What I am saying is that Nader was running on a platform that supposedly embraces such things protecting the environment. By tipping the scale in favor of Bush, he will have caused irraperable harm to what he claims to support. He is a hypocrite.
And what the hell does that have to do with dictatorships?
All a viable 3rd party candidate will do is bleed enough votes away from the other candiadte with the closest views and pracically guarantee that the least popular candidate wins. (see posts here from canadians about the split in their conservative party)
Which is why I think *all* polls in the US should open and close at exactly the same time, regardless of time zone. Also, the polls should be open for a minimum of 48 hours, preferably 72. Most votes should be mail-in or via internet (assuming both can be made verifiably more secure than the current in-person systems that are most popular).
I sat in front of the TV watching the commentators pontificate until they nearly passed and I wanted to hear the results of the exit polls, but I think the less accurate the exit polls are, the better (hence my preference for mail-in and internet voting) because if they are known to be less accurate, then people are more likely to ignore them.
I also think alternate voting systems would be a good thing, such as the two systems explained in an article recently referenced in a slashdot article (sorry, I can't find it right now, but it was something along the lines of the methods listed here). Preferential systems of voting would, I think, make third-party candidates more viable and less damaging.
And while I'm at it, why not switch to a parliamentary government where we can have better proportional representation of the public's wishes?
Of course, none of these things seem likely to happen, some less so than others.
I'm not trying to argumentative, but I'm hoping you can explain this to me because I really don't understand the rationale.
Why is it a good thing to have a third party be a major player in a presidential election? I mean, sure, people seem to get all sorts of warm fuzzies about knocking the two big parties down a notch (that seems to be Nader's biggest argument, to make the Democrats "pay"), but it seems to me that the only thing an even marginally successful third party would achieve is that it would pretty much guarantee that we'll end up with a president that the majority of the voters in the country didn't vote for (which would seem to increase the chance dramatically that we'd end up with a president that is disliked by the majority of the people in the country). Why would this be a good thing?
Yeah, they lost, but the south still wants to secede.
With responses like the ones to edremy's post, I'm half inclined to say we should let them. (Of course, I might just be bitter because my recently ex-girlfriend is from NC -- Jesse Helms lovin' bitch:P )
Give me a break, everyone here is guessing unless you're one of the major networks and have access to the exit poll stats. You like to spout this nonsense and pretend to know what the hell you're talking about, but I'm guessing you don't have any more of a clue than anyone else who is spouting their own nonsense here (including myself).
Now, I'm just guessing too, but I have a hard time believing that there aren't a couple of thousand people out of the 95K or so that reportedly voted for Nader in FL wouldn't have voted for Gore had Nader come to his senses and endorsed Gore.
I also can't believe that the high turnout was solely because of Nader (if so, then why did Bush voters turn out in droves as well?). Everybody (except Nader, apparently) knew it was going to be a close election and there was a pretty good chance that just a few votes here and there would make a difference. If Nader actually cared about the country more than his own ego, he would have campaigned less in "swing states" and spent more time in places where either Gore or Bush had a clearer majority. That way, I think he would have had a slightly better chance of getting his 5% (I still don't think he would have gotten 5%), and he would have done less damage to the country. (bye-bye Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, hello global warming). Even though Nader has always been a nut-case, I used to have at least some respect for him and I thought a lot of his work had done good things, but I've lost all respect for him at this point because it turns out he's just a self-aggrandizing egomaniac that doesn't give a shit about the country or the things in his party's platform that he supposedly cares about.
To be fair, I'd like to point out that it was a Republican congress, a Democratic White House, and a booming economy that balanced the budget. It's not all up to the executive branch.
I'll be voting for Gore, but I'm not fooling myself - he and Billy didn't balance the budget by themselves, and I'm not so sure it would have happened at all without the republican majority in congress.
I'm not in love with the Democratic economic policy, but I'm more worried about the Supreme Court and social policies. I don't think Gore will totally fuck up the economy, but I do think Bush will totally fuck up the Supreme Court and could easily severely fuck things up socially. He and his supporters ware just way to conservative for my taste and he's far to close to the "religious right" to make me feel safe voting for someone who won't be able to beat Bush.
And speaking of the dangers of letting religion have too much influence in government, here's your quote for the day:
"During almost fifteen centuries the legal establishment of Christianity has been upon trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity,; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." - James Madison
PS - I don't think that voting for Nader is wasting your vote. However, I feel it could be a mistake to vote for Nader (esp. here in Michigan) if you'd rather have Gore than Bush. Give Cmdr Taco a break - he's voting for what he wants, and that's a White House without GWB.
Sure, there's lots of bits of info people can track. But, the key really is whether they can link it all together in a form that makes it easy for them to develop a complete marketing profile of you that can be sold and used to sell you stuff via phone, mail, etc. based on your activity on the web.
This is what doubleclick is doing now and that's what is pissing more people off.
I work in a genetics research lab and have had the pleasure of doing a little bit of work for Francis Collins, the current head of the NHGRI and the Human Genome Project at the NIH.
I believe that the patenting of genes is extremely dangerous. However, we really don't need to wait for patent reform. All we need to do is support the HGP and make the info public before it can be patented.
That's apparently not what the feds told Mr. Ramsey. Take a look at the Ramsey web page and check the list of items he was told violate federal law. Only two of the 23 items he lists are smoke detectors or clocks with hidden cameras and microphones.
I remembered seeing spy cameras (including one hidden in a smoke detector, including audio) available at Walmart. The link was from this slashdot story but it looks like the walmart links don't work and I can't find the spy cameras on the walmart web pages any more. Maybe Walmart got raided as well?
OK, let me see if I can say this clearly enough for you to understand...
1) Employers are not *required* to inspect employees homes
2) Not being required to do something does not mean they are not *allowed* to do something
3) therefore, if an employer wishes to inspect a home, there's nothing stopping them (sure, they can't just walk in anytime they want, but there's nothing stopping them from making inspections a requirement for those to wish to work at home)
Employers are not being *prevented* from doing inspections. They are just not *required* to do them. But even if they don't do them, they are still responsible for unsafe conditions. These are exactly the same rules that apply to the employer's own premises. Nobody makes them do inspections of their own property, but even if they don't inspect them, they are responsible for unsafe conditions. The main difference between the employer's property and the employee's property is that OSHA will not be knocking on the employee's door.
OSHA officials made it clear they have no intention of conducting inspections at private homes the way they do at employer work sites. And they are not requiring employers to routinely inspect the home work sites of their employees. But the advisory does hold employers responsible for any illnesses or injuries that occur in the home workplace.
Actually, it seems to me that doing multiple characters with very different voices in a completely consistent manner on top of the actual acting would be extremely difficult for most people to pull off on a regular basis. (hmmm...did that sentence parse correctly?)
She was obviously very talented. This would be very sad even if I wasn't a fan of South Park.
Of course the show will go on without her. There is a long history in TV of replacing actors. I'm surprised that the author of the article even seemed to think it was an issue.
Well, certainly, send a letter if you want. But a telegram is better than nothing. Personally, I'm going to send the telegram, send an e-mail, call, and send a letter. They *do* keep track of these things.
My congresswoman is a co-sponsor of SAFE, so I don't think she needs too much prodding from me to vote for it. However, I really think we all would benefit if people made a lot of noise and supported this strongly.
So, yes. do send the telegram, call AND send a letter. The more noise the better.
Sure, Clinton may veto it, but it would be nice if it got support in congress.
Folks in the US: Call your congresscritter. Write a letter. You can also send a free telegram by going to this site. It's easy and it's FREE. This service is provided by the Center for Democracy & Technology. If you have any interest in these kinds of issues, sign up for their e-mail announcements.
If you want simple, straightforward, unflexible fax software, do NOT choose hylafax.
If you want flexible, reliable fax server software that can handle very high loads and very complex configurations, then hylafax will probably be a good choice.
It sounds to me like hylafax is *definitely* not for you.
Well, you got one thing right - hylafax isn't simple. It is, however, very powerful and extremely reliable. We've been running it on a linux box with 5 modems for a couple of years with absolutely no problems. It is rock solid. We send over 200 faxes each day and receive over 100 every day. It is the core of the operation here (a relatively prestigious scientific journal). Most of the communications in and out of the office are via fax (a lot of signed forms and letters - they never let me finish the web-based stuff).
Because hylafax is so flexible and easy to use, we were able to very easily add logging of incoming and outgoing faxes in MySQL and make all of that accessible via a set of web pages. Users can view the status of their faxes, find out why there were errors, view incoming and ougoing faxes, etc.
If you have a decent fax modem and are willing to configure it and the software correctly, you will love it. If you are an ignorant fool and expect plug-and-pray functionality, give up now and go buy something from microsoft.
Why is there a list of crappy fax modems? ummm...let's see...I guess that would be because they suck. You should be glad that there's a resource that isn't afraid to tell the truth about crappy hardware.
You expect fax server software to be as simple as a terminal program? You are an idiot.
Why didn't they simply ask that the content to which they objected be removed?
Since there were no written agreements between the creator of the site and Harvard (according to the creator of the site), I find it hard to believe that Harvard had set up any rules prior to this incident regarding site content. If they want to create rules after the fact, then they should have, at the very least, given the guy an opportunity to remove whatever they objected to before permanently revoking his ability to access the server and shutting it down. It would have been *very* simple to just temporarily turn off http and ask the site creator to remove the content that they didn't like.
Harvard overreacted in an extreme way that reflects very poorly on them.
Slashdot Mirror
And don't worry about insulting me. It's difficult to take anything you're saying seriously.
Bzzzt! Wrong.
What I am saying is that Nader was running on a platform that supposedly embraces such things protecting the environment. By tipping the scale in favor of Bush, he will have caused irraperable harm to what he claims to support. He is a hypocrite.
And what the hell does that have to do with dictatorships?
All a viable 3rd party candidate will do is bleed enough votes away from the other candiadte with the closest views and pracically guarantee that the least popular candidate wins. (see posts here from canadians about the split in their conservative party)
Which is why I think *all* polls in the US should open and close at exactly the same time, regardless of time zone. Also, the polls should be open for a minimum of 48 hours, preferably 72. Most votes should be mail-in or via internet (assuming both can be made verifiably more secure than the current in-person systems that are most popular).
I sat in front of the TV watching the commentators pontificate until they nearly passed and I wanted to hear the results of the exit polls, but I think the less accurate the exit polls are, the better (hence my preference for mail-in and internet voting) because if they are known to be less accurate, then people are more likely to ignore them.
I also think alternate voting systems would be a good thing, such as the two systems explained in an article recently referenced in a slashdot article (sorry, I can't find it right now, but it was something along the lines of the methods listed here). Preferential systems of voting would, I think, make third-party candidates more viable and less damaging.
And while I'm at it, why not switch to a parliamentary government where we can have better proportional representation of the public's wishes?
Of course, none of these things seem likely to happen, some less so than others.
I'm not trying to argumentative, but I'm hoping you can explain this to me because I really don't understand the rationale.
Why is it a good thing to have a third party be a major player in a presidential election? I mean, sure, people seem to get all sorts of warm fuzzies about knocking the two big parties down a notch (that seems to be Nader's biggest argument, to make the Democrats "pay"), but it seems to me that the only thing an even marginally successful third party would achieve is that it would pretty much guarantee that we'll end up with a president that the majority of the voters in the country didn't vote for (which would seem to increase the chance dramatically that we'd end up with a president that is disliked by the majority of the people in the country). Why would this be a good thing?
Yeah, they lost, but the south still wants to secede.
:P )
With responses like the ones to edremy's post, I'm half inclined to say we should let them. (Of course, I might just be bitter because my recently ex-girlfriend is from NC -- Jesse Helms lovin' bitch
And you have evidence to back this up?
Give me a break, everyone here is guessing unless you're one of the major networks and have access to the exit poll stats. You like to spout this nonsense and pretend to know what the hell you're talking about, but I'm guessing you don't have any more of a clue than anyone else who is spouting their own nonsense here (including myself).
Now, I'm just guessing too, but I have a hard time believing that there aren't a couple of thousand people out of the 95K or so that reportedly voted for Nader in FL wouldn't have voted for Gore had Nader come to his senses and endorsed Gore.
I also can't believe that the high turnout was solely because of Nader (if so, then why did Bush voters turn out in droves as well?). Everybody (except Nader, apparently) knew it was going to be a close election and there was a pretty good chance that just a few votes here and there would make a difference. If Nader actually cared about the country more than his own ego, he would have campaigned less in "swing states" and spent more time in places where either Gore or Bush had a clearer majority. That way, I think he would have had a slightly better chance of getting his 5% (I still don't think he would have gotten 5%), and he would have done less damage to the country. (bye-bye Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, hello global warming). Even though Nader has always been a nut-case, I used to have at least some respect for him and I thought a lot of his work had done good things, but I've lost all respect for him at this point because it turns out he's just a self-aggrandizing egomaniac that doesn't give a shit about the country or the things in his party's platform that he supposedly cares about.
To be fair, I'd like to point out that it was a Republican congress, a Democratic White House, and a booming economy that balanced the budget. It's not all up to the executive branch.
I'll be voting for Gore, but I'm not fooling myself - he and Billy didn't balance the budget by themselves, and I'm not so sure it would have happened at all without the republican majority in congress.
I'm not in love with the Democratic economic policy, but I'm more worried about the Supreme Court and social policies. I don't think Gore will totally fuck up the economy, but I do think Bush will totally fuck up the Supreme Court and could easily severely fuck things up socially. He and his supporters ware just way to conservative for my taste and he's far to close to the "religious right" to make me feel safe voting for someone who won't be able to beat Bush.
And speaking of the dangers of letting religion have too much influence in government, here's your quote for the day:
"During almost fifteen centuries the legal establishment of Christianity has been upon trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity,; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." - James Madison
PS - I don't think that voting for Nader is wasting your vote. However, I feel it could be a mistake to vote for Nader (esp. here in Michigan) if you'd rather have Gore than Bush. Give Cmdr Taco a break - he's voting for what he wants, and that's a White House without GWB.
Sure, there's lots of bits of info people can track. But, the key really is whether they can link it all together in a form that makes it easy for them to develop a complete marketing profile of you that can be sold and used to sell you stuff via phone, mail, etc. based on your activity on the web.
This is what doubleclick is doing now and that's what is pissing more people off.
I couldn't agree more.
I work in a genetics research lab and have had the pleasure of doing a little bit of work for Francis Collins, the current head of the NHGRI and the Human Genome Project at the NIH.
I believe that the patenting of genes is extremely dangerous. However, we really don't need to wait for patent reform. All we need to do is support the HGP and make the info public before it can be patented.
Sure, but only if they wear those sombreros as well.
That's apparently not what the feds told Mr. Ramsey. Take a look at the Ramsey web page and check the list of items he was told violate federal law. Only two of the 23 items he lists are smoke detectors or clocks with hidden cameras and microphones.
I remembered seeing spy cameras (including one hidden in a smoke detector, including audio) available at Walmart. The link was from this slashdot story but it looks like the walmart links don't work and I can't find the spy cameras on the walmart web pages any more. Maybe Walmart got raided as well?
-Kevin
OK, let me see if I can say this clearly enough for you to understand...
1) Employers are not *required* to inspect employees homes
2) Not being required to do something does not mean they are not *allowed* to do something
3) therefore, if an employer wishes to inspect a home, there's nothing stopping them (sure, they can't just walk in anytime they want, but there's nothing stopping them from making inspections a requirement for those to wish to work at home)
Employers are not being *prevented* from doing inspections. They are just not *required* to do them. But even if they don't do them, they are still responsible for unsafe conditions. These are exactly the same rules that apply to the employer's own premises. Nobody makes them do inspections of their own property, but even if they don't inspect them, they are responsible for unsafe conditions. The main difference between the employer's property and the employee's property is that OSHA will not be knocking on the employee's door.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Can't you read the damn article before posting?
NO HOME INSPECTIONS
OSHA officials made it clear they have no intention of conducting inspections at private homes the way they do at employer work sites. And they are not requiring employers to routinely inspect the home work sites of their employees. But the advisory does hold employers responsible for any illnesses or injuries that occur in the home workplace.
Sure...but you can only get them overturned if you're a large company with millions of $$ available to throw at the lawsuit.
Promega isn't some tiny underdog.
Check their web page...they're gloating already.
Actually, it seems to me that doing multiple characters with very different voices in a completely consistent manner on top of the actual acting would be extremely difficult for most people to pull off on a regular basis. (hmmm...did that sentence parse correctly?)
She was obviously very talented. This would be very sad even if I wasn't a fan of South Park.
Of course the show will go on without her. There is a long history in TV of replacing actors. I'm surprised that the author of the article even seemed to think it was an issue.
Well, certainly, send a letter if you want. But a telegram is better than nothing. Personally, I'm going to send the telegram, send an e-mail, call, and send a letter. They *do* keep track of these things.
My congresswoman is a co-sponsor of SAFE, so I don't think she needs too much prodding from me to vote for it. However, I really think we all would benefit if people made a lot of noise and supported this strongly.
So, yes. do send the telegram, call AND send a letter. The more noise the better.
Sure, Clinton may veto it, but it would be nice if it got support in congress.
Folks in the US: Call your congresscritter. Write a letter. You can also send a free telegram by going to this site. It's easy and it's FREE. This service is provided by the Center for Democracy & Technology. If you have any interest in these kinds of issues, sign up for their e-mail announcements.
As easy as printer? Hmmm....
let me put it this way:
If you want simple, straightforward, unflexible fax software, do NOT choose hylafax.
If you want flexible, reliable fax server software that can handle very high loads and very complex configurations, then hylafax will probably be a good choice.
It sounds to me like hylafax is *definitely* not for you.
Well, you got one thing right - hylafax isn't simple. It is, however, very powerful and extremely reliable. We've been running it on a linux box with 5 modems for a couple of years with absolutely no problems. It is rock solid. We send over 200 faxes each day and receive over 100 every day. It is the core of the operation here (a relatively prestigious scientific journal). Most of the communications in and out of the office are via fax (a lot of signed forms and letters - they never let me finish the web-based stuff).
Because hylafax is so flexible and easy to use, we were able to very easily add logging of incoming and outgoing faxes in MySQL and make all of that accessible via a set of web pages. Users can view the status of their faxes, find out why there were errors, view incoming and ougoing faxes, etc.
If you have a decent fax modem and are willing to configure it and the software correctly, you will love it. If you are an ignorant fool and expect plug-and-pray functionality, give up now and go buy something from microsoft.
Why is there a list of crappy fax modems? ummm...let's see...I guess that would be because they suck. You should be glad that there's a resource that isn't afraid to tell the truth about crappy hardware.
You expect fax server software to be as simple as a terminal program? You are an idiot.
Why didn't they simply ask that the content to which they objected be removed?
Since there were no written agreements between the creator of the site and Harvard (according to the creator of the site), I find it hard to believe that Harvard had set up any rules prior to this incident regarding site content. If they want to create rules after the fact, then they should have, at the very least, given the guy an opportunity to remove whatever they objected to before permanently revoking his ability to access the server and shutting it down. It would have been *very* simple to just temporarily turn off http and ask the site creator to remove the content that they didn't like.
Harvard overreacted in an extreme way that reflects very poorly on them.