If it takes video game characters to get people to vote, obviously they don't need to be voting.
It's not like Mario came out and endorsed a candidate... it would be cool if he did, but it hasn't happened... yet.
An informed public is far better than one that just votes to vote
What?!!?!?!
What do you say to those people out there that vote on one issue like abortion, gay marriage or flag burning... seems to me that no matter where you stand on these issues you must first get a Constitutional amendment or change the makeup of the federal court system to really make an impact. 99,999 times out of 100,000 you are throwing your vote away anyways.
Personally I think someone that says "Bush is a douche bag, but he's against abortion so I'm voting for him" shouldn't have the right to vote. Neither does someone who says "Kerry is a douche bag, but he's for middle-class tax cuts so I'm voting for him"
All of the voters, in a perfect world, should make a decision based on all of the issues at hand. Sometimes it is hard to make a choice, but zeroing in on one thing and sticking to that is wrong. Likely you'll get a candidate who just panders to those types of voters and actually does nothing about it.
I agree with the points you make; but wouldn't the best route be to switch to Linux considering you would have to sell or ditch your current machines to switch to OSX?
Linux is made for x86 machines and no new hardware is required. Then when new machines are needed you can buy them without paying insane prices for Apples or the "MS Tax". Plus, you aren't stuck with one vendor choice.
I'm pretty sure (although I can't find the exact document, Halloween I, II or III?) that Microsoft was telling sales reps to offer low cost or free licensing to customers considering a Linux rollout. Makes sense because they can keep them on the product for another year or so. During that time they are selling them Office, Exchange Server and whatever else works "well" with Active Directory.
Give the OS to them for free and they will buy your middleware because their middleware works best on their OS... go figure.
I'm using Firefox (from Windows sadly) and I can access the content just fine.
As for OSX and Linux users, there is a plug in for viewing the content needed. But they report to support OSX and "UNIX". The plug-in is called DjVu and has an open source equivalent at sourceforge (with RPMs, OS/2 and even Cygwin support).
On the other hand it was KERRY that... criticized the administration for not having enough troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan
"We never had enough troops on the ground." Paul Bremer, October 4th 2004
Also Democrats, Kerry foremost among them, have generally opposed the kind of expensive, high-tech weapons development that means we can do more with fewer troops.
It was Bush who ordered the military to stop using "Predator Drones" in their search for Osama bin Laden, not Kerry and the Democrats. (Just an example)
Giving their different approaches to the military (smaller size & more expensive equipment vs. larger size & less expensive equipment) which approach is more likely to result in a draft?
This characterization is just crazy and the question asked has no answer. I'm glad Republicans get mod points though...
We want to raise the active-duty forces by 40,000, double the special forces so we can find terrorists where they are, and provide the kind of support for families -- health care, housing -- that they deserve while their loved ones are serving and protecting us. Senator John Edwards October 5th, 2004
He also pointed out:
They said that they supported the troops; and then while our troops were on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, they went to the Congress and lobbied to have their combat pay cut. Senator John Edwards October 5th, 2004
and this:
He attacks us about the troops. They sent 40,000 American troops into Iraq without the body armor they needed. They sent them without the armored vehicles they needed. While they were on the ground fighting, they lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay. This is the height of hypocrisy. Senator John Edwards October 5th, 2004
Maybe telling the troops the truth about what they are fighting for, and not making them seem like they are fighting for unjust causes and "illegal wars" would be enough to keep them around also. One of the major problems is not getting new troops, it's keeping the ones that are there.
It's not fair that these men and women make almost no money when they are fighting a war to liberate oil fields. They should get some sort of profit sharing, right?
Okay, you mentioned that and lost my attention right away. I've seen him on television and I would respect Gary Larson's opinion on politics more than Scarborough's.
I know I'll get the modding stick for this one but I couldn't help it. Just because he was voted into office means he is smart, just means the voters are dumb.
I've mentioned this on Slashdot before, a few times, but this type of thing is a good candidate for educational programming, not the news.
If someone (PBS?) could release all of their educational content under a non-restrictive license then I'd happily pay for the dedicated servers to host and track the torrents. Math, History and Science programs would get even the adults involved but would be a great resource for people who are home-schooling or parents who want to keep their children occupied when home sick from school.
I don't know why we, Americans, have not done this already. I suspect that bandwidth is an issue but that is somewhat silly as it is otherwise wasted on illegal downloads and that sort of thing.
There should be a public education page that acts as an entry point for materials for students and teachers alike. Think "cable in the classroom" turned into "internet in the classroom". Why haven't a few public school teachers already gotten together and made this a reality? 30 minute shows aren't that hard to make. Take your lesson plan and turn that into a script. Read it, or hire someone to and viola.
I would advertise using Google AdSense myself. Honest.
You would get targeted advertising that would appeal to your audience a lot more than any other method. Instead of using commercials in your shows you could easily just tell viewers to go back to your site. You know, a simple logo like CNN's or ABC's with the.com,.org or whatever after it would be enough to get many interested. Plus the overlay could help identifiy the source once it's distributed amongst friends.
A simple "brought to you by" would generate name recognition that would drive viewers back to your site.
This is true and I think it goes for all intelligentsia, not just computer geeks and nerds. But on the same side I believe we are the ones that are most likley to change other peoples minds on some of these issues.
No where in the debates will a moderator ask about the science of stem cell research - just the policy because they can't answer on that. Basically it will stick to "moral" questions. However, we are the ones that can inform our fellow citizens that this or that candidate is wrong for taking this or that moral ground on such subjects. We are the ones, the only ones, who will explain to friends and family that certain decisions are bad for science and why.
What scares me is the fact that those people seem to support Bush the most. From what I see when their kid gets killed they are more likely to vote for him again... why?
...when the same comment was made over and over we modded them Redundant.
That being said... in your day did the people at work like smelling the sweat of someone who has just biked to work?
Someone has already pointed this out, so I'm being redundant, but there are two sides to everything. Maybe the person doesn't want to smell like a wet dog when he gets to work. I'm sure there is some cycling involved, but the point is to keep it to a minimum. Quit judging him. I bet you drive to work, likely an SUV.
But you are right, Bush has done very little when it comes to stopping terrorism or Al-Qaeda. In fact he has made it worse. He's created propaganda for Al-Qaeda by attacking Iraq. He's diverted troops from Afghanistan. He hasn't secured the borders. Meanwhile Al-Qaeda has spread to 60 countries and there are new rounds of terrorists in Iraq - if you can call them that. I believe the Iraqi fighters (most) have the right to defend their homeland, most are not Saddam loyalists as Bush charges. Most are religious fanatics who are moving due to the power vaccum created by the decapitation of Iraq.
For instance, I live in Texas, so I know my vote will go to Bush no matter what. This gives me the freedom to vote for whomever I want, rather than just the "lesser of two evils".
So, you threw away your vote is what you're saying?
How many people voted for Nader in 2000 knowing that their state would go to Bush anyway?
Now, I'm not really trying to say that voting for a third party candidate is always a wasted vote but what bothers me is the difference between Bush, Gore and Nader. Instead of voting for someone who would be closer to your third party choice you practically wasted your vote on the third party choice. Instead of getting Gore which could have sided with Nader followers you got Bush which is about as anti-Nader as you can get.
This election, IMHO, is too important to vote for someone who will never win. Pick the lesser of two evils - because that choice is the lesser of two evils.
Your mentality reminds me of people who say "my vote doesn't count anyways". I wonder how many people who voted for Nader, in Florida mostly, are now kicking themselves in the ass. Bush is about as far away from as Nader as you can get. If Enron, Worldcom and the rest would have happened under Nader they would all be facing death by electrocution. Nader would never give a government super-contract to Halliburton. Nader would have never taken unilateral action in Iraq.
If you think your state is going to go to the greater of two evils your job as a citizen is to get out the word about your pick, register voters if necessary and try to change peoples minds. You don't just roll over and accept the problem.
First, let me say I'm as liberal as they come and voting for Kerry. No sense in you trying to guess which side I sit on.
Okay, that being said, I would think that the news of a capture on Osama would actually hurt George W. Bush somewhat. I know a lot of people, undecided types, who think that Bush already failed when it came to capturing Bin Laden. If he was on ice somewhere and came out of the closet now it would be obvious to most that it was all just a conspiracy.
Furthermore, if Osama was "captured" between now and the election people like myself would just point out that Bush did good and I would tell people that Bush did his job and now we don't need him anymore.
I scares me to think that people would actually credit Bush with an Osama capture. He, himself, did nothing - it would all be the work of troops or foreign fighters. Seems to me that the blame for failure always goes to the guy on top but the credit is given to the men who were actually responsible. Look at Iraq. People blame all of the bad things on Saddam, not his henchmen who enforced his policies.
Slashdot Mirror
We are talking about the same brainwashed military right?
If it takes video game characters to get people to vote, obviously they don't need to be voting.
It's not like Mario came out and endorsed a candidate... it would be cool if he did, but it hasn't happened... yet.
An informed public is far better than one that just votes to vote
What?!!?!?!
What do you say to those people out there that vote on one issue like abortion, gay marriage or flag burning... seems to me that no matter where you stand on these issues you must first get a Constitutional amendment or change the makeup of the federal court system to really make an impact. 99,999 times out of 100,000 you are throwing your vote away anyways.
Personally I think someone that says "Bush is a douche bag, but he's against abortion so I'm voting for him" shouldn't have the right to vote. Neither does someone who says "Kerry is a douche bag, but he's for middle-class tax cuts so I'm voting for him"
All of the voters, in a perfect world, should make a decision based on all of the issues at hand. Sometimes it is hard to make a choice, but zeroing in on one thing and sticking to that is wrong. Likely you'll get a candidate who just panders to those types of voters and actually does nothing about it.
BTW, Kerry is a douche bag. (Funny)
Talking about me?
Of course in my excitment I didn't notice that they were talking chips and not chipsets.
Time for bed there ImaLamer... it's only 9:09 in the morning.
CN?
The new VIA Cyanide chipset, the killer of all other chipsets!!!
Too bad only half of the population will notice their presence.
I agree with the points you make; but wouldn't the best route be to switch to Linux considering you would have to sell or ditch your current machines to switch to OSX?
Linux is made for x86 machines and no new hardware is required. Then when new machines are needed you can buy them without paying insane prices for Apples or the "MS Tax". Plus, you aren't stuck with one vendor choice.
I'm pretty sure (although I can't find the exact document, Halloween I, II or III?) that Microsoft was telling sales reps to offer low cost or free licensing to customers considering a Linux rollout. Makes sense because they can keep them on the product for another year or so. During that time they are selling them Office, Exchange Server and whatever else works "well" with Active Directory.
Give the OS to them for free and they will buy your middleware because their middleware works best on their OS... go figure.
I'm using Firefox (from Windows sadly) and I can access the content just fine.
As for OSX and Linux users, there is a plug in for viewing the content needed. But they report to support OSX and "UNIX". The plug-in is called DjVu and has an open source equivalent at sourceforge (with RPMs, OS/2 and even Cygwin support).
On the other hand it was KERRY that ... criticized the administration for not having enough troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan
"We never had enough troops on the ground."
Paul Bremer, October 4th 2004
Also Democrats, Kerry foremost among them, have generally opposed the kind of expensive, high-tech weapons development that means we can do more with fewer troops.
It was Bush who ordered the military to stop using "Predator Drones" in their search for Osama bin Laden, not Kerry and the Democrats. (Just an example)
Giving their different approaches to the military (smaller size & more expensive equipment vs. larger size & less expensive equipment) which approach is more likely to result in a draft?
This characterization is just crazy and the question asked has no answer. I'm glad Republicans get mod points though...
plenty of lemonade to be made
Do what the Germans do, when life gives you lemons - burn them.
When my TI-99/4A died a few years back my little brother had fun with it for a bit... he destroyed it with a hammer.
Made me pretty mad but he had fun.
He also pointed out:
and this:
Maybe telling the troops the truth about what they are fighting for, and not making them seem like they are fighting for unjust causes and "illegal wars" would be enough to keep them around also. One of the major problems is not getting new troops, it's keeping the ones that are there.
It's not fair that these men and women make almost no money when they are fighting a war to liberate oil fields. They should get some sort of profit sharing, right?
Joe Scarborough
Okay, you mentioned that and lost my attention right away. I've seen him on television and I would respect Gary Larson's opinion on politics more than Scarborough's.
I know I'll get the modding stick for this one but I couldn't help it. Just because he was voted into office means he is smart, just means the voters are dumb.
I've mentioned this on Slashdot before, a few times, but this type of thing is a good candidate for educational programming, not the news.
If someone (PBS?) could release all of their educational content under a non-restrictive license then I'd happily pay for the dedicated servers to host and track the torrents. Math, History and Science programs would get even the adults involved but would be a great resource for people who are home-schooling or parents who want to keep their children occupied when home sick from school.
I don't know why we, Americans, have not done this already. I suspect that bandwidth is an issue but that is somewhat silly as it is otherwise wasted on illegal downloads and that sort of thing.
There should be a public education page that acts as an entry point for materials for students and teachers alike. Think "cable in the classroom" turned into "internet in the classroom". Why haven't a few public school teachers already gotten together and made this a reality? 30 minute shows aren't that hard to make. Take your lesson plan and turn that into a script. Read it, or hire someone to and viola.
broadband is nice, but it's certainly not the most important thing you can have in the world.
Bite your tounge young man...
I would advertise using Google AdSense myself. Honest.
.com, .org or whatever after it would be enough to get many interested. Plus the overlay could help identifiy the source once it's distributed amongst friends.
You would get targeted advertising that would appeal to your audience a lot more than any other method. Instead of using commercials in your shows you could easily just tell viewers to go back to your site. You know, a simple logo like CNN's or ABC's with the
A simple "brought to you by" would generate name recognition that would drive viewers back to your site.
we're not the average voters
This is true and I think it goes for all intelligentsia, not just computer geeks and nerds. But on the same side I believe we are the ones that are most likley to change other peoples minds on some of these issues.
No where in the debates will a moderator ask about the science of stem cell research - just the policy because they can't answer on that. Basically it will stick to "moral" questions. However, we are the ones that can inform our fellow citizens that this or that candidate is wrong for taking this or that moral ground on such subjects. We are the ones, the only ones, who will explain to friends and family that certain decisions are bad for science and why.
If it's not there kid in Iraq, they don't care.
What scares me is the fact that those people seem to support Bush the most. From what I see when their kid gets killed they are more likely to vote for him again... why?
Well, he supports the troops I guess.
...when the same comment was made over and over we modded them Redundant.
That being said... in your day did the people at work like smelling the sweat of someone who has just biked to work?
Someone has already pointed this out, so I'm being redundant, but there are two sides to everything. Maybe the person doesn't want to smell like a wet dog when he gets to work. I'm sure there is some cycling involved, but the point is to keep it to a minimum. Quit judging him. I bet you drive to work, likely an SUV.
Does anyone else find it distasteful when a draft dodger calls into question the medals of a war hero?
Michael Moore does at least... it's a shame no one else has stepped up.
But you are right, Bush has done very little when it comes to stopping terrorism or Al-Qaeda. In fact he has made it worse. He's created propaganda for Al-Qaeda by attacking Iraq. He's diverted troops from Afghanistan. He hasn't secured the borders. Meanwhile Al-Qaeda has spread to 60 countries and there are new rounds of terrorists in Iraq - if you can call them that. I believe the Iraqi fighters (most) have the right to defend their homeland, most are not Saddam loyalists as Bush charges. Most are religious fanatics who are moving due to the power vaccum created by the decapitation of Iraq.
For instance, I live in Texas, so I know my vote will go to Bush no matter what. This gives me the freedom to vote for whomever I want, rather than just the "lesser of two evils".
So, you threw away your vote is what you're saying?
How many people voted for Nader in 2000 knowing that their state would go to Bush anyway?
Now, I'm not really trying to say that voting for a third party candidate is always a wasted vote but what bothers me is the difference between Bush, Gore and Nader. Instead of voting for someone who would be closer to your third party choice you practically wasted your vote on the third party choice. Instead of getting Gore which could have sided with Nader followers you got Bush which is about as anti-Nader as you can get.
This election, IMHO, is too important to vote for someone who will never win. Pick the lesser of two evils - because that choice is the lesser of two evils.
Your mentality reminds me of people who say "my vote doesn't count anyways". I wonder how many people who voted for Nader, in Florida mostly, are now kicking themselves in the ass. Bush is about as far away from as Nader as you can get. If Enron, Worldcom and the rest would have happened under Nader they would all be facing death by electrocution. Nader would never give a government super-contract to Halliburton. Nader would have never taken unilateral action in Iraq.
If you think your state is going to go to the greater of two evils your job as a citizen is to get out the word about your pick, register voters if necessary and try to change peoples minds. You don't just roll over and accept the problem.
Apathy.
First, let me say I'm as liberal as they come and voting for Kerry. No sense in you trying to guess which side I sit on.
Okay, that being said, I would think that the news of a capture on Osama would actually hurt George W. Bush somewhat. I know a lot of people, undecided types, who think that Bush already failed when it came to capturing Bin Laden. If he was on ice somewhere and came out of the closet now it would be obvious to most that it was all just a conspiracy.
Furthermore, if Osama was "captured" between now and the election people like myself would just point out that Bush did good and I would tell people that Bush did his job and now we don't need him anymore.
I scares me to think that people would actually credit Bush with an Osama capture. He, himself, did nothing - it would all be the work of troops or foreign fighters. Seems to me that the blame for failure always goes to the guy on top but the credit is given to the men who were actually responsible. Look at Iraq. People blame all of the bad things on Saddam, not his henchmen who enforced his policies.
Just thinking... not trying to prove a point.
Did you know that only about 1% of the housecats in the world are pure breed?
Most cats (99%) are mixtures of several breeds.
"so the future looks bright"
What a horrible pun to use in light of the conversation...
Sorry, mod me "insensitive" - I just could help pointing that out.
Want a real coaster? Come to Cincinnati and ride "The Beast". It's the longest wooden coaster in the world.
. htm ? id=710
Sites:
http://www.zuko.com/Cool_Rides/Extreme_Coasters_3
http://www.pki.com/attractions_rides_featured.jsp
Ride length: 3 minutes, 40 seconds
Line length: 4 hourse, 39 minutes