the laws, and people's lives change.
I think what that poster actually meant was that voting for everyone would have the same effect as voting for none of them.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Yes, but it all depends on what you're complaining about.:)
So far, besides for maybe 1 michigan supreme court justice and 1 governor, I've never voted for the person who won...so this is unfamiliar territory for me.:)
Seriously though, I guess I don't fully understand what you're asking. I generally feel that if I vote, then I can at least say that I tried to pick the right candidate, even if I was wrong.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
...but I want to give whichever candidate wins as little reason as possible to interpret his victory as some kind of mandate.
You bring up an interesting issue.
Perhaps this is a bit offtopic, but I find it interesting how so many politicians tell us what America wants and what Americans don't want, and that American's feel this way or that way. Are they basing this on the fact that they were elected? The fact is, you just can't go around speaking for people as if they ALL agree with you, when a LOT of them don't. This is why I like the idea of a politician who 1) is going to have the government try less to interfere with my life, and 2) is open to different ideas and isn't afraid to change his/her mind for the right causes...even if that is considered to be political suicide.
Maybe I am asking for too much though.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
I totally agree with what many posters have been saying, that if I don't vote, I have no right to complain. And I reeallly like to complain...so of course I'll be voting!
Of course, there is a bit more to it than that. Although I disagree with Mr. Gore that this is the most important time in the history of the universe or however he put it, there are some important issues on the table that this election will affect. I don't particularly feel like either candidate will ruin anything, but I think there is a potential for the next president to do some very good things. And I'll be paying close attention to what happens over the next 4 years, especially now that I'm not distracted by school anymore.:)
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
I totally agree. I went to vote in michigan's republ. primary a few months ago...but wasn't satisfied at the time with any of the candidates...so I voted none of the above, and wrote in my dad's name.:)
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
I am generally a big proponent of free speech on the net. Sometimes, I don't think it's a big deal though. Like here, I don't think it'd be a big deal if it were possible to restrict this type of thing. Like I said, I believe the idea has some merits. It also has it's downsides.
But, right now it wouldn't be practical, and maybe not even possible, as you say. But, that was not my point. My main point was that it is largely false to presume that it would be possible to to filter some types of content, but not others. Why does this "congressional panel" or whatever they are recommend filtering some web content, but specifically not pornography? So forget what porn itself is defined as for a minute. Think about the bigger picture...what is anything defined as? How can they make a distinction between porn and not-porn in this sense? And, responding again to the original poster of this thread, how is it that filtering porn (or anything) could be called pro-human-rights, when they still want to filter all kinds of other things? That is why I think human rights has nothing to do with the fact that they "declined to recommend the mandatory use of antipornography filters."
So, to say what some other posters have already said, that congressional panel was being inconsistent.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
No, I don't have any problems here. You seem to have the problems. Let me straighten this out for you:
I am not, and I don't claim to be, an expert on what is and is not "porn." I am not trying to suggest practical solutions, or that there even is a practical solution.
I believe there are some merits to the idea of restricting people from looking at porn at libraries and schools, even though it might not be practical to do so.
I don't like the idea of having to wait in line to use a computer at the library while somebody in front of me is busy looking at pornography.
I don't like the idea of spending tax dollars on a school where kids are, instead of learning how to read & write, looking at mpegs of people having anal sex.
So please don't tell me that *I* have problems, especially when you don't understand the point of my post.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
I don't think there's any point to keep defining things when I think that you understand what I'm saying.
And what I mean by SI's "primary intention" is what the intention is advertised as being. We know that we like it because we like to look at the pretty girls, but that's not what the official reason is behind it if you ask SI. But I do understand your point, don't get me wrong. There *is* content out there that might be in a gray area. I don't know what criteria they would or should use for making the distinction between pron and not porn.
But, if you restrict kids in a public library, for instance, from looking at pictures of 8 guys ejaculating all over some girl's face, then I don't think that's violating anybody's human rights. So I stand by my original point. I am still not saying that it is the best way to go. I just don't think it has so much to do with human rights, as the original poster in this thread did.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Well, I always envisioned that what they wanted to do was make a big list of known porn sites/domains, and filter out anything from those. I agree, that either way, it would be difficult and maybe not worthwhile. My original post was just pointing out that it's kinda weird that they want to filter the "Internet's seedier neighborhoods," but not porn. It seems that they would have the exact same problems. How can they tell the difference between a site that actually has "seedy" content, and a site that *talks* about "seedy" content. It seems like there's not much point to drawing a distinction.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Anything whose intention is to make the viewer "get off"....this is a pretty informal definition, obviously, but I think it gets the idea across. I would say sports illustrated doesn't count, because, though a lot of people probably do use it to get off, it's primary intention is to advertise swimwear. I have never seen a porn site (not that I look at porn of course) that advertises anything but sex.
Anything of an edcutaional nature should not be restricted.
And, btw, I am not necessarily for this whole restriction as it is. But I don't think it's that bad of an idea, either.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Slashdot Mirror
Do you find the palm beach ballot confusing?
Yes, I'm baffled!
Not at all
Kinda (or cowboy neal or something)
Seriously, what can they do about this? It seems to me like there's nothing they can legally do. Of course, IANAL.
Ballots like this are in use all over the country. My ballot a couple years ago was fairly simular to that one. Personally, I *always* study my ballot and make sure I understand it *before* I vote.
And as for the ballots that were disqualified because people "voted" for more than one candidate...there's nothing you can do about that! There are warnings all over the ballot that say not to do that!
Just my 2 billion nanocents.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Well, maybe you're partially right. Contrary to popular belief in Minnesota (not trying to flame here), jesse ventura probably wouldn't have much of a chance in the rest of the country. But the "third"-party movement has been getting a lot more attention lately than usual, what with the new reform and independence parties, and all the attention being given to nader and the greens lately...not to mention the libertarians. Of course, with several parties (that is, several parties that could each at least get a few percent of the vote), the person who is elected will have less and less of a majority most likely. I don't think this is all bad...I'd rather have more realistic choices. After all, I'd rather be right than have my candidate be president. :)
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Wellington? Who's that? I've seen about a jillion sources crediting Robert Lee with it. Was lee quoting this wellington maybe?
there's a wellington pub in sterling heights, mi I like to go to....wonder if it's named after him.
[-1OT]
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Are the reports on this just speculative right now? That is, can they say with confidence that a certain number of ballots were counted for buchanan when they should have been for gore? It seems like the only way to fix it would be to have everybody that voted in that precinct to come and vote again. Otherwise how could they know?
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
A guy I work with said they're going to re-count wisconsin too. Unfortunately I can't find a link at this time. So I suppose it's more or less a rumor as far as I'm concerned. But thought I'd mention it.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
I was up till 4:30 waiting for the outcome.
1- I wish tv stations and news websites would be more careful with their predictions
2- Why does it take so freaking long to count the votes cast at precints? (not-absentees)
3- A recount...ugh...the suspense is killing me!
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Republicrats? Hrm...I've been hearing some people use that word lately. A couple years ago (well, maybe more like a year ago) I decided that when I run for president, it will be on the Republicrat ticket...as a better alternative to reps and dems, not as a "same as them" candidate. Heh, I thought I was the first to come up with that term too. Well, I guess maybe I'll have to give my party a different name. I would most prefer to run as an independent, but having a party would simplify things for me.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
yay! I got 0 seconds too!
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Ha....You're lying!
.17 seconds. Still trying though.
That's pretty good actually. I only got
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
I don't know what happened, but some of the text from that message got cut out. It was supposed to say I posted a message on a thread dealing with this yesterday that seems to fairly accurate.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
I posted a message
Hrmm...-1 troll?
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
I doubt that it would have much effect if gore or bush did respond. Now, think about it. I notice a recurring theme in many posters' comments. "I don't like gore, but I hate bush," etc etc etc. There seem to be a LOT of people that are saying that, that don't want bush to be elected no matter what. So, what if Bush responded to the questions and gore didn't? People, insted of focusing on the fact that he responded at all (like they are currently focusing on the fact that he hasn't), would tear him to shreds for his answers, no matter what they were. If gore responded and bush didn't, the same thing would happen but to a lesser extent I think, because the bush-supporting slashdot readers seem to be a minority, and not as vocal as those who hate him. There are, of course, those who haven't decided yet or might still change their minds, but in all likeliness probably not as many as would be required for the responses to have any kind of impact.
But some of the questions dealt with topics that both bush and gore are probably unprepared to answer, or haven't spent much time defining their positions on. So maybe it would be beneficial to *both* of them to choose not to answer the questions at this point, since it probably wouldn't go over too well if they answered some of them with "no answer."
Maybe you will think I'm a troll or flamebait, but I just don't think that there are many readers here who would give bush OR gore a chance and read their responses BEFORE choosing who to vote for.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
So, write a program that can decode Minesweeper for any size board, and you will join the pantheon of mathematical greats, alongside Euler and Pythagoras.
Decode it? Does that just mean solve it?
I mean, given a minesweeper board of any size, there could be lots of potential solutions. If this is just a matter of writing a program to find a solution...i.e. unconver a square (the first one is never a mine), and go from there, looking at each surrounding square and the ones near that, etc, etc, etc...in other words, write a program to do what the player is trying to do...well...I don't think that is possible. There are probably lots of cases where such a program would work, but there have been so many times that I've, for instance, come down to a point where there are 2 squares left, 1 mine left, and EITHER ONE of them could be the mine. At that point, it's just a guess. There have been a few times where that foiled my attempt to beat my best time of 60 seconds for expert mode. Since a program cannot truly guess the correct answer every time, then this is not possible. If the program was written with knowledge of the algorithms used to place mines, or somehow actually knew where to look, well, it might be possible then, but it wouldn't be a guess then...that would be cheating.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Umm...no. But nice try at a joke.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
but *gasp* your efforts ARE being explioted by predatory entities who don't give a damn about the population at large.
Exploited? Ha! I still can't believe that I am actually getting *paid* to program! I love my job, and I get paid well for it. And I'm probably making less than a lot of people doing the same thing. I don't feel exploited at all. And predatory entities? Do you mean our employers? I like my employer! Not everybody feels the same way about their's as you do. Not everybody feels exploited, either. My company didn't *have* to hire me, but they did. And I am grateful. If anything, I am exploiting them, because I'm taking so much money for doing what I absolutely love to do!
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
You're saying that because you live a privileged life. If you're an immigrant, or someone up for trial, your life depends on what your elected leaders decide. They make the laws, and people's lives change.
I think what that poster actually meant was that voting for everyone would have the same effect as voting for none of them.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Yes, but it all depends on what you're complaining about. :)
:)
So far, besides for maybe 1 michigan supreme court justice and 1 governor, I've never voted for the person who won...so this is unfamiliar territory for me.
Seriously though, I guess I don't fully understand what you're asking. I generally feel that if I vote, then I can at least say that I tried to pick the right candidate, even if I was wrong.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
...but I want to give whichever candidate wins as little reason as possible to interpret his victory as some kind of mandate.
You bring up an interesting issue.
Perhaps this is a bit offtopic, but I find it interesting how so many politicians tell us what America wants and what Americans don't want, and that American's feel this way or that way. Are they basing this on the fact that they were elected? The fact is, you just can't go around speaking for people as if they ALL agree with you, when a LOT of them don't. This is why I like the idea of a politician who 1) is going to have the government try less to interfere with my life, and 2) is open to different ideas and isn't afraid to change his/her mind for the right causes...even if that is considered to be political suicide.
Maybe I am asking for too much though.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
I totally agree with what many posters have been saying, that if I don't vote, I have no right to complain. And I reeallly like to complain...so of course I'll be voting!
:)
Of course, there is a bit more to it than that. Although I disagree with Mr. Gore that this is the most important time in the history of the universe or however he put it, there are some important issues on the table that this election will affect. I don't particularly feel like either candidate will ruin anything, but I think there is a potential for the next president to do some very good things. And I'll be paying close attention to what happens over the next 4 years, especially now that I'm not distracted by school anymore.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
I totally agree. I went to vote in michigan's republ. primary a few months ago...but wasn't satisfied at the time with any of the candidates...so I voted none of the above, and wrote in my dad's name. :)
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
I am generally a big proponent of free speech on the net. Sometimes, I don't think it's a big deal though. Like here, I don't think it'd be a big deal if it were possible to restrict this type of thing. Like I said, I believe the idea has some merits. It also has it's downsides.
But, right now it wouldn't be practical, and maybe not even possible, as you say. But, that was not my point. My main point was that it is largely false to presume that it would be possible to to filter some types of content, but not others. Why does this "congressional panel" or whatever they are recommend filtering some web content, but specifically not pornography? So forget what porn itself is defined as for a minute. Think about the bigger picture...what is anything defined as? How can they make a distinction between porn and not-porn in this sense? And, responding again to the original poster of this thread, how is it that filtering porn (or anything) could be called pro-human-rights, when they still want to filter all kinds of other things? That is why I think human rights has nothing to do with the fact that they "declined to recommend the mandatory use of antipornography filters."
So, to say what some other posters have already said, that congressional panel was being inconsistent.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
*sigh*
You have 3 problems here:
No, I don't have any problems here. You seem to have the problems. Let me straighten this out for you:
I am not, and I don't claim to be, an expert on what is and is not "porn." I am not trying to suggest practical solutions, or that there even is a practical solution.
I believe there are some merits to the idea of restricting people from looking at porn at libraries and schools, even though it might not be practical to do so.
I don't like the idea of having to wait in line to use a computer at the library while somebody in front of me is busy looking at pornography.
I don't like the idea of spending tax dollars on a school where kids are, instead of learning how to read & write, looking at mpegs of people having anal sex.
So please don't tell me that *I* have problems, especially when you don't understand the point of my post.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
I don't think there's any point to keep defining things when I think that you understand what I'm saying.
And what I mean by SI's "primary intention" is what the intention is advertised as being. We know that we like it because we like to look at the pretty girls, but that's not what the official reason is behind it if you ask SI. But I do understand your point, don't get me wrong. There *is* content out there that might be in a gray area. I don't know what criteria they would or should use for making the distinction between pron and not porn.
But, if you restrict kids in a public library, for instance, from looking at pictures of 8 guys ejaculating all over some girl's face, then I don't think that's violating anybody's human rights. So I stand by my original point. I am still not saying that it is the best way to go. I just don't think it has so much to do with human rights, as the original poster in this thread did.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Well, I always envisioned that what they wanted to do was make a big list of known porn sites/domains, and filter out anything from those. I agree, that either way, it would be difficult and maybe not worthwhile. My original post was just pointing out that it's kinda weird that they want to filter the "Internet's seedier neighborhoods," but not porn. It seems that they would have the exact same problems. How can they tell the difference between a site that actually has "seedy" content, and a site that *talks* about "seedy" content. It seems like there's not much point to drawing a distinction.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Anything whose intention is to make the viewer "get off"....this is a pretty informal definition, obviously, but I think it gets the idea across. I would say sports illustrated doesn't count, because, though a lot of people probably do use it to get off, it's primary intention is to advertise swimwear. I have never seen a porn site (not that I look at porn of course) that advertises anything but sex.
Anything of an edcutaional nature should not be restricted.
And, btw, I am not necessarily for this whole restriction as it is. But I don't think it's that bad of an idea, either.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."