# That the exit polls were WRONG...(remember - they have been used for over a decade and considered reliable)
Exit polls have never really been considered that reliable, especially not for close elections. With a nearly 52% against slightly under 49% split in the electorate, this was undoubtedly a close election.
# That Zogby's 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning OH, FL were WRONG. He was within a less than 1/2 % point margin of error in his 2000 final poll and previous polls for other elections.
Again, it's a close election, and just because Zogby was very close last time doesn't mean he's going to be that close this time. Remember, we're talking about a 3.5% difference between the results and what Zogby predicted. That's not unreasonable. I'd be pretty pleased if I was Zogby right now.
# That Harris Poll last minute polling for Kerry was WRONG. They were also within a 1/2% point margin of error in their 2000 final poll.
See above. Same principle as for Zogby. It was a close election.
# The Incumbent Rule #I (that undecideds primarily break at the end for the challenger)was WRONG.
It isn't a rule, it's just a trend, and can be affected by many factors. The conservatives ran a pretty effective smear campaign against Kerry that damaged his reputation. The Bush team ran a campaign to raise people's fears about terror, lied and exaggerated Kerry's record on these issues, and did so effectively. This would have had a significant effect on undecideds.
# The 50% Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent doesn't do better than his final polling)
Again, this isn't a rule, merely a trend. Right wingers routinely encourage supporters to lie about who they've going to vote for, just to screw with opinion polls.
# The Approval Rating Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election)
The ARR isn't a rule, and if it was, it would be completely insane. You'd expect the candidate with the highest approval rating to win. Charles Manson isn't going to be elected president, regardless of the approval rating of the candidate he's running against.
Kerry should have won. He was a great candidate. But he was the target of a concerted smear campaign, he neither defended himself strongly enough nor attacked Bush on the main issues that effects Bush's credibility. So it's not inconceivable that he was seen as the worst of two evils.
# That Journalist Greg Palast was WRONG when he said that even before the election, 1 million votes were stolen from Kerry. He was the ONLY reporter to break the fact that 90,000 Florida blacks were disnfranchised in 2000.
This has little to do with anything. It was a close election, but Bush won by more than a million votes.
# That it was just a COINCIDENCE that the exit polls were CORRECT where there WAS a PAPER TRAIL and INCORRECT (+5% for Bush) where there was NO PAPER TRAIL.
I'd have thought that was a smoking gun too, except that one of the most unpleasant aspects of US politics is that the technology provided to people to vote usually varies widely from county to county based upon the people who live there. Poorer areas are more likely to have cheaper or older systems. Rednecks will want one thing, concerned liberals another. It is highly likely that the exit polls were affected not by the technologies in use but by the people being asked the questions.
# That the surge in new young voters had NO positive effect for Kerry, even though it was the largest number of youth voters 18-29 ever and a huge jump from 2000 and they were over 55% in favor of Kerry.
No, the youth vote has been taken into account. Nobody is disputing the above. It just wasn't enough. There was a strong conservative christian turn-out.
#
Re:Netscape backed by firefox??
on
Netscape Reborn?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Mozilla is a complete rewrite. That's why it took so long, they pretty much threw out all of the Netscape code when it was written, and Netscape 6 onwards were based upon Mozilla.
Netscape is only really Mozilla's daddy in the sense of the corporation - Netscape corporation started the Mozilla project. Netscape opened the code to the bulk of the product Netscape, the open source community took a look and pretty much rejected the code while supporting the project.
I disagree that this means people shouldn't be pedantic about this kind of issue. If a phrase or word that means something specific is changed in meaning to match that of an existing phrase or word, all you're doing is killing the original and making it more difficult to express the concept described by the original in its original meaning.
For example, "decimate" generally, today, means the same thing as "massacre". But its original meaning, it meant to brutally kill 10% (hence "dec-imate") of a group as punishment for that group's actions.
What's the point in the modern definition? All we've done is destroy a perfectly good word.
The examples you give do not result in the destruction of a way of expressing a particular concept. "Begging the question" becoming synonymous with "Raising the question" certainly does...
I think SG-1 is going to get better and better myself. The new series adds Ted McGinley as slick, cool, Doctor Wozniak, who accompanies the team on each of their missions.
They're also adding a dog, Rover, who'll play a kind of "Lassie" character, alerting the team to danger and fetching help when they're in trouble.
They've got some excellent guest stars lined up for the next season, including N-Sync and J-Lo, Al Gore, Alec Baldwin, Wierd Al, and William Shatner.
Finally, they've actually worked Tapping's pregnancy into the script. I may be saying too much, but expect a baby to be part of the plotline mid season - with surprising results!
I'd bet more of us Red staters have read Jane Smiley's tirade on Slate than you guys
Never heard of her. Should I have done?
If you don't think every fscking one of us redoubled our resolve to make sure none of you freaks, misfits and wierdos EVER get near the levers of power again, you are going to be sadly mistaken come the midterms.
Oh, pot calling the kettle black, I love it.
And it isn't just that one twit, there have been dozens of similar rants against the "stupid rednecks in Jesusland" in all of the nations most read publications by leaders in the Democratic Party who SHOULD know better than to hurl childish insults at over half of the country they expect to lead someday.
Sure, whatever. From where I've stood, the abuse has largely come from the right. It came before the election. It's come after the election. Everyone from Slashdot's Pudge to Peggy Noonan seems to feel that any criticism of the decision of a sliver over half the population comprises of Liberal Elitism and Hatred of Ordinary Americans. Of course, with nearly 49% of the population on our side, that's inherently false.
And most liberals, of course, do not consider redneck conservative christian bigots to make up the bulk of Americans. But you wouldn't understand that, as you surround yourself with so many of them you can't see anyone else.
If our side is bright enough to be clipping this stuff and bold enough to throw it right back in your faces in two years we could see the end of you, and that would be a beautiful day.
You're hardly bright now are you? You just re-elected the worst President in living memory.
And, for what it's worth, the left will continue to remind you of that. We'll continue to point out that you, and 52% of the population with you, just made one of the most disasterously stupid decisions you'll ever make in your lives.
The election was last week. The decisions were made last week. Right now there's no point in swaying anyone's opinion, and we can fairly judge them by the decision they eventually made.
I'm more interested in someone's values and judgement. People who vote on the basis of laws being proposed now, except on insofar as they represent values and judgement of the individual being voted for, are really missing the point and, to some extent, living in the past.
I don't know how Bush or Kerry will support and implement the Agricultural Subsidies and Terrorism Act of 2007. I don't because it doesn't exist. Nor does the situation exist that leads to that law being proposed. I don't even know that the law is going to be proposed. I don't know the complications involved with that particular law. So ultimately, I want a President who I'm certain will do the "right thing" with it. If there's a terror attack tomorrow, and half of Ohio is made radioactive, I want a President who will the right thing. If there's no terror attack, and Bin Laden turns around tomorrow and says "My God, I've made a terrible mistake! Followers, drop your arms, what are we doing?", I want the President to do the right thing.
And I want that in the case of political candidates for all positions. And that's hard, to be honest. In this election, I had to really read between the lines before I worked out that one candidate actually had values very close to my own, and had acceptable judgement. Election campaigns tend to obscure those very issues. Worse still, I'd never have gotten it from either of their voting records or what policies they say they're in favour of today.
In the late eighties, I remember our school network (a bunch of Research Machines 80186 based machines that ran DOS (3.1, IIRC) but were otherwise PC-incompatable) running some sort of Microsoft networking software (complete with "NET" command, as visible in today's stuff) over our 10Base-2 network (mmmm coax...) Pretty much the only thing an end user could do with this was access shared file servers, assigning a drive using the NET USE command.
I think it's fair to say Novell's software was better than Microsoft's, not that Microsoft didn't have any. Microsoft's was crude, but it most certainly did exist.
Windows for Workgroups was rather more powerful than what had been before, in part because it supported more standardized protocols such as TCP/IP together with dial up systems.
Well the answer to that is: it's not as if the great mass of scientific research has two options: go with researching solid state or go with researching moving media.
Ultimately you're going to get people saying "Now here's an idea. Wouldn't it be cool if we did X? Let's research it and see how far this will go." Needless to say, all the expertise on solid state storage is currently tied up researching solid state storage. So this doesn't take anything away from it, it simply adds another option, an option that might be better.
The article is vague about what it means by an LCD screen. A large capacity cellphone-screen sized and shaped (ie very, very, thin) storage unit would certainly be a positive development. You could use them in cellphones, for starters.
get one corrupt programmer in every voting machine company
The programmer doesn't even have to be corrupt, just able to make a mistake.
This is one of the things I find most extraordinary about the whole situation - we know computers are complex. We might be looking at a system we can be sure has few flaws if we were looking at simple ATM-type interfaces using crude software written in some 1980s PASCAL or similar, but by and large the people creating these voting machines are going the whole "It has to be touch screen, and have a modern GUI to go with the touch screen, and therefore has to have about fifty layers of code and operating systems and APIs, all from different sources."
Bugs that have come up have been based on such issues as which vote had the focus when the dialog came up: because the programmers had been using standard operating system GUI components to build their dialogs.
Of course, in this case, people also have to realise that a paper trail isn't complete redundancy, though the fact a simple voters report has to be printed will, at least, allow bugs in the interface to be spotted and be the subject of scrutiny in the future.
Since the Kyoto treaty was written, it has never been put before the Senate.
Rush Limbaugh started this particular meme a few years ago. It's a bizarre meme to begin with, it doesn't make any sense and it's not exactly an argument for or against anything, but it actually refers to a procedural vote six months before the Kyoto summit. The Senate has never actually been given the chance to say whether the eventual set of compromises agreed upon are acceptable to it.
I suggest to anyone, not just you, who feels like repeating this little "fact" to steer clear of it. It's sophistry and ultimately it just makes the person making the claim look stupid.
But actually, getting serious for a moment, you point out another way in which my position still stands: how many coal and gas fired power stations do you think there are in the world compared to nuclear ones?
The major issue why Nuclear reactors have a good safety record has to do with the extremely strict regulatory framework in which they're run, compared to fossil fuel stations. But it's also, in part, to do with volume. With few stations, and with so much scrutiny thrust upon them, it's not surprising they have good accident records.
It is safe, as long as it's properly handled. Much like Ammonia and Bleach are safe, but become deadly when mixed. Natural Gas is safe, but can blow you sky high if improperly handled. Gasoline is *extremely* safe, but can cause a fire if it's left in open containers (the fumes are the real problem).
I think that's the point. Nuclear advocates agree on one thing: Nuclear power is cleaner and safer than conventional fossil fuel energies. They point at, for example, the exemplary safety record of Nuclear reactors compared to fossil fuel power stations to prove this point. If this is true, then it stands to reason I should be able to get a Nuclear reactor installed in my back yard.
(Of course, what you and I and anyone who's thought about it knows, the reason Nuclear reactors have an exemplary safety record is because Nuclear power is not safer than fossil fuel power. As a result of this, the safety standards are far stricter with the former, and less experimentation is permitted. Much the same principle explains why there are less fatal accidents flying at 500mph than there are driving at 15mph, why there are more fatalities in people's kitchens than there are in meat packing factories, etc.)
Aside from that, there is a minimum size to creating a nuclear reactor. Not sure exactly what it is, but it isn't as compact as a gas generator.
That's why we need to couple our miniturisation of Nuclear technologies with an increase in the size of our SUVs! We should be able to get them to meet in the middle somewhere.;-)
Or deregulate Nuclear energy completely. It's, according to the advocates, completely safe, and I don't think there's any law preventing someone from having their own coal burning generator in their back yard - it's certainly legal to have oil burning generators, as a Floridian I can tell you those things have been a life saver over the last few months...
So, what we need is for the scientists to come up with mini nuclear reactors people can keep in their back yards. People can buy plutonium rods from the local supermarket, or maybe gas station if there's an issue with safety storing them (as there is with oil), take them home, insert into reactor, and spend another few months with plenty of power.
If we make them small enough, and our SUVs large enough, we can even use them to power our motor vehicles.
We live in a society where neither coal nor oil are considered unsafe enough to require serious safety regulations strict enough to keep them out of the hands of ordinary people. And, as every nuclear advocate will tell you, nuclear energy is safer and cleaner than either. It stands to reason we should be throwing away our gas powered generators and furnaces, our living room fireplaces, and our oil burning cars, and replace them with clean'n'safe Nuclear powered equivalents, today!
I've noticed Firefox implements a prime example of why OK and Cancel are bad ideas.
"A script on this page is causing mozilla to run slowly. If it continues to run, your computer may become unresponsive. Do you want to abort the script? [Cancel] [OK]"
If you read these as actions, then CANCEL will cancel the script, and OK will say no, the situation is OK. If you read these as direct, literal responses, to the question, then CANCEL means cancel the script, and OK means... erm, OK, abort the script.
If you're a software developer for the Mozilla team, however, you read it as "OK means yes, CANCEL means no, that is the natural order of things."
Better wording would have changed the question to "Do you want to continue running the script?", and better still would have been to change the buttons to "Continue" and "Abort script" (as per your suggestion that "Format" should be the button on a disk formatting dialog)
MTV is part of Viacom, whose CEO is an avowed Republican and Bush supporter. I hardly think MTV is part of some conspiracy to link Bush to the draft now are they?
The only "bias" is the one you see in your own mind. It's not RTV's fault that some young adults believe that Bush is in favour of the draft. It's also not RTV's fault that a major issue for young adults is the threat of one. If RTV were to ignore the draft issue because of the reasons you give, then they most certainly would be being biased - they would be avoiding highlighting a central issue important to most of their target base simply because it offends one party that they're highlighting it.
I'm sorry, but I don't see anything in what you've said about what the constitution requires that prevents the electors from doing what I refered to.
I'm not saying it's practical. But in what way would it be unconstitutional for the electors to meet with the states and organize new elections (or rather polls)?
Does it actually require the constitution be involved?
I mean, if the electors feel a grave injustice has been done, can they not simply meet with the states, get them to organize another election, and agree to be bound by the results of that election?
I know it's not very likely to happen, and there are hurdles - if they don't make a decision, for example, I believe the decision then goes to the Senate and Congress who could defeat whatever the electors were planning. But one assumes, in principle, if everyone agrees that there was a major problem with the election and it needs to be held again, there's nothing stopping everyone involved from voluntarily holding the election again.
If half of the USA's young adults think Bush favours the draft, wouldn't you say this means that it's an issue for young adults?
Quite honestly, you appear to believe that a get-out-the-vote campaign can only be impartial by highlighting issues those it wants to vote do not care about.
This is yet another example of Republicans seeing bias in everything. Hey, if young adults think Bush is in favour of the draft, perhaps it's time Bush made it clearer that he isn't?
This honestly doesn't matter. If I lop off the antenna on my cellphone and put some kind of directional thing on it instead, chances are it's breaking FCC rules too. That doesn't mean Nokia or Motorola are breaking the law by making cellphones. On top of which, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, source code is merely a more readable version of code. You can hack binary firmware if you want, just apply a disassembler to it. You need more help understanding the code, but it can be done. So simply failing to provide source does not prevent illegal modifications.
It's up to the users to determine that their modifications are legal. There's nothing stopping companies from putting out the source code of firmware.
Slashdot Mirror
Exit polls have never really been considered that reliable, especially not for close elections. With a nearly 52% against slightly under 49% split in the electorate, this was undoubtedly a close election.
Again, it's a close election, and just because Zogby was very close last time doesn't mean he's going to be that close this time. Remember, we're talking about a 3.5% difference between the results and what Zogby predicted. That's not unreasonable. I'd be pretty pleased if I was Zogby right now.
See above. Same principle as for Zogby. It was a close election.
It isn't a rule, it's just a trend, and can be affected by many factors. The conservatives ran a pretty effective smear campaign against Kerry that damaged his reputation. The Bush team ran a campaign to raise people's fears about terror, lied and exaggerated Kerry's record on these issues, and did so effectively. This would have had a significant effect on undecideds.
Again, this isn't a rule, merely a trend. Right wingers routinely encourage supporters to lie about who they've going to vote for, just to screw with opinion polls.
The ARR isn't a rule, and if it was, it would be completely insane. You'd expect the candidate with the highest approval rating to win. Charles Manson isn't going to be elected president, regardless of the approval rating of the candidate he's running against.
Kerry should have won. He was a great candidate. But he was the target of a concerted smear campaign, he neither defended himself strongly enough nor attacked Bush on the main issues that effects Bush's credibility. So it's not inconceivable that he was seen as the worst of two evils.
This has little to do with anything. It was a close election, but Bush won by more than a million votes.
I'd have thought that was a smoking gun too, except that one of the most unpleasant aspects of US politics is that the technology provided to people to vote usually varies widely from county to county based upon the people who live there. Poorer areas are more likely to have cheaper or older systems. Rednecks will want one thing, concerned liberals another. It is highly likely that the exit polls were affected not by the technologies in use but by the people being asked the questions.
No, the youth vote has been taken into account. Nobody is disputing the above. It just wasn't enough. There was a strong conservative christian turn-out.
Netscape is only really Mozilla's daddy in the sense of the corporation - Netscape corporation started the Mozilla project. Netscape opened the code to the bulk of the product Netscape, the open source community took a look and pretty much rejected the code while supporting the project.
For example, "decimate" generally, today, means the same thing as "massacre". But its original meaning, it meant to brutally kill 10% (hence "dec-imate") of a group as punishment for that group's actions.
What's the point in the modern definition? All we've done is destroy a perfectly good word.
The examples you give do not result in the destruction of a way of expressing a particular concept. "Begging the question" becoming synonymous with "Raising the question" certainly does...
They're also adding a dog, Rover, who'll play a kind of "Lassie" character, alerting the team to danger and fetching help when they're in trouble.
They've got some excellent guest stars lined up for the next season, including N-Sync and J-Lo, Al Gore, Alec Baldwin, Wierd Al, and William Shatner.
Finally, they've actually worked Tapping's pregnancy into the script. I may be saying too much, but expect a baby to be part of the plotline mid season - with surprising results!
And most liberals, of course, do not consider redneck conservative christian bigots to make up the bulk of Americans. But you wouldn't understand that, as you surround yourself with so many of them you can't see anyone else.
You're hardly bright now are you? You just re-elected the worst President in living memory.And, for what it's worth, the left will continue to remind you of that. We'll continue to point out that you, and 52% of the population with you, just made one of the most disasterously stupid decisions you'll ever make in your lives.
The election was last week. The decisions were made last week. Right now there's no point in swaying anyone's opinion, and we can fairly judge them by the decision they eventually made.
I don't know how Bush or Kerry will support and implement the Agricultural Subsidies and Terrorism Act of 2007. I don't because it doesn't exist. Nor does the situation exist that leads to that law being proposed. I don't even know that the law is going to be proposed. I don't know the complications involved with that particular law. So ultimately, I want a President who I'm certain will do the "right thing" with it. If there's a terror attack tomorrow, and half of Ohio is made radioactive, I want a President who will the right thing. If there's no terror attack, and Bin Laden turns around tomorrow and says "My God, I've made a terrible mistake! Followers, drop your arms, what are we doing?", I want the President to do the right thing.
And I want that in the case of political candidates for all positions. And that's hard, to be honest. In this election, I had to really read between the lines before I worked out that one candidate actually had values very close to my own, and had acceptable judgement. Election campaigns tend to obscure those very issues. Worse still, I'd never have gotten it from either of their voting records or what policies they say they're in favour of today.
I think it's fair to say Novell's software was better than Microsoft's, not that Microsoft didn't have any. Microsoft's was crude, but it most certainly did exist.
Windows for Workgroups was rather more powerful than what had been before, in part because it supported more standardized protocols such as TCP/IP together with dial up systems.
Ultimately you're going to get people saying "Now here's an idea. Wouldn't it be cool if we did X? Let's research it and see how far this will go." Needless to say, all the expertise on solid state storage is currently tied up researching solid state storage. So this doesn't take anything away from it, it simply adds another option, an option that might be better.
The article is vague about what it means by an LCD screen. A large capacity cellphone-screen sized and shaped (ie very, very, thin) storage unit would certainly be a positive development. You could use them in cellphones, for starters.
This is one of the things I find most extraordinary about the whole situation - we know computers are complex. We might be looking at a system we can be sure has few flaws if we were looking at simple ATM-type interfaces using crude software written in some 1980s PASCAL or similar, but by and large the people creating these voting machines are going the whole "It has to be touch screen, and have a modern GUI to go with the touch screen, and therefore has to have about fifty layers of code and operating systems and APIs, all from different sources."
Bugs that have come up have been based on such issues as which vote had the focus when the dialog came up: because the programmers had been using standard operating system GUI components to build their dialogs.
Of course, in this case, people also have to realise that a paper trail isn't complete redundancy, though the fact a simple voters report has to be printed will, at least, allow bugs in the interface to be spotted and be the subject of scrutiny in the future.
Rush Limbaugh started this particular meme a few years ago. It's a bizarre meme to begin with, it doesn't make any sense and it's not exactly an argument for or against anything, but it actually refers to a procedural vote six months before the Kyoto summit. The Senate has never actually been given the chance to say whether the eventual set of compromises agreed upon are acceptable to it.
I suggest to anyone, not just you, who feels like repeating this little "fact" to steer clear of it. It's sophistry and ultimately it just makes the person making the claim look stupid.
But actually, getting serious for a moment, you point out another way in which my position still stands: how many coal and gas fired power stations do you think there are in the world compared to nuclear ones?
The major issue why Nuclear reactors have a good safety record has to do with the extremely strict regulatory framework in which they're run, compared to fossil fuel stations. But it's also, in part, to do with volume. With few stations, and with so much scrutiny thrust upon them, it's not surprising they have good accident records.
(Of course, what you and I and anyone who's thought about it knows, the reason Nuclear reactors have an exemplary safety record is because Nuclear power is not safer than fossil fuel power. As a result of this, the safety standards are far stricter with the former, and less experimentation is permitted. Much the same principle explains why there are less fatal accidents flying at 500mph than there are driving at 15mph, why there are more fatalities in people's kitchens than there are in meat packing factories, etc.)
On Monday, I'd have probably said Florida, but I've changed my mind: I think Ohio would be the right spot.
So, what we need is for the scientists to come up with mini nuclear reactors people can keep in their back yards. People can buy plutonium rods from the local supermarket, or maybe gas station if there's an issue with safety storing them (as there is with oil), take them home, insert into reactor, and spend another few months with plenty of power.
If we make them small enough, and our SUVs large enough, we can even use them to power our motor vehicles.
We live in a society where neither coal nor oil are considered unsafe enough to require serious safety regulations strict enough to keep them out of the hands of ordinary people. And, as every nuclear advocate will tell you, nuclear energy is safer and cleaner than either. It stands to reason we should be throwing away our gas powered generators and furnaces, our living room fireplaces, and our oil burning cars, and replace them with clean'n'safe Nuclear powered equivalents, today!
Most readers of Slashdot are Americans, so it's safe to say they didn't vote for any of these right wing nutcases.
"A script on this page is causing mozilla to run slowly. If it continues to run, your computer may become unresponsive. Do you want to abort the script? [Cancel] [OK]"
If you read these as actions, then CANCEL will cancel the script, and OK will say no, the situation is OK. If you read these as direct, literal responses, to the question, then CANCEL means cancel the script, and OK means... erm, OK, abort the script.
If you're a software developer for the Mozilla team, however, you read it as "OK means yes, CANCEL means no, that is the natural order of things."
Better wording would have changed the question to "Do you want to continue running the script?", and better still would have been to change the buttons to "Continue" and "Abort script" (as per your suggestion that "Format" should be the button on a disk formatting dialog)
I should submit a bug about this.
The only "bias" is the one you see in your own mind. It's not RTV's fault that some young adults believe that Bush is in favour of the draft. It's also not RTV's fault that a major issue for young adults is the threat of one. If RTV were to ignore the draft issue because of the reasons you give, then they most certainly would be being biased - they would be avoiding highlighting a central issue important to most of their target base simply because it offends one party that they're highlighting it.
I'm not saying it's practical. But in what way would it be unconstitutional for the electors to meet with the states and organize new elections (or rather polls)?
I mean, if the electors feel a grave injustice has been done, can they not simply meet with the states, get them to organize another election, and agree to be bound by the results of that election?
I know it's not very likely to happen, and there are hurdles - if they don't make a decision, for example, I believe the decision then goes to the Senate and Congress who could defeat whatever the electors were planning. But one assumes, in principle, if everyone agrees that there was a major problem with the election and it needs to be held again, there's nothing stopping everyone involved from voluntarily holding the election again.
Well, I'm not merely going to donate, I'm going to sell all my possessions and give the money to BlackBoxVoting.org.
Quite honestly, you appear to believe that a get-out-the-vote campaign can only be impartial by highlighting issues those it wants to vote do not care about.
This is yet another example of Republicans seeing bias in everything. Hey, if young adults think Bush is in favour of the draft, perhaps it's time Bush made it clearer that he isn't?
It's up to the users to determine that their modifications are legal. There's nothing stopping companies from putting out the source code of firmware.
OpenBSD itself is 100% free. A particular CD layout of it isn't. I don't think there's a problem with that.