Government Web sites (well, any Web sites for that matter) should be designed with handicapped persons in mind. One of the easiest things you can do to make a Web page friendly for the visually impaired is to understand the difference between the <B> and <STRONG> tags, and use them accordingly. Unfortunately, it seems like very few people do.
If you wish to indicate that text within a paragraph is to stand out logically (i.e., that you would vocally stress it when reading it aloud), use the <STRONG> tag. If you simply wish to make some text boldface to make it stand out visually (i.e., the column headings in a table) use <B>.
Now, you might wonder what the difference is. The difference is that many (if not most) of the text-to-speech translation systems used by visually impaired surfers treats these tags differently. You want logically-important parts of your text to be emphasized when "spoken." You do not want the same column headings.
While it might be a bit of extra work, and while it might not make one bit of visual difference, using the correct tags makes your page more friendly to blind surfers. It doesn't take that much effort to use the proper tags.
Anyway [sic] you slice it, Gore and his cronies are trying to steal an election.
Poppycock. You can't "steal" something away from somebody who never had it to begin with. (Hint: The networks calling the race for Bush at 2:00 AM has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the actual winner of the race, just as their 7:00 PM calling of Florida for Gore has no particular bearing on who wins that state.) Shrub might be putting together photo ops with his "future Cabinet" even though the outcome of the election is in doubt, but if you believe that the election is somehow his by default, you are a buffoon.
The real issue here is that Vice President Gore received more votes in Florida than Shrub did, and his Republican co-conspirators are desparate to do whatever they possibly can to prevent this from being revealed. You had an incredibly close initial count followed by a state-mandated recount, and.. wonder of wonders.. the same machines using the same ballots sliced a 2,000 vote lead to a 200 vote lead. What was Jim Baker saying about the accuracy of these things? And now the Shrub camp is crying foul about a manual recount, even though the Shrub himself signed a 1997 bill in Texas explicitly stating that in very close elections, manual recounts are the preferred method. Guess that doesn't apply when the Shrub's presidential aspirations hang in the balance, eh?:-)
Of course, if it had been Bush that was down by 2,000 and then only 200 after the initial recount, they would have been all over Florida's manual recount procedures. But since they know they have lost this election, they instead are required to go on the offensive and try to move the goalposts; they're trying to pull off one of the greatest swindles in American history by attempting to make this about "stealing an election" instead of about who actually won the darn thing. Tragically for them, the sentiment of the American people is on the side of getting it right, not getting it quick.
In the final analysis, if George W. Bush is elected president, he will have the distinct (dis)honor of being the first American president to be elected completely by accident. (Perhaps His Accidency could be his official title!) This, coupled with the fact that he was defeated in the popular vote, will render him effectively powerless.
Are you seriously suggesting that the elections should be carried out using open software that anyone could have modified?!
I'm describing the approach, not the specifics. For now, it could be any piece of software running any operating system. I still maintain, however, that Linux would be an great choice, particularly after it gets DirectX support.
It seems to me that we can improve our election infrastructure with some rather inexpensive hardware and a more streamlined process. Imagine the following:
You step into your polling place and step up to a device consisting of an 80x24 LCD display (large type for the old folks) and a set of buttons.
You press BEGIN.
The screen shows you your choices for the first office or issue that is at stake. So you hit A for Bush, B for Gore, C for Nader, etc. The next issue comes up on-screen.
Repeat for all offices and issues.
A confirmation screen comes up showing you how you voted on all offices and issues and asks you either to confirm or start over.
You press CONFIRM.
The results are sent via some sort of rudimentary LAN to a server running at the precinct (note: nowhere is there an Internet connection!) The results are then stored in some kind of database. (Linux, anyone?)
When the polls close, the election workers run a simple command that either burns the local results to a CD-R or writes them to floppy.
The CD/floppy is delivered to the regional or state headquarters (or, perhaps, delivered via the Internet.) The precinct's votes are counted by inserting the CD/floppy, pressing a button, and having the results ingested.
BOOM
Instant, accurate results. No more worrying about if a "chad" has been fully punched. No more screwing around with making sure that the little oval has been completely filled with #2 pencil lead. No more pulling levers or hand-counting ballots. You get an instant snapshot with 100% accuracy every time.
Now there are going to be issues, such as how do precincts get funding to upgrade their existing systems. Friends, let me predict that as a result of this current fiasco, there are going to be plenty of Congresscritters on both sides of the aisle that are going to be more than willing to issue some funding to make sure that something like this does not happen again. There will also be concerns about the integrity of the data and making sure that "Democratic or Republican hackers" don't intercede and modify the results. But these issues can be addressed.
Throughout the "Gore takes Florida" phase of the evening the raw scores were consistenly in favour of Bush by at least 3 percentage points.
There is nothing unusual about this at all.
When networks and other news organizations call a state for one candidate or another, there are typically two things that they take into account: exit polling (which is separate from the actual vote, and which they have the results from much earlier) and the results of certain "key" precincts. The "key" precincts are identified using statistics as those precincts that have consistently picked the winner over time.
When the exit polls are clearly indicating one candidate, and when the key precincts are clearly indicating one candidate, that is generally all the networks need to call a state, even if the actual vote count is just getting started. Obviously, it's a bit more complicated, but that's the general idea behind it.
Now, as to why the state was called for Gore even with Bush three points ahead in the current count, consider a state like Pennsylvania. If the ballots are being counted in largely rural areas, and the votes cast in the urban areas haven't even been considered yet, of course you're going to see a candidate like Bush far ahead of a candidate like Gore. Hell, it's not uncommon to see a state called for a candidate that's ten points behind in the current count, simply because those regions of the state that are Democratic (or Republican) strongholds haven't been tallied yet. The networks have the benefit of exit poll results, and they can use those to characterize the election in ways the general vote can't (until it is completely counted, that is.)
Really, it is extremely rare that the networks would get a call like this wrong. This is why the situation in Florida appears all the more anomalous. And this is hardly some kind of "liberal media" conspiracy.. all of the major news organizations, including the shamelessly right-wing Fox News Channel, had put Florida solidly in Gore's column.
There are also no non-Christians here! Come to think of it, there aren't any minorities here, either. And homosexuals? Forget about it! The whole country is as straight as an arrow! Yep, by golly, the entire U. S. of A is populated solely by white Anglo-Saxon Protestants who are all die-hard capitalists! Anybody who tells you any different is preaching the ultimate hatred against this great land of ours. They will be made to pay.
The US government spends billions upon billions of dollars studying things such as cow farts (this is true) and how mice react to having their nads shocked. The military budget this year included billions of dollars for a couple of naval vessels that the Pentagon didn't even want -- simply because a key Congressman on the Armed Services Committee happens to reside in a state that has a large defense contractor who needs the money (corporate welfare, anyone?) The amount of government waste is incredible.
And yet when you "don't-waste-my-taxes" buffoons come blubbering along, it's the space program you complain about. You're going to have to forgive us if we don't take you seriously. You're much more fun to laugh at.
Space exploration is not cheap. Nobody is saying that it is. But the space program is a veritable island in a sea of pork. The fact that you single it out suggests that you are not against government waste, but against the space program itself -- which would seem to suggest that you're some kind of bumpkin or religious extremist. In either case, your opinion is noted, but completely and utterly devoid of worth.
Still, it's a pretty common phrase. I myself am an atheist, and it's not uncommon for me to shout "goddammit" when I (for example) stub my toe on a table. That doesn't mean that I actually expect (or want) some wizened old Hebrew goat herder deity to swoosh in out of the sky and reduce my table to splinters. It just means that I stubbed my toe, and it hurts, goddammit.
This is a legitimate question that many Slashdot readers would like to see anwered (evidenced by the fact that it has earned 6 "Interesting" moderations.) Now I see that those who are marking it down are marking it as "Overrated", to insulate themselves from karma loss in meta-moderation. But I would like to ask a question of those who are trying to prevent this question from being asked: What are you afraid of? If people go out of their way to burn up moderation points to suppress legitimate questions for no other reason than the fact it makes them uncomfortable, this is not the Slashdot I once knew.
First of all, let me say that I am not trying to defend Digital Convergence. I wholeheartedly agree that on the legal front, they have done some really boneheaded things as of late with regards to their "intellectual property" claims. Their legal department is not exactly composed of the sharpest tools in the shed. I agree that they were extremely short-sighted if they thought that nobody would manage to figure out their "sophisticated" encryption scheme. Yes, they need to figure out that reverse engineering is legal.
But haven't we beaten this horse to death, and then some?
Let me tell you why this bothers me. I work for a large industrial defense contractor, and for four years, I have been working my ass off trying to get my supervisors to let us install Linux on our workstations. From a technical standpoint, it's a no-brainer. We do UNIX development, and Linux on the desktop would be a boon to productivity. But there have been hurdles to overcome. Do you guys know what the biggest hurdle has been? It hasn't been the FUD about open source being "insecure" or "unstable." It hasn't been any Redmond-babble about "total cost of ownership." It hasn't been any of the traditional scaremongering that opponents of open source software use.
The biggest blockade in the road has been this perception that Linux (and similar projects) is associated with this elusive "hacker" community, that it is an operating system used exclusively by rebellious teenagers with black leather jackets and nose rings. My supervisors have viewed Linux as something that could "contaminate" our "pristine development environment." Sure, my case has been helped every time an industry giant like IBM has jumped on the Linux bandwagon.
But when we see news of Linux enthusiasts doing things like cracking DC's web site, or setting up parody sites attacking DC, or repeatedly belittling them ad nauseum on sites such as Slashdot, it's easy to see why people have this misconception that Linux users are immature. I'll say it again: I'm not defending DC, but guys.. the point has been made. The more we continue to hoot, holler, and crow about this, the worse our image as Linux users suffers in the eyes of non-techie management types and journalists. Can we please let this die?
Thanks for letting me get this off my chest. By the way, I've got a Linux pilot project getting started next week.. we're installing Linux on 20 workstations as a "testbed" and there will be more to follow if things go well.. so please don't fuck this up for me, guys.:)
Well, I am bisexual, so you're at least partly right. All of this detracts from discussion of the real question: What are we going to do about Little Lichtenstein?
This reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Maude Flanders dies and Bart is playing the "Bible Blaster" (or whatever) video game with Todd and Rod. The goal was to shoot atheists and other nonbelievers with Bible rays (or whatever) and turn them into Christians.
BART: Did I get him?
TODD: No, you only winged him and turned him into a Unitarian!
When the Mom & Pop shop on the corner overcharges you by four dollars, nobody cares, but when Amazon does it we get a flurry of Slashdot articles about it.
When the Mom & Pop shop on the corner overcharges you by four dollars, they go out of business.
When AOL/Time-Warner/MegaCorp/OmniCorp overcharges you by four dollars, you generally have no choice but to shut up and pay it, particularly in today's climate where corps are merging with each other so quickly as to be undetectable by the human eye. And unlike the Mom & Pop stores, the megacorps are pumping millions of dollars into the pockets of politicans to make sure that things stay that way.
It was fucking not free software, to start with, and the self-serving folks from KDE were basing their project on a proprietary library.
But they aren't any more, are they? One would think that RMS might at least show the slimmest bit of gratitude for Troll Tech's capitulation to his demands. Keep in mind that both KDE and Qt were doing quite well with Qt under the QPL, thank you very much. Troll Tech did what it did as a favor to the community. I'm glad they did, because as I said, I generally respect RMS and his positions (though not really this time.) I'm disturbed by RMS's lack of gratitude, though.
And fuck, he's asking the KDE developers to do this, not Troll Tech, as you say all along.
Uh, I understand this completely. If I didn't make it clear, then mea culpa. From my perspective, there is no difference. There is no difference between retroactively attacking Troll Tech for having the unmitigated gall to develop a non-GPL library and retroactively attacking the KDE team for using a non-GPL library. Either scenario involves pissing all over somebody else's hard work because they did it in a manner that you didn't like. To which I can only say "tough titties"; RMS may be (mostly) admirable but he is not God.
And if I say "Go Expos!" when the Yankees visit them, is this petty, childish chest-beating that exhibits ingratude to a nearly unbelievable degree?
Strawman. KDE and GNOME are on the same team (that is, the team of open source desktop environments.) The GPLing of Qt only solidifies this obvious truth. Your analogy is more appropriate when comparing KDE/GNOME to Microsoft Windows. The fact remains that RMS bitched for years about Qt's licensing. Qt is now under his license. RMS continues to bitch. What does that tell you?
I'm almost inclined to believe IHBT by this point, but something tells me I haven't...;)
No, you haven't been trolled. My username is intended to severely punish knee-jerk moderators in meta-moderation (usernames and signatures aren't displayed in M2.) What you have done is failed to properly close out a bold tag.
Unless you are a lawyer specialized in Copyrights, just shut up and give him a break!
One does not have to be a "lawyer specialized in Copyrights" to recognize that ending an editorial about the GPLing of Qt with the phrase "go, gnomes!" is petty, inflammatory, childish, and ungrateful (several other adjectives come to mind, but they are beneath your current threshold.) RMS is supposed to be a respected spokesperson for the community. If he can't be happy about this, the least he can be is civil.
Well, the DEA has busted up my regular dealer's supply line, so I've been forced to go on some of this three-dollar stuff from the jeek (see Snow Crash) down the street. It's been a rough go, but things should be back to normal soon.
As far as how it's an attack, let's see. RMS has been bitching and whining for years about Qt and its licensing. Troll Tech gives in and releases Qt under the GPL. RMS's response is, among other things, that the developers should "ask for foregiveness." He then ends the editorial with "go, gnomes!" Now, is this an attack in the sense that breaking somebody's nose or slashing their tires is an attack? Probably not. But is it petty, childish chest-banging that exhibits ingratitude to a nearly unbelievable degree? Definitely.
Again, don't get me wrong; I appreciate very much all that RMS has done for the open source community. But he's wrong on this one. If you're not willing to admit that, you're not being objective. Troll Tech has done exactly what he asked them to do, and instead of being gracious about it, he resorted to more insults and innuendo. This is neither admirable nor worthy of imitation. It is the type of behavior that should be avoided, at all costs, lest the entire community be portrayed as a rowdy band of sophomoric juveniles that cannot stand to have things any way other than Their Way.
While I've been a Linux user since 1993 and I admire the GNU project and the whole Free Software Foundation greatly, I have to admit that recently, it almost seems as if RMS's cheese has slipped off of the proverbial cracker. His writings have raved, rambled, and often teetered on the edge of complete incoherence.
This case is particularly outlandish; for a long time he has attacked the talented folks at TrollTech for their QT licensing.. then, when they license the library in the manner that he has been asking for, he goes back and attacks them some more. And they are talented.. QT is a slick, elegant framework that allows for rapid prototyping and development of stable, consistent-looking applications. [*] This library is an asset of nearly incalculable value to the open source community; you would think that RMS would be a bit more receptive towards it.
Does anybody know when the last time RMS had a vacation was? Maybe he needs one.:-)
[*] ZealotGuard: This is not to insinuate that GTK+ or GNOME are not good pieces of software. I'm praising QT, not "bashing" anything else.. so partisan zealots are hereby invited to put your machettes down.:-)
Owners of Tivo and ReplayTV systems should probably be watching this one, because these systems allow them to take digital content and record them digitally (although I should point out before somebody else does that depending on your compression and quality settings, you're not going to get the "highest quality" playback, though most folks won't notice.) If this case has an impact for VCR owners, it's going to be double for Tivo owners.
*sigh*.. This is yet another example of the MPAA and the RIAA and large corporations in general attempting to control the lives of private citizens by lobbying the government to place unreasonable restrictions on what they can do in their own homes. Unless we "little people" make it clear that we have basic rights that cannot be usurped by large corporations that are trying to squeeze as much cash as they possibly can out of us, don't be surprised if in ten years every home looks like Voyeur Dorm. After all, the folks at the MPAA have got to be able to monitor us to make sure we're not illegally watching Hee Haw reruns, don't they?
If a country undergoes a revolution or any major change i social structure, cheap labor dries up.
Predominantly because when a revolution is underway, the need to eat suddenly vanishes, I suppose.
This notion that American business does not want to see a capitalist free-market system everywhere possible is ludicrous. Pure Capitalism (TM) is infamous for its ability to ensure that the working class remain at the lowest rung of the economic ladder for their entire lives, and thereafter. To suggest that American business wishes to discourage the creation of "real" slave nations is lunacy at its most severe. Slavery is what Pure Capitalism is all about, which is why capitalism is only acceptable when it is accompanied by the appropriate amount of democratic socialism (i.e., Social Security) to ensure that people are given the fundamental rights and privileges that members of an evolved society are entitled to.
You can disagree with me, but only if you are mentally impaired.
We've evolved enough to recognize that the fantasy world of Ayn Rand is exactly that (a fantasy.)
The Chinese regime will be in place as long as American Business continues to support it.
Yes, this is correct; the "American Business" community is prominently pro-Communist.
Reality check: cheap labor in Third World countries is available regardless of their political and/or economic institutions. (Unless you're willing to claim that Rush Limbaugh constantly unleashes attacks on "Communist Mexico?") Your conclusions are extraordinarily questionable.
Hey, kids! Remember the old ass-under-the-desk nuclear war drills? Guess what - they're comin' back! If you enjoy the drills, why not thank Al Gore today?
While it is heartwarming to see that you've been keeping up on your South Park episodes ("Look! The volcano erupted! Duck and cover!"), one can hardly imagine a single paragraph more chock full of right-wing hysteria and "enemy complex" than the one above.
If you're suggesting that the government, or anybody for that matter, believes that "ducking and covering" under desks is an appropriate way to defend against an atomic blast, you are a cretin of unimaginable proportions.
If you're suggesting that Al Gore (and Al Gore alone) personally approved Motorola's technology transfer to China, you are a laughable buffoon. You people get a little behind in the polls, and you'll say anything. (Interesting how if the economy is good, you people say we have to give Ronald Reagan the credit personally, but if it goes bad, we have to blame Clinton or Gore personally.)
China does not have the military strength to successfully invade Taiwan, a tiny island a stone's throw off of its own shores, and yet you claim that it is somehow a threat to the United States. Sheer, unadulterated poppycock. What is it about the right wing that requires them to always have "an enemy?" Since the Soviet Union collapsed, they can no longer direct their hatred there (well, at least not all of it.) Who is our enemy now? By golly, it must be the Chinese! I've never understood why the right wing (and particularly the religious right) are so terrified of the idea of a peaceful, united world. Perhaps it's part of the damnable "New World Order" that Pat Robertson preaches about so vociferously?
Communism is on its way out in China. Over the course of the past few years, the regime has moved to privatize several of its key state-owned industries. With the advent of the Internet and access to it spreading in China, it is ridiculous to suggest that these trends will reverse themselves. With each passing year, China inches away from being a brutal Communist regime. Within 20 years, "Communist China" wil be as much a part of history as the Berlin Wall.
Finally, I personally am glad that China is experimenting with a space program. Space exploration is a necessity, and if a bit of friendly competition can get NASA and the ESA off of their asses and step up their investments in this important field of study, then so much is the better. Admiral Ackbar, you of all people (Mon Calamari?) should appreciate the importance of space exploration.
In the meantime, think for yourself. You are allowed to disagree with the Rush Limbaughs and Michael Reagans and Jerry Falwells of the world. Ask yourself what Communist China has to gain from provoking an arms race with the United States. Take a look at the trends and ask yourself -- honestly -- if you believe that the current regime is going to be in place forever. I personally feel that if the Chinese regime attempted another Tianamen Square today, there would be a bloody revolt that they would be powerless to stop.
The district court granted a permanent injunction against (1) posting on any Internet site, or in any other way manufacturing, importing or offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in DeCSS or any other technology primarily designed to circumvent CSS, and (2) linking any Internet web site, either directly or through a series of links, to any other Internet web site containing DeCSS.
(Emphasis mine.)
This is preposterous.
I have a link to DeCSS on my homepage.
A former college instructor has a link to my homepage on his "Former Students" page.
This instructor's main page has a link to his "Former Students" page.
Some guy I've never heard of has a link to the instructor's main page.
Therefore, some guy I've never heard of is breaking the law because another guy I've never heard of is hosting a copy of the DeCSS software and I happen to have a link to it on my Web page.
Ridiculous. Eternal vigilence will be required to ensure that idiots like the MPAA and the RIAA don't turn the Internet into one big police state.
One thing that I haven't seen people refer to is the difference between the and tags. Now, I know what many of you are thinking.. "what difference?"
The difference between <B> and <STRONG> is that the former suggests that the text it surrounds should be displayed in a boldfaced font on the screen, while the latter suggests that the surrounded text is supposed to be emphasized because it stands out from the rest of the text in the sentence. You still might be wondering exactly what the difference is.
In many situations, rendering something in boldface does not necessarily mean that you want the text to be strongly emphasized by somebody who's reading it aloud. Take, for example, section or table headings. You might make those boldface to draw visual attention to them, but that does not mean that you intend to add any sort of verbal "stressing" to those words.
The bottom line is that there is a difference between putting something in boldface for the purpose of making it stand out visually, and putting something in bold face to suggest that the text should be verbally and/or logically emphasized when reading, speaking or interpreting the text. If you want to design "blind-friendly" Web pages, use <B> for the former and <STRONG> for the latter. It makes a difference for many (most?) text-to-speech translation systems.
Slashdot Mirror
If you wish to indicate that text within a paragraph is to stand out logically (i.e., that you would vocally stress it when reading it aloud), use the <STRONG> tag. If you simply wish to make some text boldface to make it stand out visually (i.e., the column headings in a table) use <B>.
Now, you might wonder what the difference is. The difference is that many (if not most) of the text-to-speech translation systems used by visually impaired surfers treats these tags differently. You want logically-important parts of your text to be emphasized when "spoken." You do not want the same column headings.
While it might be a bit of extra work, and while it might not make one bit of visual difference, using the correct tags makes your page more friendly to blind surfers. It doesn't take that much effort to use the proper tags.
--
"Your Honor, the next case on the docket is the State of Pennsylvania v. Shapeshifter?"
:-)
--
Poppycock. You can't "steal" something away from somebody who never had it to begin with. (Hint: The networks calling the race for Bush at 2:00 AM has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the actual winner of the race, just as their 7:00 PM calling of Florida for Gore has no particular bearing on who wins that state.) Shrub might be putting together photo ops with his "future Cabinet" even though the outcome of the election is in doubt, but if you believe that the election is somehow his by default, you are a buffoon.
The real issue here is that Vice President Gore received more votes in Florida than Shrub did, and his Republican co-conspirators are desparate to do whatever they possibly can to prevent this from being revealed. You had an incredibly close initial count followed by a state-mandated recount, and
Of course, if it had been Bush that was down by 2,000 and then only 200 after the initial recount, they would have been all over Florida's manual recount procedures. But since they know they have lost this election, they instead are required to go on the offensive and try to move the goalposts; they're trying to pull off one of the greatest swindles in American history by attempting to make this about "stealing an election" instead of about who actually won the darn thing. Tragically for them, the sentiment of the American people is on the side of getting it right, not getting it quick.
In the final analysis, if George W. Bush is elected president, he will have the distinct (dis)honor of being the first American president to be elected completely by accident. (Perhaps His Accidency could be his official title!) This, coupled with the fact that he was defeated in the popular vote, will render him effectively powerless.
--
I'm describing the approach, not the specifics. For now, it could be any piece of software running any operating system. I still maintain, however, that Linux would be an great choice, particularly after it gets DirectX support.
--
BOOM
Instant, accurate results. No more worrying about if a "chad" has been fully punched. No more screwing around with making sure that the little oval has been completely filled with #2 pencil lead. No more pulling levers or hand-counting ballots. You get an instant snapshot with 100% accuracy every time.
Now there are going to be issues, such as how do precincts get funding to upgrade their existing systems. Friends, let me predict that as a result of this current fiasco, there are going to be plenty of Congresscritters on both sides of the aisle that are going to be more than willing to issue some funding to make sure that something like this does not happen again. There will also be concerns about the integrity of the data and making sure that "Democratic or Republican hackers" don't intercede and modify the results. But these issues can be addressed.
Thoughts?
--
There is nothing unusual about this at all.
When networks and other news organizations call a state for one candidate or another, there are typically two things that they take into account: exit polling (which is separate from the actual vote, and which they have the results from much earlier) and the results of certain "key" precincts. The "key" precincts are identified using statistics as those precincts that have consistently picked the winner over time.
When the exit polls are clearly indicating one candidate, and when the key precincts are clearly indicating one candidate, that is generally all the networks need to call a state, even if the actual vote count is just getting started. Obviously, it's a bit more complicated, but that's the general idea behind it.
Now, as to why the state was called for Gore even with Bush three points ahead in the current count, consider a state like Pennsylvania. If the ballots are being counted in largely rural areas, and the votes cast in the urban areas haven't even been considered yet, of course you're going to see a candidate like Bush far ahead of a candidate like Gore. Hell, it's not uncommon to see a state called for a candidate that's ten points behind in the current count, simply because those regions of the state that are Democratic (or Republican) strongholds haven't been tallied yet. The networks have the benefit of exit poll results, and they can use those to characterize the election in ways the general vote can't (until it is completely counted, that is.)
Really, it is extremely rare that the networks would get a call like this wrong. This is why the situation in Florida appears all the more anomalous. And this is hardly some kind of "liberal media" conspiracy
We'll have to see how this comes out.
--
Heh. Yeah, that's right, Mr. Man!
There are also no non-Christians here! Come to think of it, there aren't any minorities here, either. And homosexuals? Forget about it! The whole country is as straight as an arrow! Yep, by golly, the entire U. S. of A is populated solely by white Anglo-Saxon Protestants who are all die-hard capitalists! Anybody who tells you any different is preaching the ultimate hatred against this great land of ours. They will be made to pay.
--
The US government spends billions upon billions of dollars studying things such as cow farts (this is true) and how mice react to having their nads shocked. The military budget this year included billions of dollars for a couple of naval vessels that the Pentagon didn't even want -- simply because a key Congressman on the Armed Services Committee happens to reside in a state that has a large defense contractor who needs the money (corporate welfare, anyone?) The amount of government waste is incredible.
And yet when you "don't-waste-my-taxes" buffoons come blubbering along, it's the space program you complain about. You're going to have to forgive us if we don't take you seriously. You're much more fun to laugh at.
Space exploration is not cheap. Nobody is saying that it is. But the space program is a veritable island in a sea of pork. The fact that you single it out suggests that you are not against government waste, but against the space program itself -- which would seem to suggest that you're some kind of bumpkin or religious extremist. In either case, your opinion is noted, but completely and utterly devoid of worth.
--
:-)
--
--
First of all, let me say that I am not trying to defend Digital Convergence. I wholeheartedly agree that on the legal front, they have done some really boneheaded things as of late with regards to their "intellectual property" claims. Their legal department is not exactly composed of the sharpest tools in the shed. I agree that they were extremely short-sighted if they thought that nobody would manage to figure out their "sophisticated" encryption scheme. Yes, they need to figure out that reverse engineering is legal.
But haven't we beaten this horse to death, and then some?
Let me tell you why this bothers me. I work for a large industrial defense contractor, and for four years, I have been working my ass off trying to get my supervisors to let us install Linux on our workstations. From a technical standpoint, it's a no-brainer. We do UNIX development, and Linux on the desktop would be a boon to productivity. But there have been hurdles to overcome. Do you guys know what the biggest hurdle has been? It hasn't been the FUD about open source being "insecure" or "unstable." It hasn't been any Redmond-babble about "total cost of ownership." It hasn't been any of the traditional scaremongering that opponents of open source software use.
The biggest blockade in the road has been this perception that Linux (and similar projects) is associated with this elusive "hacker" community, that it is an operating system used exclusively by rebellious teenagers with black leather jackets and nose rings. My supervisors have viewed Linux as something that could "contaminate" our "pristine development environment." Sure, my case has been helped every time an industry giant like IBM has jumped on the Linux bandwagon.
But when we see news of Linux enthusiasts doing things like cracking DC's web site, or setting up parody sites attacking DC, or repeatedly belittling them ad nauseum on sites such as Slashdot, it's easy to see why people have this misconception that Linux users are immature. I'll say it again: I'm not defending DC, but guys
Thanks for letting me get this off my chest. By the way, I've got a Linux pilot project getting started next week
--
God Bless,
--
BART: Did I get him?
TODD: No, you only winged him and turned him into a Unitarian!
--
When the Mom & Pop shop on the corner overcharges you by four dollars, they go out of business.
When AOL/Time-Warner/MegaCorp/OmniCorp overcharges you by four dollars, you generally have no choice but to shut up and pay it, particularly in today's climate where corps are merging with each other so quickly as to be undetectable by the human eye. And unlike the Mom & Pop stores, the megacorps are pumping millions of dollars into the pockets of politicans to make sure that things stay that way.
--
What do they pay for it with
--
But they aren't any more, are they? One would think that RMS might at least show the slimmest bit of gratitude for Troll Tech's capitulation to his demands. Keep in mind that both KDE and Qt were doing quite well with Qt under the QPL, thank you very much. Troll Tech did what it did as a favor to the community. I'm glad they did, because as I said, I generally respect RMS and his positions (though not really this time.) I'm disturbed by RMS's lack of gratitude, though.
And fuck, he's asking the KDE developers to do this, not Troll Tech, as you say all along.
Uh, I understand this completely. If I didn't make it clear, then mea culpa. From my perspective, there is no difference. There is no difference between retroactively attacking Troll Tech for having the unmitigated gall to develop a non-GPL library and retroactively attacking the KDE team for using a non-GPL library. Either scenario involves pissing all over somebody else's hard work because they did it in a manner that you didn't like. To which I can only say "tough titties"; RMS may be (mostly) admirable but he is not God.
And if I say "Go Expos!" when the Yankees visit them, is this petty, childish chest-beating that exhibits ingratude to a nearly unbelievable degree?
Strawman. KDE and GNOME are on the same team (that is, the team of open source desktop environments.) The GPLing of Qt only solidifies this obvious truth. Your analogy is more appropriate when comparing KDE/GNOME to Microsoft Windows. The fact remains that RMS bitched for years about Qt's licensing. Qt is now under his license. RMS continues to bitch. What does that tell you?
I'm almost inclined to believe IHBT by this point, but something tells me I haven't...
No, you haven't been trolled. My username is intended to severely punish knee-jerk moderators in meta-moderation (usernames and signatures aren't displayed in M2.) What you have done is failed to properly close out a bold tag.
--
One does not have to be a "lawyer specialized in Copyrights" to recognize that ending an editorial about the GPLing of Qt with the phrase "go, gnomes!" is petty, inflammatory, childish, and ungrateful (several other adjectives come to mind, but they are beneath your current threshold.) RMS is supposed to be a respected spokesperson for the community. If he can't be happy about this, the least he can be is civil.
--
Well, the DEA has busted up my regular dealer's supply line, so I've been forced to go on some of this three-dollar stuff from the jeek (see Snow Crash) down the street. It's been a rough go, but things should be back to normal soon.
As far as how it's an attack, let's see. RMS has been bitching and whining for years about Qt and its licensing. Troll Tech gives in and releases Qt under the GPL. RMS's response is, among other things, that the developers should "ask for foregiveness." He then ends the editorial with "go, gnomes!" Now, is this an attack in the sense that breaking somebody's nose or slashing their tires is an attack? Probably not. But is it petty, childish chest-banging that exhibits ingratitude to a nearly unbelievable degree? Definitely.
Again, don't get me wrong; I appreciate very much all that RMS has done for the open source community. But he's wrong on this one. If you're not willing to admit that, you're not being objective. Troll Tech has done exactly what he asked them to do, and instead of being gracious about it, he resorted to more insults and innuendo. This is neither admirable nor worthy of imitation. It is the type of behavior that should be avoided, at all costs, lest the entire community be portrayed as a rowdy band of sophomoric juveniles that cannot stand to have things any way other than Their Way.
Just my opinion.
--
I agree.
While I've been a Linux user since 1993 and I admire the GNU project and the whole Free Software Foundation greatly, I have to admit that recently, it almost seems as if RMS's cheese has slipped off of the proverbial cracker. His writings have raved, rambled, and often teetered on the edge of complete incoherence.
This case is particularly outlandish; for a long time he has attacked the talented folks at TrollTech for their QT licensing
Does anybody know when the last time RMS had a vacation was? Maybe he needs one.
[*] ZealotGuard: This is not to insinuate that GTK+ or GNOME are not good pieces of software. I'm praising QT, not "bashing" anything else
--
*sigh*
--
Predominantly because when a revolution is underway, the need to eat suddenly vanishes, I suppose.
This notion that American business does not want to see a capitalist free-market system everywhere possible is ludicrous. Pure Capitalism (TM) is infamous for its ability to ensure that the working class remain at the lowest rung of the economic ladder for their entire lives, and thereafter. To suggest that American business wishes to discourage the creation of "real" slave nations is lunacy at its most severe. Slavery is what Pure Capitalism is all about, which is why capitalism is only acceptable when it is accompanied by the appropriate amount of democratic socialism (i.e., Social Security) to ensure that people are given the fundamental rights and privileges that members of an evolved society are entitled to.
You can disagree with me, but only if you are mentally impaired.
We've evolved enough to recognize that the fantasy world of Ayn Rand is exactly that (a fantasy.)
--
Yes, this is correct; the "American Business" community is prominently pro-Communist.
Reality check: cheap labor in Third World countries is available regardless of their political and/or economic institutions. (Unless you're willing to claim that Rush Limbaugh constantly unleashes attacks on "Communist Mexico?") Your conclusions are extraordinarily questionable.
--
While it is heartwarming to see that you've been keeping up on your South Park episodes ("Look! The volcano erupted! Duck and cover!"), one can hardly imagine a single paragraph more chock full of right-wing hysteria and "enemy complex" than the one above.
- If you're suggesting that the government, or anybody for that matter, believes that "ducking and covering" under desks is an appropriate way to defend against an atomic blast, you are a cretin of unimaginable proportions.
- If you're suggesting that Al Gore (and Al Gore alone) personally approved Motorola's technology transfer to China, you are a laughable buffoon. You people get a little behind in the polls, and you'll say anything. (Interesting how if the economy is good, you people say we have to give Ronald Reagan the credit personally, but if it goes bad, we have to blame Clinton or Gore personally.)
- China does not have the military strength to successfully invade Taiwan, a tiny island a stone's throw off of its own shores, and yet you claim that it is somehow a threat to the United States. Sheer, unadulterated poppycock. What is it about the right wing that requires them to always have "an enemy?" Since the Soviet Union collapsed, they can no longer direct their hatred there (well, at least not all of it.) Who is our enemy now? By golly, it must be the Chinese! I've never understood why the right wing (and particularly the religious right) are so terrified of the idea of a peaceful, united world. Perhaps it's part of the damnable "New World Order" that Pat Robertson preaches about so vociferously?
- Communism is on its way out in China. Over the course of the past few years, the regime has moved to privatize several of its key state-owned industries. With the advent of the Internet and access to it spreading in China, it is ridiculous to suggest that these trends will reverse themselves. With each passing year, China inches away from being a brutal Communist regime. Within 20 years, "Communist China" wil be as much a part of history as the Berlin Wall.
Finally, I personally am glad that China is experimenting with a space program. Space exploration is a necessity, and if a bit of friendly competition can get NASA and the ESA off of their asses and step up their investments in this important field of study, then so much is the better. Admiral Ackbar, you of all people (Mon Calamari?) should appreciate the importance of space exploration.In the meantime, think for yourself. You are allowed to disagree with the Rush Limbaughs and Michael Reagans and Jerry Falwells of the world. Ask yourself what Communist China has to gain from provoking an arms race with the United States. Take a look at the trends and ask yourself -- honestly -- if you believe that the current regime is going to be in place forever. I personally feel that if the Chinese regime attempted another Tianamen Square today, there would be a bloody revolt that they would be powerless to stop.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
--
(Emphasis mine.)
This is preposterous.
I have a link to DeCSS on my homepage.
A former college instructor has a link to my homepage on his "Former Students" page.
This instructor's main page has a link to his "Former Students" page.
Some guy I've never heard of has a link to the instructor's main page.
Therefore, some guy I've never heard of is breaking the law because another guy I've never heard of is hosting a copy of the DeCSS software and I happen to have a link to it on my Web page.
Ridiculous. Eternal vigilence will be required to ensure that idiots like the MPAA and the RIAA don't turn the Internet into one big police state.
--
The difference between <B> and <STRONG> is that the former suggests that the text it surrounds should be displayed in a boldfaced font on the screen, while the latter suggests that the surrounded text is supposed to be emphasized because it stands out from the rest of the text in the sentence. You still might be wondering exactly what the difference is.
In many situations, rendering something in boldface does not necessarily mean that you want the text to be strongly emphasized by somebody who's reading it aloud. Take, for example, section or table headings. You might make those boldface to draw visual attention to them, but that does not mean that you intend to add any sort of verbal "stressing" to those words.
The bottom line is that there is a difference between putting something in boldface for the purpose of making it stand out visually, and putting something in bold face to suggest that the text should be verbally and/or logically emphasized when reading, speaking or interpreting the text. If you want to design "blind-friendly" Web pages, use <B> for the former and <STRONG> for the latter. It makes a difference for many (most?) text-to-speech translation systems.
--