Funny, you said: " we won't just lie down and accept their incompetence and deception."
That is exactly what I propose, in sorts. If you arrive at your polling place a face problems, sit down, don't move until you are arrested. If your voter touch screen malfunctions - don't leave the booth until your true vote is counted.
The only way to fight problems, as they arise on election day, is to get arrested and have your case heard in front of a judge. The polling people don't care, the cops don't care, no one will care the day after if you are just complaining... you must make it official.
I'm just talking non-violent protest.
Unless you have serious problems... then we get violent.
I was just discussing this with my 'not-to-into-politics' girl friend and I gave her the same basic advice. She is supposed to vote in a poor neighborhood where I can imagine a million problems happening, especially with all those Colored now registered to vote there. If they don't have her name down, I said don't leave until you vote.
Spread the word - if you have problems on election day, don't move until your problem is resolved.
Non violent protest worked for Martin Luther King and Ghandi right? It can work for the rest of us.
I know it's bad form to reply to your own comment, but there was a race between my current congressmen a few years back and we approached his opponent at Oktoberfest. Someone I know give him this tidbit:
Friend: Why don't you ask Chabot in the next debate why he is trying to mislead the people of the first district on a daily basis?
Candidate: What do you mean? (Excited)
Friend: Well, he's been trying to convince us that he has a full head of hair. I've seen that combover, it's not fooling anyone.
A few more f*ckups like this, and we might be able to succesfuly repeal this legislation based on how vague it is, and the potential for abuse that it offers.
I'm glad this was modded as 'Interesting' and not 'Insightful'.
I'm not trying to flame here, you have a decent point. However when courts decide you can or can't do this or that under a certain piece of legislation it usually doesn't make the entire work invalid or put lawmakers back to work re-writing it. It would be nice, but State and Federal Congress members have enough to do already.
More than likely this sort of thing will happen again, at least a few times, and before it ever actually gets inside of a court room a lawyer will say "...but remember OPG vs Diebold". Then the judge will throw the case out.
This is why normal citizens should pay as much attention to the judicial branch as they do the other two. The judicial branch has more power to protect the individual (or little guy), as this case shows. This is one reason why picking our President is such a important task - if we pick someone who is too far to the other spectrum than ourselves they can "stack the benches" against us.
Judges have a lot of power. They do more than you think.
(I wish I wasn't so tired, I'd give the speech my high school American History teacher gave. She spent 1/2 of the school year reviewing Supreme Court cases because she knew their importance. Ever since then I've wanted to assert my rights and stand in front of that court - even though it would pretty much suck to be in that amount of trouble that it went that far.)
What about us who use the phone for Internet service?
My phone bill is under $100 including landline, DSL and cellular. Do you think I'm going to go with cable + internet that reaches well over $100 on it's own for a few free long distance minutes?
To everyone who is using 9/11 as some kind of emotional excuse I say, "Fuck you!" Unless you were actually there or lost someone close please shut the fuck up about it scarring you mentally or some bullshit like that. I lost friends and co-workers and damn near fucking died.
Wait one minute. We all had to watch those horrible events over and over and some of us are still having a hard time realizing that it even happened. I know some people who lost no one but still don't believe the buildings are gone.
You must remember that no one woke up that day expecting that. Most of us had no idea that there were people out there that could and would do such horrible things. You can say what you want about their naivete, but that doesn't give you the right to slam them. Many times when people see images of that day they just break down, even if they live in middle-America.
Why? It's called empathy. Try it some time. If you can feel 1% of what someone else feels then you are on the right track to being a better person.
I don't sit with those who break down, and I knew there were "evildoers" out there... but even I still shake my head in disbelief when presented with the footage.
No, I'm a liberal (and a believer in Judaism)... it was just a joke.
I don't really agree that the Bible causes violence or anything. Its peoples personallities and lack of moral standards that cause violence (etc), IMHO.
To say that the Bible causes violence is to say that movies and music do as well. Sure, people justify their violence through the Bible but they are crazy (like anyone who resorts to violence).
I don't think Jon Stewart has as much influence as O'Reilly would like to give him. The reason that most Daily Show viewers are more informed is because they arrive at the show that way.
Think about it. Most of the jokes are political. When Micheal Moore, for example, appears he isn't asked much about the items in his movie - he is just there to talk. Everyone who watches has already heard these items, even if they disagree. The show simply can't be appreciated by those with no political interest.
A long time ago the Daily Show just made fun of most news. Now it has become closer to political news and has developed a larger audience. Are they all liberal? Maybe, that is what bothers O'Reilly I assume. But are they zealots? Likely not. My girlfriend for example likes the show, thinks it's hilarious, but is not a zealot by any means.
To me, the sad thing is that sometimes the Daily Show is the only people actually being critical of the world around us. Jon Stewart was on Charlie Rose last night and he had a lot of very good points about the media today. The biggest point was basically, paraphrased: 'there is a nickname for the area out side of the Beltway, it's called um, America' and he went on to say that too often reporters and those inside the Beltway just dance around the truth about issues that really matter to the rest of us.
Too often CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and the rest of the news agencies and their reporters have developed connections inside of the White House and are afraid to push the hard questions because they worry that will lose their access.
Marge: You know Homey, The "E" doesn't work on that typewriter. Homer: We don't need no stinkin' "E".
Restaurant Review?... no.
Eatery Evaluation?... no.
Food Box: Go or No Go by Homer... no... Earl!... no... Bill Simpson. -- "Guss Who's Coming To Criticiz Dinnr?"
U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
There's clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists.
People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.-led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it....
In fact, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. U.S. intelligence has found no clear evidence that Saddam was working closely with al-Qaida or was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Gallup polls found large majorities opposed to the war in most countries.
PIPA's seven polls, which included 9,611 respondents, had a margin of error from 2 to 3.5 percent.
The analysis released Thursday also correlated the misperceptions with the primary news source of the mistaken respondents. For example, 80 percent of those who said they relied on Fox News and 71 percent of those who said they relied on CBS believed at least one of the three misperceptions.
The comparable figures were 47 percent for those who said they relied most on newspapers and magazines and 23 percent for those who said they relied on PBS or National Public Radio.
The reasons for the misperceptions are numerous, Kull and other analysts said.
The original report can be found here (PDF) from PIPA.
[IDG Logo, of course] Mobility Trends: Are Xybernaut's Wearable Computing Technologies and Services Finally Gaining Acceptance?
Well they were until Slashdot pointed out that you've patented something ridiculous... now there isn't a nerd in the world who accepts anything you do. Good luck fellas!
I've used a few packages for speech recognition but none really got me too excited. Well, Dragon Naturally Speaking did have me read a few chapters of Dave Berry to it. I bet it didn't work because of all the laughing, I was in tears.
I must say though that speech recognition is something that the whole computer community needs to work on. Now, we can finally do that. All the "open source community" needs is source that works a little. In a year or so, I bet this works better then most options available today.
Now, I know that isn't the rule but this is the type of thing that computer/math engineers could sit down to and contribute where others can't. It seems to be the rule that the really smart ones tend to work with open source software...
Really the cool thing is that this could get people involved who otherwise wouldn't because they don't know where to start.
Restricting 527 (non-profits) is bad for our "free" society.
Sure, they can be propped up by corporations and even candidates - but removing yet another voice is wrong. Think about the ads you see without 527s. All you would see is RNC, DNC, Bush and Kerry ads. And that would get really confusing really quick. Both candidates lie about the positions of the other and play on American's ignorance.
Remember, 527 status wasn't intended for Swift Boat Veterans or MoveOn. 527 status was intended to help out legitimate organizations that wanted to have a voice, while keeping them from contributing directly to candidates. It was supposed to encourage people to speak up instead of sending a check to their party.
Imagine that you are a farmer. In theory you could get with a group of farmers and create a "527" and advertise without throwing your money in the candidates pocket. Why would you do that? Because your position may not even be on their radar. Sure, you may side with [NAME] but are they really listening? Once you get your voice heard then people start to ask questions and your issue becomes important. Case in point: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth/Lying. To many of us (hopefully most of us) it didn't matter, but to them it did (we hope, again). Their screams were so loud that this became the topic of talks for weeks.
Think of 527 groups as those third party candidates that don't have a chance. If they don't run, many of those issues go un-addressed. Remember, not everyone can challenge the President and not everyone is a reporter. Sometimes the rest of us need a voice too.
To get rid of 527 groups would mean that we would rely on "journalists" when it comes to bringing up the issues we care about. How good are they at doing that now? With 527 groups, slashdotters could form a non-profit and actually take out ads. Without them, we'd have to rely on our inadequte two party system.
Slashdot Mirror
It was a joke... that is what I'm trying to say that they would say. Get it?
Do you have to be an MCSE to be considered a computing professional?
...this coming from a person who is attending a two year tech school taught by MSCE certified amateurs.
Geez, not at all. At best I'd say 1% aren't amateurs...
If you didn't get to watch the debates the transcript (link) is in my sig.
Actually, looking back I prefer this to watching it because substance matters more than style.
Funny, you said: " we won't just lie down and accept their incompetence and deception."
That is exactly what I propose, in sorts. If you arrive at your polling place a face problems, sit down, don't move until you are arrested. If your voter touch screen malfunctions - don't leave the booth until your true vote is counted.
The only way to fight problems, as they arise on election day, is to get arrested and have your case heard in front of a judge. The polling people don't care, the cops don't care, no one will care the day after if you are just complaining... you must make it official.
I'm just talking non-violent protest.
Unless you have serious problems... then we get violent.
I was just discussing this with my 'not-to-into-politics' girl friend and I gave her the same basic advice. She is supposed to vote in a poor neighborhood where I can imagine a million problems happening, especially with all those Colored now registered to vote there. If they don't have her name down, I said don't leave until you vote.
Spread the word - if you have problems on election day, don't move until your problem is resolved.
Non violent protest worked for Martin Luther King and Ghandi right? It can work for the rest of us.
I know it's bad form to reply to your own comment, but there was a race between my current congressmen a few years back and we approached his opponent at Oktoberfest. Someone I know give him this tidbit:
Friend: Why don't you ask Chabot in the next debate why he is trying to mislead the people of the first district on a daily basis?
Candidate: What do you mean? (Excited)
Friend: Well, he's been trying to convince us that he has a full head of hair. I've seen that combover, it's not fooling anyone.
Obligatory Simpsons Quote:
"mmmm floor pie" - Homer Simpson
and the worst comb-over I've ever seen:
My Congressmen
A few more f*ckups like this, and we might be able to succesfuly repeal this legislation based on how vague it is, and the potential for abuse that it offers.
I'm glad this was modded as 'Interesting' and not 'Insightful'.
I'm not trying to flame here, you have a decent point. However when courts decide you can or can't do this or that under a certain piece of legislation it usually doesn't make the entire work invalid or put lawmakers back to work re-writing it. It would be nice, but State and Federal Congress members have enough to do already.
More than likely this sort of thing will happen again, at least a few times, and before it ever actually gets inside of a court room a lawyer will say "...but remember OPG vs Diebold". Then the judge will throw the case out.
This is why normal citizens should pay as much attention to the judicial branch as they do the other two. The judicial branch has more power to protect the individual (or little guy), as this case shows. This is one reason why picking our President is such a important task - if we pick someone who is too far to the other spectrum than ourselves they can "stack the benches" against us.
Judges have a lot of power. They do more than you think.
(I wish I wasn't so tired, I'd give the speech my high school American History teacher gave. She spent 1/2 of the school year reviewing Supreme Court cases because she knew their importance. Ever since then I've wanted to assert my rights and stand in front of that court - even though it would pretty much suck to be in that amount of trouble that it went that far.)
Example of Diebold at it's best
There is such a law, I believe the time limit is 72 years...
What about us who use the phone for Internet service?
My phone bill is under $100 including landline, DSL and cellular. Do you think I'm going to go with cable + internet that reaches well over $100 on it's own for a few free long distance minutes?
Just trying to play devils advocate.
To everyone who is using 9/11 as some kind of emotional excuse I say, "Fuck you!"
Unless you were actually there or lost someone close please shut the fuck up about it scarring you mentally or some bullshit like that. I lost friends and co-workers and damn near fucking died.
Wait one minute. We all had to watch those horrible events over and over and some of us are still having a hard time realizing that it even happened. I know some people who lost no one but still don't believe the buildings are gone.
You must remember that no one woke up that day expecting that. Most of us had no idea that there were people out there that could and would do such horrible things. You can say what you want about their naivete, but that doesn't give you the right to slam them. Many times when people see images of that day they just break down, even if they live in middle-America.
Why? It's called empathy. Try it some time. If you can feel 1% of what someone else feels then you are on the right track to being a better person.
I don't sit with those who break down, and I knew there were "evildoers" out there... but even I still shake my head in disbelief when presented with the footage.
I assume you watched the show (Charlie Rose).
Basically Jon Stewart pointed that out. He was asking why a reporter can't just stop someone mid-sentence and say: "That is absolute crap".
But even when the all the facts are out they still let these scum slide.
No, I'm a liberal (and a believer in Judaism)... it was just a joke.
I don't really agree that the Bible causes violence or anything. Its peoples personallities and lack of moral standards that cause violence (etc), IMHO.
To say that the Bible causes violence is to say that movies and music do as well. Sure, people justify their violence through the Bible but they are crazy (like anyone who resorts to violence).
I guess you are a Democrat?
I don't think Jon Stewart has as much influence as O'Reilly would like to give him. The reason that most Daily Show viewers are more informed is because they arrive at the show that way.
Think about it. Most of the jokes are political. When Micheal Moore, for example, appears he isn't asked much about the items in his movie - he is just there to talk. Everyone who watches has already heard these items, even if they disagree. The show simply can't be appreciated by those with no political interest.
A long time ago the Daily Show just made fun of most news. Now it has become closer to political news and has developed a larger audience. Are they all liberal? Maybe, that is what bothers O'Reilly I assume. But are they zealots? Likely not. My girlfriend for example likes the show, thinks it's hilarious, but is not a zealot by any means.
To me, the sad thing is that sometimes the Daily Show is the only people actually being critical of the world around us. Jon Stewart was on Charlie Rose last night and he had a lot of very good points about the media today. The biggest point was basically, paraphrased: 'there is a nickname for the area out side of the Beltway, it's called um, America' and he went on to say that too often reporters and those inside the Beltway just dance around the truth about issues that really matter to the rest of us.
Too often CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and the rest of the news agencies and their reporters have developed connections inside of the White House and are afraid to push the hard questions because they worry that will lose their access.
Marge: You know Homey, The "E" doesn't work on that typewriter. ... no. ... no. ... no ... Earl! ... no ... Bill Simpson.
Homer: We don't need no stinkin' "E".
Restaurant Review?
Eatery Evaluation?
Food Box: Go or No Go by Homer
-- "Guss Who's Coming To Criticiz Dinnr?"
Yes, the Bush administration has declared radio antennas and towers WMDs in light of this
If someone smacked you in the face in the dark what would you do? Whimper away?
Nah, I'd find someone that had nothing to do with it, someone who has never hurt me before and I'd kill them.
Right? The war in Iraq was a good idea. Right.
No, no no... that is correct. Another, actually many, polls has shown that FOX news viewers are more likely to believe things that never happened.
Read: Study: Wrong impressions helped support Iraq war
From the article:
The original report can be found here (PDF) from PIPA.
They fixed the typo, it's not funny now.
Boots Micrtoft Windows, Ted Hat Linux, Slackwate and I believe Mandtake Linux...
Well they were until Slashdot pointed out that you've patented something ridiculous... now there isn't a nerd in the world who accepts anything you do. Good luck fellas!
I am poor. The computer is for my education first, entertainment second.
I've used a few packages for speech recognition but none really got me too excited. Well, Dragon Naturally Speaking did have me read a few chapters of Dave Berry to it. I bet it didn't work because of all the laughing, I was in tears.
I must say though that speech recognition is something that the whole computer community needs to work on. Now, we can finally do that. All the "open source community" needs is source that works a little. In a year or so, I bet this works better then most options available today.
Now, I know that isn't the rule but this is the type of thing that computer/math engineers could sit down to and contribute where others can't. It seems to be the rule that the really smart ones tend to work with open source software...
Really the cool thing is that this could get people involved who otherwise wouldn't because they don't know where to start.
Restricting 527 (non-profits) is bad for our "free" society.
Sure, they can be propped up by corporations and even candidates - but removing yet another voice is wrong. Think about the ads you see without 527s. All you would see is RNC, DNC, Bush and Kerry ads. And that would get really confusing really quick. Both candidates lie about the positions of the other and play on American's ignorance.
Remember, 527 status wasn't intended for Swift Boat Veterans or MoveOn. 527 status was intended to help out legitimate organizations that wanted to have a voice, while keeping them from contributing directly to candidates. It was supposed to encourage people to speak up instead of sending a check to their party.
Imagine that you are a farmer. In theory you could get with a group of farmers and create a "527" and advertise without throwing your money in the candidates pocket. Why would you do that? Because your position may not even be on their radar. Sure, you may side with [NAME] but are they really listening? Once you get your voice heard then people start to ask questions and your issue becomes important. Case in point: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth/Lying. To many of us (hopefully most of us) it didn't matter, but to them it did (we hope, again). Their screams were so loud that this became the topic of talks for weeks.
Think of 527 groups as those third party candidates that don't have a chance. If they don't run, many of those issues go un-addressed. Remember, not everyone can challenge the President and not everyone is a reporter. Sometimes the rest of us need a voice too.
To get rid of 527 groups would mean that we would rely on "journalists" when it comes to bringing up the issues we care about. How good are they at doing that now? With 527 groups, slashdotters could form a non-profit and actually take out ads. Without them, we'd have to rely on our inadequte two party system.