Java the IDE is pathetic except for IBM's VisualAge for Java which is almost as good as Smalltalk's IDE (VisualWorks, VisualAge for Smalltalk, Dolphin or even the late, lamented VisualWorksSmalltalk.)
Ever try Kawa? I've heard it's a decent Java IDE...
I personally love the VC++ IDE for C++ development, but that's just me. If J++ had actually taken off, I think it would have rocked to be able to use the MSDev IDE for all the languages I use or would ever want to use. Unfortunately, it's dead. Long live C#??
Well, you have interfaces and aggrigation. Together you end up with all the same abilities (though admittedly with a bit more work), while avoiding a lot of the pitfalls and ambiguities. I really don't mind this (so far).
- Memory management.
Well, you can implement object pool patterns to drastically cut down on the amount of garbage collection, but you're right, this bothers me to for any time-critical problems or problems that require really predictable response. However, it's not nearly as big a problem as you might think given that there are simple ways around it (and think about how badly the heap is serialized on some systems using C++... memory allocations are WAY faster under Java, similar to stack allocations... so it evens out somewhat in heavily multithreaded applications).
Interestingly, Microsoft is claiming that the garbage collector they use for C# (and all other CLI langauges for their.net platform) is lightening fast, using lots of optimizations so that a garbage collection event rarely lasts more than a couple of miliseconds. Anyway, I think this is a solvable problem.
The finalize stuff just always reminded me of an utter hack, and I can't stand any of it. You pretty much can't rely on it ever getting called, so you're forced to ensure your class users call 'close' methods and to really do everything there. Avoid using finalize whenever possible, I say. I'm still not convinced that the trade-off between destructors and garbage collection is really worth it, but I'm willing to keep an open mind on this and see how it turns out as I get more and more into Java.
What???!! Are you out of your mind? How can you say that a language that doesn't have explicit pointers or pass-by-reference, makes you use a class instead of a struct, and generally does nothing C++ can't do, while leaving out a hell of a lot that it can do is better than anything but INTERCAL? Java really is C++--.
Actually, everything in Java is pass-by-reference, really. You don't really need pointers (or think of it as 'everything is a reference', which while not completely true, is true enough for this discussion give you can easily wrap the atomic types like 'int' in a class).
And I prefer to think of Java as "C++ with C (and all the compromises and bastardizations associated with it) surgically removed. No printf(), no global functions without being associated with a class (i.e. forcing more pure OOP), etc.
I still don't know why they chose the 'final' keyword instead of 'const' -- since final seems to mean 'const' and it makes it just that much more difficult for a person to tranform from a C++ programmer to a java programmer... that's the one syntax/keyword I can NOT get used to. Yet.
Let me ask you one question. Why? As in why the hell would you ever use Java server side rather than Perl, or even better, PHP. Both Perl and PHP run perfectly fine on Linux. And as for being open, Perl is under the GPL, how much more open can you be?
Ever hear of Enterprise Java Beans? Running under an app server? This, in combination with the incredible class library, makes Java the best thing since sliced bread. Scalable, threaded, reusable, clear, concise, and powerful code that runs on many platforms (Solaris, NT, AIX, etc., etc)... it's great. Java is ESPECIALLY useful on the server-side. You need to update your knowledge base here, I think.
I *like* the syntactic sugar of operator overloading. Sure it can be abused, but I'm an adult dammit, let ME make the decision. And aparently the authors of Java think operator overloading is cool too, seeing as how the "+" operator works for the String class (nothing like hard-coded special cases, huh?:-)
I also love my destructors. Oh well. So much for having really nice clean concise code that doesn't require users of it to constantly remember to call close() methods in every case (requiring lots of try/finallys so that exception handling doesn't screw up and leave resources hanging when an exception is thrown).
But that being said, I think Java does make a lot of improvements over C++ so it's not like I'm horribly partisan one way or the other. It's just that giving up my guard classes, destructors, arbitrary scoping, type-parameterizaition (templates) and operator overloads is kinda a high price to pay sometimes for better error handling and exceptions, garbage collection (sorry, but memory leakes were never a huge problem for me, though I know they are for so many others), interfaces, and those wonderful class libraries (the C++ standard library sucks, imho).
Eh, you win some, you lose some, and everything is a trade-off...:-)
The horrid strobing through any frames that feature fast motion over largely white surfaces are HORRIBLE. The amount of blur is very noticable, and the strobing really hurts my eyes (but then, I can't stare into any monitors that have a less than 70hz refresh rate -- I really notice it).
I've heard wonderful things about how real 'showscan' looks (Trumbal's high-fps, large format film stuff, relegated to Chuck-E-Cheese's and other novelty amuesment locations last I heard). I'd LOVE to see something that realistic on screen in a huge sci-fi epic.
I can't believe anyone shown the same movie in both formats would actually choose 24fps over something faster.
I thought Trumble advocated a 72fps rate (24fps times 3)...
That would certainly be a sight for sore eyes (literally). Even Ebert says that all that digital nonsense should be shelved until the technology comes up to par, and in the mean time we should switch to 48 fps (24fps times 2, much cheaper and easier to implement across all of America's theaters than whole new digital projection systems)
It would have been impressive if they had thrown out that stupid 24fps rate and moved to at least 48fps. Then EpII might have looked stunning compared to other movies (at least where projected digitally at the new higher rate, rather than a reduced rate of a film transfer that would drop every other frame).
Lucas had the chance to go for a REAL technical innovation/improvement, and chose instead to make things more crappy than they already were. Which I guess explains why EpI was more crappy than Jedi...
Don't follow Lucas, people! He's going the wrong direction!
Not at all. If Bush were running against some freak from the left, or some extreme freak from the right, I'd vote for Bush. I *did* have some respect for him earlier -- admittedly not a lot (and I think I implied that) -- and it's all but gone now. I think he's an utter ass, who has completely lacked any sense of dignity, tact, or subtlety.
And if that report is true, then fine. Wonderful. I'm only saying that THESE THINGS SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED until there are no questions, and everyone can be satisified with the results. If Bush were elected under the cloud of too many questions and the appearance of impropriety, then he'd have virutally no power to govern, and that isn't good for ANYONE.
If the recounts determine that Bush wins, then fine. But I'm annoyed and offended with his arrogant presumptuousness.
Or how about just WAITING for the *certified* results of the various recounts before just assuming that he won? He can privately make all the plans he wants to and needs to, but doing so publically shows a huge lack of class. He SHOULD be saying publicly that he will honor the will of the people, and will patiently but eagerly await the results of the recounts. He should also be clearly stating that he wants to win fair and square, and is disturbed by the voting irregularities, and should be promising somthing such that these things are less likely to occur in the future.
I agree with you on all counts except that I can't be so selfish and self-absorbed that I totally ignore the impact to the greater citizens of the country. Of course, I live in Texas, home of the environmentally raped and corporations running amok, so...;-)
- Spryguy
Re:The problems are...
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
I voted in Texas... there was no validation of my ballot that was done.
Of course, the paper ballot I used was about as un-confusing as can be (totally unlike the Palm Beach County ballots, which would be confusing to LOTS of people, especially the elderly or visually challeneged).
- Spryguy
Re:Some kind of record has to be kept
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
Sure.
I have a bunch of friends that never vote... I'll just grab their numbers (I'm sure they'll give 'em to me, since they don't care) and I'll get to vote about a dozen times. And I'm sure there are some homeless or mentally challenged individuals I could talk out of their numbers...
WOW! I might get to vote 370 times, if I work at it a little, and it'd all be legal!:-) Or at least untracable!
Really, before you respond again think very long about a question. If they couldn't mark them correctly then do you really think giving them another method would increase voter accuracy?
Absolutely I do. Did you SEE the actual ballots being used? Voting should not be an exercise in puzzle-solving or an IQ test. Everyone who is a citizen has a right to vote. Just because you're IQ happens to be on the high end, don't forget that HALF the population (by defintion) has IQ's under 100. And that Palm Beach County ballot was a nightmare in terms of user-friendly user-interface design.
It's absolutely easy to design an interface that is far far less error prone than the one used in that particular county. And even easier to design one that uses electronic touch-screens and does instantaneous input validation. I used electronic voting booths in Ohio in 1996, and as you selected one person for a race, all the other selections went dark and couldn't be selected. How can you NOT see that this would be less error prone?
There have also been numerous reports of people being TOLD to punch twice, told that they were out of ballots, told that polling places were closed when they weren't, etc. There is LOTS of evidence of voting irregularities above and beyond the confusion in Palm Beach county.
I honestly think a hand-recount of the disputed ballots in that county is warrented. I even think it's fair to take all those ballots that have both Buchannan AND Gore punched and count them, and then divide the total equally between Buchannan and Gore (or in some statistical way).
The fact of the matter is, Bush is behind in both the popular and electoral votes right now, and Florida and Oregon are still up for grabs. The process should be allowed to run its course. Bush is acting very arrogant and like a selfish spoiled 'entitled' brat in going ahead as if he's already won. If the tables were turned, he'd be doing the same thing Gore is doing, though aparnetly with a lot more petulance and a lot less class.
I've lost a LOT of respect for Bush in the last few days. I live here in Austin, TX now, so I get to see his whiney "Gimme gimme gimme, I want the presidency NOW" routine up close and personal. It's thorougly disgusting.
I still maintain that through his hubris, he cost all liberals the election, and did himself no good in the process (democrates now loathe him for costing Gore the election, and he didn't get enough to find any matching funds... not that matching funds helped out the Reform party).
He cut off his nose to spite his own face. Gore didn't help himself, to be sure, but if Nader hadn't run or hadn't been so strident, Gore would have won EASILY. As it is, prepare yourself for environmental rapeing and tons of corporate welfare.
Wrong. At the end of the first count, Bush carried Florida by 2000 votes. In the recount, Gore has picked up 23 votes so far with four precincts reporting. At that rate, he cannot reclaim the state. If the recount puts it too close (say, Bush or Gore by less than 100 votes), there is likely to be a third re-count...
in the end if Gore loses he lost to Bush, not to Nader
No duh, but Gore does lose BECAUSE of Nader.
I for one wanted to see the Greens get matching money.
Yeah, look at all the good those matching dollard did for the Reform party! Boy, screw the entire nation and put Bush in the whitehouse all for a bit of public funds that aparently wouldn't help one bit anyway! Thanks a lot!
That would be nice, but in a plurality voting system, it doesn't work out that way.
If we had approval voting or a Borda count system in place, then all you say would be true, there would be no controversy, no candidate could ever 'steal' an election from another, and the effect on this race is that Gore would be president with the biggest popular and electoral vote, and the Nader people wouldn't have to be worrying about oil exploration in Alaska or even more corporate power being locked up by the monolithic corporations while the individual loses even more...
Demand not only campaign finance reform, but demand voting system reform.
Nader split the liberal voting majority, allowing the minority candidate, Bush, get elected. By staying on the ballot, he caused the election to go to someone who opposes everything he stands for. The plurality voting system only works correctly when there are exactly two choices. Nader served as the spoiler, and allowed the will of the people to be ignored. Of course, some of the blame goes to the voting system too, but Nader should have been smarter, and less ego-driven and uncompromising.
Do you understand how plurality voting works? It's only fair and accurate if there are *exactly* two and ONLY two parties running.
A plurality voting system allows a majority party to be 'split' by a third party (in this case, Nader, pulling from the left), thus allowing a minority party (Bush) to win the election even though a MAJORITY of people don't want him in office.
Nader was well aware of this. And the results show that in several states, Nader took several times as many votes as the margin by which Bush took the state from Gore. Exit polling showed quite clearly that Nader voters, if they had to choose between Gore and Bush, would choose Gore overwhelmingly... while small percentages would go to other, and the rest would just not vote.
Nader, in his greed and inability to compromise, threw this election to Bush. All people voting for Nader, ended up having the effect of voting AGAINST the environment and AGAINST labor, achieving the exact opposite of what they were hoping to vote FOR.
In a real voting system, like the Borda count or the approval voting system, Gore couldn't have possibly lost the election to Nader, and it's highly likely that Nader would have simultaneously done a lot better.
Do I blame Nader and Nader-voters? Yes. They're short-sighted and over-zealous, and cost Gore the election. But I also blame the voting system. Nader has lost ALL my respect (along with most Nader voters, especially in the battle-ground states). And so has the plurality voting system.
GIVEN the current voting system, NADER is to blame. Because of Nader, someone who is anti-environmental and pro-corporate will rule the white-house. Thus Nader-voters, who know all about the current voting system, voted AGAINST their core interests by voting FOR Nader, thus ensuring that BUSH won the white-house.
It is a spearate issue that our plurality voting system is fundamentally flawed. In an approval or Borda count voting system, Nader could not possibly have cost Gore the election. And Gore would be our president with both the popular and electoral votes.
Yeah. While Apple is going for photo-realistic in its new OS X, MS seems to be going for "cartoony" with Whistler and the new MSN Explorer, etc.
I really don't like it. There are so many UI improvements they could make that would be functional and useful... instead they dumb-down things and blow up the size of everything. I spent an hour just turning off and reconfiguring crap on Win2k... stupid 'fade in' menus that wasted time, and the stupid "big icon" default display in Explorer windows to name two things. Gads.
I don't WANT a cartoony Nickelodean style dumbed-down big type huge icon interface. I need to get some work done. The clear-crispness of the OS X is vastly superior to anything I've seen come out of MS (and I'm not generally a Mac person).
Slashdot Mirror
Don't kid yourself... C++ has TONS of flaws. You're harping on one little aspect of Java that frankly almost never comes up in the real world.
- Spryguy
Java the IDE is pathetic except for IBM's VisualAge for Java which is almost as good as Smalltalk's IDE (VisualWorks, VisualAge for Smalltalk, Dolphin or even the late, lamented VisualWorksSmalltalk.)
Ever try Kawa? I've heard it's a decent Java IDE...
I personally love the VC++ IDE for C++ development, but that's just me. If J++ had actually taken off, I think it would have rocked to be able to use the MSDev IDE for all the languages I use or would ever want to use. Unfortunately, it's dead. Long live C#??
- Spryguy
- No multiple inheritance.
... memory allocations are WAY faster under Java, similar to stack allocations... so it evens out somewhat in heavily multithreaded applications).
.net platform) is lightening fast, using lots of optimizations so that a garbage collection event rarely lasts more than a couple of miliseconds. Anyway, I think this is a solvable problem.
Well, you have interfaces and aggrigation. Together you end up with all the same abilities (though admittedly with a bit more work), while avoiding a lot of the pitfalls and ambiguities. I really don't mind this (so far).
- Memory management.
Well, you can implement object pool patterns to drastically cut down on the amount of garbage collection, but you're right, this bothers me to for any time-critical problems or problems that require really predictable response. However, it's not nearly as big a problem as you might think given that there are simple ways around it (and think about how badly the heap is serialized on some systems using C++
Interestingly, Microsoft is claiming that the garbage collector they use for C# (and all other CLI langauges for their
The finalize stuff just always reminded me of an utter hack, and I can't stand any of it. You pretty much can't rely on it ever getting called, so you're forced to ensure your class users call 'close' methods and to really do everything there. Avoid using finalize whenever possible, I say. I'm still not convinced that the trade-off between destructors and garbage collection is really worth it, but I'm willing to keep an open mind on this and see how it turns out as I get more and more into Java.
- Spryguy
What???!! Are you out of your mind? How can you say that a language that doesn't have explicit pointers or pass-by-reference, makes you use a class instead of a struct, and generally does nothing C++ can't do, while leaving out a hell of a lot that it can do is better than anything but INTERCAL? Java really is C++--.
... it's great. Java is ESPECIALLY useful on the server-side. You need to update your knowledge base here, I think.
Actually, everything in Java is pass-by-reference, really. You don't really need pointers (or think of it as 'everything is a reference', which while not completely true, is true enough for this discussion give you can easily wrap the atomic types like 'int' in a class).
And I prefer to think of Java as "C++ with C (and all the compromises and bastardizations associated with it) surgically removed. No printf(), no global functions without being associated with a class (i.e. forcing more pure OOP), etc.
I still don't know why they chose the 'final' keyword instead of 'const' -- since final seems to mean 'const' and it makes it just that much more difficult for a person to tranform from a C++ programmer to a java programmer... that's the one syntax/keyword I can NOT get used to. Yet.
Let me ask you one question. Why? As in why the hell would you ever use Java server side rather than Perl, or even better, PHP. Both Perl and PHP run perfectly fine on Linux. And as for being open, Perl is under the GPL, how much more open can you be?
Ever hear of Enterprise Java Beans? Running under an app server? This, in combination with the incredible class library, makes Java the best thing since sliced bread. Scalable, threaded, reusable, clear, concise, and powerful code that runs on many platforms (Solaris, NT, AIX, etc., etc)
- Spryguy
I *like* the syntactic sugar of operator overloading. Sure it can be abused, but I'm an adult dammit, let ME make the decision. And aparently the authors of Java think operator overloading is cool too, seeing as how the "+" operator works for the String class (nothing like hard-coded special cases, huh? :-)
:-)
I also love my destructors. Oh well. So much for having really nice clean concise code that doesn't require users of it to constantly remember to call close() methods in every case (requiring lots of try/finallys so that exception handling doesn't screw up and leave resources hanging when an exception is thrown).
But that being said, I think Java does make a lot of improvements over C++ so it's not like I'm horribly partisan one way or the other. It's just that giving up my guard classes, destructors, arbitrary scoping, type-parameterizaition (templates) and operator overloads is kinda a high price to pay sometimes for better error handling and exceptions, garbage collection (sorry, but memory leakes were never a huge problem for me, though I know they are for so many others), interfaces, and those wonderful class libraries (the C++ standard library sucks, imho).
Eh, you win some, you lose some, and everything is a trade-off...
- Spryguy
I can't believe that.
The horrid strobing through any frames that feature fast motion over largely white surfaces are HORRIBLE. The amount of blur is very noticable, and the strobing really hurts my eyes (but then, I can't stare into any monitors that have a less than 70hz refresh rate -- I really notice it).
I've heard wonderful things about how real 'showscan' looks (Trumbal's high-fps, large format film stuff, relegated to Chuck-E-Cheese's and other novelty amuesment locations last I heard). I'd LOVE to see something that realistic on screen in a huge sci-fi epic.
I can't believe anyone shown the same movie in both formats would actually choose 24fps over something faster.
- Spryguy
I thought Trumble advocated a 72fps rate (24fps times 3)...
That would certainly be a sight for sore eyes (literally). Even Ebert says that all that digital nonsense should be shelved until the technology comes up to par, and in the mean time we should switch to 48 fps (24fps times 2, much cheaper and easier to implement across all of America's theaters than whole new digital projection systems)
- Spryguy
It would have been impressive if they had thrown out that stupid 24fps rate and moved to at least 48fps. Then EpII might have looked stunning compared to other movies (at least where projected digitally at the new higher rate, rather than a reduced rate of a film transfer that would drop every other frame).
Lucas had the chance to go for a REAL technical innovation/improvement, and chose instead to make things more crappy than they already were. Which I guess explains why EpI was more crappy than Jedi...
Don't follow Lucas, people! He's going the wrong direction!
- Spryguy
Why isn't anyone addressing the REAL problems of film projection? THE FRAME RATE! The 24 fps crap strobes worse than a bad monitor set to 50hz.
Whatever happened to Trumbal's "Showscan", that used 72mm film, and projected it at 72 frames per second (three times faster than normal)??
How many frames per second do digital projecters do... still 24? How pathetic is THAT?
- Spryguy
That's why they invented dithering. Dithering would smooth the transitions so that normal eyes would not notice any banding.
- Spryguy
Not at all. If Bush were running against some freak from the left, or some extreme freak from the right, I'd vote for Bush. I *did* have some respect for him earlier -- admittedly not a lot (and I think I implied that) -- and it's all but gone now. I think he's an utter ass, who has completely lacked any sense of dignity, tact, or subtlety.
And if that report is true, then fine. Wonderful. I'm only saying that THESE THINGS SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED until there are no questions, and everyone can be satisified with the results. If Bush were elected under the cloud of too many questions and the appearance of impropriety, then he'd have virutally no power to govern, and that isn't good for ANYONE.
If the recounts determine that Bush wins, then fine. But I'm annoyed and offended with his arrogant presumptuousness.
- Spryguy
Or how about just WAITING for the *certified* results of the various recounts before just assuming that he won? He can privately make all the plans he wants to and needs to, but doing so publically shows a huge lack of class. He SHOULD be saying publicly that he will honor the will of the people, and will patiently but eagerly await the results of the recounts. He should also be clearly stating that he wants to win fair and square, and is disturbed by the voting irregularities, and should be promising somthing such that these things are less likely to occur in the future.
- Spryguy
I agree with you on all counts except that I can't be so selfish and self-absorbed that I totally ignore the impact to the greater citizens of the country. Of course, I live in Texas, home of the environmentally raped and corporations running amok, so... ;-)
- Spryguy
I voted in Texas... there was no validation of my ballot that was done.
Of course, the paper ballot I used was about as un-confusing as can be (totally unlike the Palm Beach County ballots, which would be confusing to LOTS of people, especially the elderly or visually challeneged).
- Spryguy
Sure.
:-) Or at least untracable!
I have a bunch of friends that never vote... I'll just grab their numbers (I'm sure they'll give 'em to me, since they don't care) and I'll get to vote about a dozen times. And I'm sure there are some homeless or mentally challenged individuals I could talk out of their numbers...
WOW! I might get to vote 370 times, if I work at it a little, and it'd all be legal!
- Spryguy
Really, before you respond again think very long about a question. If they couldn't mark them correctly then do you really think giving them another method would increase voter accuracy?
Absolutely I do. Did you SEE the actual ballots being used? Voting should not be an exercise in puzzle-solving or an IQ test. Everyone who is a citizen has a right to vote. Just because you're IQ happens to be on the high end, don't forget that HALF the population (by defintion) has IQ's under 100. And that Palm Beach County ballot was a nightmare in terms of user-friendly user-interface design.
It's absolutely easy to design an interface that is far far less error prone than the one used in that particular county. And even easier to design one that uses electronic touch-screens and does instantaneous input validation. I used electronic voting booths in Ohio in 1996, and as you selected one person for a race, all the other selections went dark and couldn't be selected. How can you NOT see that this would be less error prone?
There have also been numerous reports of people being TOLD to punch twice, told that they were out of ballots, told that polling places were closed when they weren't, etc. There is LOTS of evidence of voting irregularities above and beyond the confusion in Palm Beach county.
I honestly think a hand-recount of the disputed ballots in that county is warrented. I even think it's fair to take all those ballots that have both Buchannan AND Gore punched and count them, and then divide the total equally between Buchannan and Gore (or in some statistical way).
The fact of the matter is, Bush is behind in both the popular and electoral votes right now, and Florida and Oregon are still up for grabs. The process should be allowed to run its course. Bush is acting very arrogant and like a selfish spoiled 'entitled' brat in going ahead as if he's already won. If the tables were turned, he'd be doing the same thing Gore is doing, though aparnetly with a lot more petulance and a lot less class.
I've lost a LOT of respect for Bush in the last few days. I live here in Austin, TX now, so I get to see his whiney "Gimme gimme gimme, I want the presidency NOW" routine up close and personal. It's thorougly disgusting.
- Spryguy
GORE cost HIMSELF the election.
I still maintain that through his hubris, he cost all liberals the election, and did himself no good in the process (democrates now loathe him for costing Gore the election, and he didn't get enough to find any matching funds... not that matching funds helped out the Reform party).
He cut off his nose to spite his own face. Gore didn't help himself, to be sure, but if Nader hadn't run or hadn't been so strident, Gore would have won EASILY. As it is, prepare yourself for environmental rapeing and tons of corporate welfare.
- Spryguy
Wrong. At the end of the first count, Bush carried Florida by 2000 votes. In the recount, Gore has picked up 23 votes so far with four precincts reporting. At that rate, he cannot reclaim the state. If the recount puts it too close (say, Bush or Gore by less than 100 votes), there is likely to be a third re-count...
- Spryguy
in the end if Gore loses he lost to Bush, not to Nader
No duh, but Gore does lose BECAUSE of Nader.
I for one wanted to see the Greens get matching money.
Yeah, look at all the good those matching dollard did for the Reform party! Boy, screw the entire nation and put Bush in the whitehouse all for a bit of public funds that aparently wouldn't help one bit anyway! Thanks a lot!
- Spryguy
That would be nice, but in a plurality voting system, it doesn't work out that way.
...
If we had approval voting or a Borda count system in place, then all you say would be true, there would be no controversy, no candidate could ever 'steal' an election from another, and the effect on this race is that Gore would be president with the biggest popular and electoral vote, and the Nader people wouldn't have to be worrying about oil exploration in Alaska or even more corporate power being locked up by the monolithic corporations while the individual loses even more
Demand not only campaign finance reform, but demand voting system reform.
- Spryguy
I think you're the retarded one.
Nader split the liberal voting majority, allowing the minority candidate, Bush, get elected. By staying on the ballot, he caused the election to go to someone who opposes everything he stands for. The plurality voting system only works correctly when there are exactly two choices. Nader served as the spoiler, and allowed the will of the people to be ignored. Of course, some of the blame goes to the voting system too, but Nader should have been smarter, and less ego-driven and uncompromising.
- Spryguy
Do you understand how plurality voting works? It's only fair and accurate if there are *exactly* two and ONLY two parties running.
A plurality voting system allows a majority party to be 'split' by a third party (in this case, Nader, pulling from the left), thus allowing a minority party (Bush) to win the election even though a MAJORITY of people don't want him in office.
Nader was well aware of this. And the results show that in several states, Nader took several times as many votes as the margin by which Bush took the state from Gore. Exit polling showed quite clearly that Nader voters, if they had to choose between Gore and Bush, would choose Gore overwhelmingly... while small percentages would go to other, and the rest would just not vote.
Nader, in his greed and inability to compromise, threw this election to Bush. All people voting for Nader, ended up having the effect of voting AGAINST the environment and AGAINST labor, achieving the exact opposite of what they were hoping to vote FOR.
In a real voting system, like the Borda count or the approval voting system, Gore couldn't have possibly lost the election to Nader, and it's highly likely that Nader would have simultaneously done a lot better.
Do I blame Nader and Nader-voters? Yes. They're short-sighted and over-zealous, and cost Gore the election. But I also blame the voting system. Nader has lost ALL my respect (along with most Nader voters, especially in the battle-ground states). And so has the plurality voting system.
- Spryguy
GIVEN the current voting system, NADER is to blame. Because of Nader, someone who is anti-environmental and pro-corporate will rule the white-house. Thus Nader-voters, who know all about the current voting system, voted AGAINST their core interests by voting FOR Nader, thus ensuring that BUSH won the white-house.
It is a spearate issue that our plurality voting system is fundamentally flawed. In an approval or Borda count voting system, Nader could not possibly have cost Gore the election. And Gore would be our president with both the popular and electoral votes.
- Spryguy
Dude... Lotus Notes is the worst piece of crap I've ever had the misfortune to be forced into using. ARG! What a sucky email client.
- Spryguy
Yeah. While Apple is going for photo-realistic in its new OS X, MS seems to be going for "cartoony" with Whistler and the new MSN Explorer, etc.
I really don't like it. There are so many UI improvements they could make that would be functional and useful... instead they dumb-down things and blow up the size of everything. I spent an hour just turning off and reconfiguring crap on Win2k... stupid 'fade in' menus that wasted time, and the stupid "big icon" default display in Explorer windows to name two things. Gads.
I don't WANT a cartoony Nickelodean style dumbed-down big type huge icon interface. I need to get some work done. The clear-crispness of the OS X is vastly superior to anything I've seen come out of MS (and I'm not generally a Mac person).
- Spryguy