Remember when your elementary school teachers always told you to reread the instructions before starting your homework?
I'm sorry, but this is utter bullsh*t. When you go to vote, there are numerous instructions laid out for you to read, there are instructions in the voting booth itself, and if you still do not understand, you can have election judges (one republican, one democrat) go into the booth with you to help you vote.
Cnn.com had some pictures of the ballots, and they hardly look confusing. People are just looking for something to whine about.
Personally, they don't look to confusing to me. The "second hole" (ha, ha) appears to be equidistant from both Gore's ticket and Bush's ticket. I really don't see how you could have misunderstood it.
I think/. messed up my hyperlink, so you might need to type it in manually.
I think that US is one of the most self-centric countries in the world and you should definitely start to look out of your borders. The world does not end there.
Excuse me? So I should cast my vote based upon how a president would cater to to other countries? No. Of course I would take into account things like foreign policy, diplomacy, etc, I want a president who won't put America on the back burner jsut to make some leader in some other country feel peachy.
Don't get me wrong, in no way would I ever advocate something like Pat Buchanon, but I want my president to look out for me and my country first. I know it sounds selfish, but hey, thats' why it is the US election. This isn't the world goverment or anything.
I'm not sure what your definition of self-centric is, but from looking at where our men and women of the armed forces are stationed, I'm not sure that holds true. Peace keeping all over the world, providing aid to countries, helping to try and bring different peoples together (mid east peace proces, etc) qualifies for self-centric?
Sure, you could argue that all those things are in the USA's self-interest. You could also argue that since we are the only super power at the moment, that it is our duty to help out the world. I agree with both statements. But don't sit their and tell me we are too self-centric.
Don't get me wrong, the USA has problems too. For instance, our debt to the United Nations, not to mention our internal problems. But I don't think we are too self-centric. If caring about our political process is self-centric, then I'm guilty.
To be considered "rich", you must only make over $75,000.00 per year (estimate). So when people scream about only the rich getting tax breaks, this is where that statistic gets warped. How many/. readers are considered "rich"?
The rich pay 63% of the federal income tax - why should they be passed over for a tax break? Are the middle class more important than the rich? It is ok to discriminate against the rich it seems. If someone said "tax breaks will only go to white males" people would cry racism. But apparently the rich are allowed to be discriminated against.
I am not considered "rich" - yet. Within a year, or a year and a half, I will be. Why should I not get a tax break? Why should someone making $45,000.00 per year get a tax break and not me? Just because I worked harder than him to get a better paying job?
Would you advocate total privitization of the health care system in hopes of inducing a free-market system upon it (i.e. supply/deman). Why do the laws of supply and demand not seem to apply when it comes to the healthcare system?
Please cite FACTS as to why the supply/demand model would not work here.
I like the second choice, but let's be reasonable, people (as a group) are too fickle. There is a reason the founders crafted the constitution into a representative democracy - they knew that if we left the country to everyone all the time, that it could change overnight into something totally based soley on public "polls".
This would not be good.
Read about the founders and their motivations, and this becomes clearer.
Also, I question when you think everyone in the US will have internet connections. There are too many poor people that need help with things like food, shelter, and job training - the internet is not the answer. My prediction is that in twenty years, there will still be a fair amount of people without the internet.
3: How do you justify literally closing off the election debates to but two people? Do you consider the other candidates inferior socially, mentally, or in any way?
Hmm.. I think BOTH Al Gore's advisors and Bush;s advisors had a hand in this. Plus the media has no gain in showing third pary candidates. Just yesterday I heard a radio broadcast where both a democrat and republican rep for them both said that basically they should be excluded because, according to polls, only a low % of the population would vote for them.
I didn't know we voted by public poll, I thought we had a representative democracy (thank god).
How do you propose to get parents more involved in the education of their children? More computers is not the answer - that's obvious. A T1 in every classroom is not the answer. If they were, then pervious generations would not have gotten decent educations, but they did.
We all know that parental involvement in the education system is dropping. Coupled with the massive epedemic of illegitimacy in the U.S., the educational institution is producing people who can't read and write properly.
You can't legislate parenting. How will you get parents more involved in their children's future?
Think an unsigned check is "worthless"? Think again, simply writing a check and giving it to someone as a payment makes that check a legal instrument and it CAN be cashed sans signature (although quite often the bank may try REALLY REALLY REALLY hard to get a signature before they will honor it).
Not really related to the topic, but can you point me somewhere that states this assumption? Somewhere besides/. I mean..
I know I'm gonna get flamed for this, but here goes...
If Judge Rehnquist would have ruled in favor of speeding the trial to the Supreme Court, would/. readers still be "outraged" about these supposed ethics violations?
The majority would not. I know this sounds like a flame, but it is the truth.
It seems, from reading many of the comments, that whether he should have excused himself or not is related to whether he ruled in favor of Microsoft or not. When in fact it should be related strictly to the ethical question(s) presented in the article.
If you can honestly say that you think he should have removed himself regardless of the decision, then you are truly impartial.
Don't let school get in the way of your education - I think Albert E. said that.
College use to be about education and self-improvement, but now sometimes it seems that all it is about is graduating people with a piece of paper.
I did the college thing for two (2) straight terms (Fall, Spring, Fall, Spring) and then realized that what I was learning I was already learning at my job. So I cut back on classes and ultimately took a job making more money than both of my parents combined (both of which have college degrees). There are somethings I think you can learn more easily in college, but IT related stuff isn't one of them. If I wanted to be a philospher, sure, I'd go to college. But why spend the massive amounts of money so you can then try to pay back loans? It doesn't seem logically.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, if you read the cnn.com article, you will notice that the ballot was approved by a Democratic election supervisor.
Remember when your elementary school teachers always told you to reread the instructions before starting your homework?
I'm sorry, but this is utter bullsh*t. When you go to vote, there are numerous instructions laid out for you to read, there are instructions in the voting booth itself, and if you still do not understand, you can have election judges (one republican, one democrat) go into the booth with you to help you vote.
Cnn.com had some pictures of the ballots, and they hardly look confusing. People are just looking for something to whine about.
If you want to see what the ballot looked like in Florida, check out the pictures here (http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Daily News/ELECTION_WatchdogPart4001107.html)& lt; /A>.
/. messed up my hyperlink, so you might need to type it in manually.
Personally, they don't look to confusing to me. The "second hole" (ha, ha) appears to be equidistant from both Gore's ticket and Bush's ticket. I really don't see how you could have misunderstood it.
I think
Don't get me wrong, in no way would I ever advocate something like Pat Buchanon, but I want my president to look out for me and my country first. I know it sounds selfish, but hey, thats' why it is the US election. This isn't the world goverment or anything.
I'm not sure what your definition of self-centric is, but from looking at where our men and women of the armed forces are stationed, I'm not sure that holds true. Peace keeping all over the world, providing aid to countries, helping to try and bring different peoples together (mid east peace proces, etc) qualifies for self-centric?
Sure, you could argue that all those things are in the USA's self-interest. You could also argue that since we are the only super power at the moment, that it is our duty to help out the world. I agree with both statements. But don't sit their and tell me we are too self-centric.
Don't get me wrong, the USA has problems too. For instance, our debt to the United Nations, not to mention our internal problems. But I don't think we are too self-centric. If caring about our political process is self-centric, then I'm guilty.
Taxes
/. readers are considered "rich"?
To be considered "rich", you must only make over $75,000.00 per year (estimate). So when people scream about only the rich getting tax breaks, this is where that statistic gets warped. How many
The rich pay 63% of the federal income tax - why should they be passed over for a tax break? Are the middle class more important than the rich? It is ok to discriminate against the rich it seems. If someone said "tax breaks will only go to white males" people would cry racism. But apparently the rich are allowed to be discriminated against.
I am not considered "rich" - yet. Within a year, or a year and a half, I will be. Why should I not get a tax break? Why should someone making $45,000.00 per year get a tax break and not me? Just because I worked harder than him to get a better paying job?
Treat everyone the same, it's only fair.
Would you advocate total privitization of the health care system in hopes of inducing a free-market system upon it (i.e. supply/deman). Why do the laws of supply and demand not seem to apply when it comes to the healthcare system?
Please cite FACTS as to why the supply/demand model would not work here.
I like the second choice, but let's be reasonable, people (as a group) are too fickle. There is a reason the founders crafted the constitution into a representative democracy - they knew that if we left the country to everyone all the time, that it could change overnight into something totally based soley on public "polls".
This would not be good.
Read about the founders and their motivations, and this becomes clearer.
Also, I question when you think everyone in the US will have internet connections. There are too many poor people that need help with things like food, shelter, and job training - the internet is not the answer. My prediction is that in twenty years, there will still be a fair amount of people without the internet.
I didn't know we voted by public poll, I thought we had a representative democracy (thank god).
How do you propose to get parents more involved in the education of their children? More computers is not the answer - that's obvious. A T1 in every classroom is not the answer. If they were, then pervious generations would not have gotten decent educations, but they did.
We all know that parental involvement in the education system is dropping. Coupled with the massive epedemic of illegitimacy in the U.S., the educational institution is producing people who can't read and write properly.
You can't legislate parenting. How will you get parents more involved in their children's future?
Not really related to the topic, but can you point me somewhere that states this assumption? Somewhere besides
Thanks!
I know I'm gonna get flamed for this, but here goes...
/. readers still be "outraged" about these supposed ethics violations?
If Judge Rehnquist would have ruled in favor of speeding the trial to the Supreme Court, would
The majority would not. I know this sounds like a flame, but it is the truth.
It seems, from reading many of the comments, that whether he should have excused himself or not is related to whether he ruled in favor of Microsoft or not. When in fact it should be related strictly to the ethical question(s) presented in the article.
If you can honestly say that you think he should have removed himself regardless of the decision, then you are truly impartial.
Not that it means much, but the press release *is* still on their web site. If you go to:
http://www.intervideo.c om/news/28/InterVideoLinDVDFinal.htm
And it is accessible form the 'Press Releases' link on their front page. Please make sure of these things before posting...
Don't let school get in the way of your education - I think Albert E. said that.
College use to be about education and self-improvement, but now sometimes it seems that all it is about is graduating people with a piece of paper.
I did the college thing for two (2) straight terms (Fall, Spring, Fall, Spring) and then realized that what I was learning I was already learning at my job. So I cut back on classes and ultimately took a job making more money than both of my parents combined (both of which have college degrees). There are somethings I think you can learn more easily in college, but IT related stuff isn't one of them. If I wanted to be a philospher, sure, I'd go to college. But why spend the massive amounts of money so you can then try to pay back loans? It doesn't seem logically.
Just my $.02 worth.