At this point, an electoral college would actually be meaningless, because the only thing that makes it interesting is that it prevents direct election of a president. Once electoral votes become irrevocably tied to the popular vote, the electoral system becomes meaningless.
No, it wouldn't be meaningless, it would still be fundamentally flawed. The small states would still hold an inordinate amount of influence relative to their population. Since this is the core of the problem as it exists now, this would do nothing to fix the problem. This is demonstrated by the original article. Even though Gore won the popular vote, he still would not have won the election had the electoral votes have been assigned proportionally.
And finally... who the fuck would trust City People to run this country? That's what would happen with straight representative votes. Presidential candidates wouldn't have to worry AT ALL about the issues of farmers, Alaskans, hunters, people who fish for a living, gun owners, miners, military communities, or anything else that takes place outside a major urban area.
So, instead, you're saying that it's better that the president doesn't have to care about the wills of city dwellers?
In reality, popular vote would not mean that city dwellers held all the power, it would only shift the power away from swing states. As it is today, certain states are solidly democratic, others are solildly republican. It's the remaining 15 or so states that have all of the representation, since the candidates spend all of their time pandering to those states desires.
There are enough rural voters in america that no candidate could afford to ignore their desires, even under a popular vote. And such a system would mean the president would be accountable to all americans, not just those in swing states.
One person one vote is the only system that makes any sense. Any other system is biased due to arbitrary rules such as, early states tended to be smaller (thus more senators per area), some states have very few people and get way more votes for that--beyond reason. I can understand the two senators, but three times the votes for president! That is not democratic.
I think you're right. This is the only system that I can see that stops the candidates from pandering to the wills of a few swing states, and instead focus on what is best for the country.
Unfortunately, this will never happen since it would require a constitutional ammendment. The current system favors republican candidates (they tend to do much better in the less populous states), so they will never vote to change the system. Even if you could get the republicans in congress to approve the change, none of the small states would vote to ratify the change.
If Congress wanted to keep the electoral college but make it fairer, there is a simple (but unlikely) solution: increase the size of the House of Representatives. There is nothing in the constitution mandating a particular size except that each member must represent at least 30,000 people (which puts an upper limit on the House of about 10,000 members). In fact, the House has been expanded repeatedly in the past as the nation grew. The most recent expansion was in 1911, when the U.S. population was about 93 million, so a representative had 212,000 constituents. With the current population of 293 million, a representative has 674,000 constituents. To bring this number back to its 1911 value, the House should be expanded to 1370 members. Since a state's electoral vote is equal to its congressional representation, with 1370 House members, the effect of the 100 senators would be much smaller and the electoral votes would be almost proportional to population. To increase the size of the House, Congress would merely have to pass a law; the states would not be involved at all. (This last paragraph was wantonly plagiarized from Electoral-Vote.com)
Google makes very little money from its search engine. Most of their revenue (on the order of 98%) comes from advertisements, so it is'nt such a stretch for them to not support browsers that filter out ads.
Since they don't sell rankings, 100% of their search related revenue comes from ads. And while they do sell ads on many other sites, I bet half of their overall revenue still comes from the search engine (though I could be wrong).
Now, I don't know of any browsers that filter text ads, but I'll assume that one exists. No browser that I know of filters ads by default. So you're suggesting that Google will piss off much of the computer world and risk an antitrust lawsuit for the sole reason of blocking people who may or may not be blocking ads? This is paranoia of the most silly kind. Any website could block browsers because they are capable of blocking ads. But they don't, because it's not worth it. If this were MS, I would at least understand your paranoia, since they have a history of dirty tricks. But since Google doesn't, why assume the worst based simply on the remote possibility of bad behavior?
Then, lets say 6 months later, google only allows the googlebrowser and IE to access google.com (with a deal where MS pays google big bucks). Lets assume google still dominates, it could be 2+ years before a viable alternative exists.
This is an absurd theory. The only rational reason that Google would do such a thing is if they believed they could make more money from the browser then they can from the search engine. Since that's a highly unlikely notion, it would be silly for them try this.
The brains behind Gooogle have been very smart and have shown that building with open standards is a very good business model. Why would you think that just because they are now public, they would throw out everything they have learned in the past, and all of the goodwill that they have earned-- all for a scheme that would be almost certain to drive them out of business overnight?
Then you have to add back in the number of crimes that would be committed with more people addicted to crack or meth breaking into houses to "earn" money for their next fix, having lost their job because they stopped showing up.
This is false for several reasons.
1) Drugs are expensive because they are illegal. If Heroin were legal, there's no technical reason that it need cost more then aspirin. Of course, if it were legal, it would be taxed heavily, but even with a 1000% tax, a single dose would be dramatically cheaper then it is today.
2) Several studies have shown that when junkies get their fix consistently, they are perfectly able to maintain their jobs and responsibilities. The only time they turn to crime is when they can't finance their addiction through legal means. This is why you don't see too many smokers turning to crime to finance their habit.
3) If even 10% of the money that we currently spend on fighting the drug war were directed towards drug treatment, we could greatly reduce the drug problems we face right now. Unfortunately, this hasn't happened since it reaks of being "soft on drugs". If drugs were actually legalized, you could take a portion of the tax generated & put it towards treatment, and we'd actually come out ahead. Peter McWilliams, in the fabulous "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, claims that if all consensual crimes (primarily drugs, gambling, prostitution) were legalized, with the reduced enforcement expenditures and increased taxes we could:
Pay off the national debt in less than ten years.
Reduce personal income taxes by more than 75 percent.
Allow the Pentagon to purchase 23 wrenches, 16 office chairs, and 243 paper clips.
Send every man, woman, and child in the United States a check for $2,000 each year.
Finance three rounds of congressional pay raises.
Pay everyone's doctor, dentist, phone, and utility bills, as well as pay for gasoline and repair of every car in the United States.
Send a check for $217,000 to every high school graduate for furthering his or her education or for starting real life.
Spend sixteen times more money on education than we currently do.
Send every person over 85 years old a check for $165,000 with a note saying, Hey, congratulations!
Wouldn't any of those options be better then the situation as it stands now?
I'm all for personal responsibility: Miranda needs to be held responsible for his actions.
I absolutely agree with you, but there are two additional points that should be made. As you said, what he did was unethical, but it's important to acknowledge that it may not have actually been illegal. In this case, he should be fired, regardless of whether he is convicted of a crime.
The larger issue, though, is whether his bosses knew & encouraged his taking the documents. If so, they should be held to the same standard. Unfortunately, they won't be, and for good reason (from the politicians point of view): If the dems hold the republicans responsible, then next time there's a similar issue on the dems side, they'll be held to the same standard. By hanging an underling rather then the actual responsible parties, they earn favor for their next transgression.
Well, I'm not an economist, but I think that Reaganomics, aka trickle-down economics, aka supply side economics, says that cutting the taxes of the wealthy means that they will invest more, meaning that more jobs will be created, meaning that the lower- & middle-class will benefit. Unfortunately, it didn't seem to work as promised. During the Reagan/Bush I years, the rich got richer, the poor got poorer. Despite popular mythology, both Reagan & Bush passed massive tax increases, in spite of campaigning on no new tax platforms. In fact, the largest tax-increase in history up to that time (I believe it's still the largest if you adjust for inflation) was passed under Reagan. The only reason most people were somewhat insulated from the terrible effects of their policies was that they did so much deficit spending, that they managed to put off the worst of the problems for future generations.
Now, you want to re-elect Bush II, whose fiscal policies make Reagan & his dads policies look downright responsible. Shrub, in spite of a war going on, cut taxes. Unfortunately, his tax cuts were mostly for the rich & super-rich. The middle-class did have their federal taxes cut as well, but the effects are almost entirely offset by increased expenses & decreased income. If you are a family of four making $40,000, with two children under 17, you -federal- tax burden went down by ~$1,900, but the average household income is down by $1,500 before taxes during the first three years of the Bush presidency (according to the US census bureau). I addition, health care costs are up dramatically under Bush, and many jurisdictions have had to raise local taxes to pay for the various unfunded mandates passed by Bush (No Child Left Behind, various homeland security bills). An estimated 4.3 million more people are now living in poverty today then when Bush took office. (these statistics are mostly from tonights Newshour, in their interview segment with Brooks Davis from the non-partisan factcheck.org).
As far as Kerry's "tax-everything-that moves" policies, I'm afraid you need to check your sources. Kerry's proposed tax increases are only for those making more then $200,000/year. You claim to be a worker, so I doubt highly that you fall into that category. In addition, though the final cost of his proposed healthcare plan is under debate (Kerry & some independent studies claim it will cost 600-700 billion over 10 years, the conservative leaning American Enterprise Intitute claims 1.5 Trillion), even the AEI claims it will provide catastrophic health insurance to 27,000,000 people who are currently uninsured, and lower the healthcare costs for all americans who are currently insured, which should lower your overall household expenses.
Kerry may not be as fiscally conservative as you are, but calling him a socialist clearly demonstrates that you have no idea what his actual policies are. Until you do, you really should refrain from commenting (& preferably from voting).
It runs at 12Mbps. This is more than fast enough to bring MP3s or OGGs from the drive to your PepperPad and play them back in real time.
Granted. Perhaps I should have said "that's not a -good- option". What about copying 10 gigs of mp3s to the internal hard drive? Sure it can be done, but it will take hours. How about listening to mp3s from an external drive while copying files from a wired network? What about other applications that I didn't think of? My point was that, assuming the cost to add usb2 was not extreme, it is a silly omission.
Hardware designers never know exactly how there hardware is going to be used, so artificially limiting it's usefulness with things like this seems shortsighted. That's not to say that they need to add every possible hardware option, but they shouldn't omit something as flexible as usb2 just to save a few bucks. Of course there may well be other reasons for the omission.
USB2.0 might be bog-standard on ever PeeCee motherboard available today, but that's not yet the case for every XScale, MIPS, or PowerPC System-On-a-Chip (SoC) eval board. A similar point should be made for IEEE1394 support as well.
My point wasn't that it was standard everywhere, only that the costs in implementing it would be negligible.I'll admit that I don't work in embedded systems, so I'm not all that familiar with the market, but I assume that the motherboards can be customized to the application. Assuming this is the case, why not add it?
I do agree that Firewire seems a bit redundant. It would be nice, but I don't see much compelling advantage to having two competing high-speed busses.
That was the first thing I noticed as well. USB 2.0 is standard on the even cheapest motherboards on the market today, so I can't imagine that it would have added more than a buck or two to the manufacturing cost. And it would have added a lot of new flexibility. My desired use, for example, is as a CarPC/Mp3 player, and a 20 gig hd isn't big enough. The easy solution, and perfectly appropriate for use in the car, is an external hd, but that's not an option here due to the slow USB.
This would also make it more practical to use wired ethernet via a USB adapter (I'm sure you can do this over usb 1.1, but I'm not certain if there'd be a speed hit). WiFi is great, but not always an option.
I'm sure many others can come up with other applications for faster conectivity, and for the small premium in price, I can't see any reason not to include it.
Ok, I'm going to drop this after following up on a one minor point...
You're saying the right doesn't get accused of stretching the truth and distorting things? Look, I'm sorry, but I don't have time to do a comprehensive news analysis for you. All I can tell you is that I have seen many, many, many examples.
That's not quite what I'm saying. Certainly the right gets criticized, in fact I'm the one who originally mentioned the various books on criticizing Rush. But, while discussing F911, I haven't seen them called on it, even though they are criticizing moore for this very behaviour. The news media all want to follow your edict of remaining "on topic". But THIS IS THE TOPIC. Certainly we're discussing Moore specifically, and if the topic had stayed specifically on the airing of F911 on TV, then it would be off topic to bring up the right. But as soon as people start criticizing the movie for it's dishonesty, it's 100% on topic to point out that the right are guilty of the same tactics.
This thread is about Michael Moore. If you'd like to start some thread about a highly lauded republican who distorts the truth the way he does, be my guest. I'll gleefully join in.
I don't buy it. You should get free time to attack Moore, without anyone pointing out that others are guilty of the same thing? Bullshit.
To be fair, you did say earlier "I completely understand your point. I just don't know of anyone who actually thinks it is OK for Rush, O'Reilly and Drudge to lie and use half-truths, but not for Moore to do so." But for all of the news coverage I've seen over the last few months, I have not seen a single person, on either side of the issue call the right out on this issue. Rush Limbaugh has just as big of a soapbox as Moore does, so it's absurd that not only is he getting a free ride, but he's one of the main ones doing the complaining.
The REASON so much is at stake is because government is so much bigger and more important than it used to be, a trend that really began in the 1940s. And the liberals are the ones who created the modern-day colossus that we call the government.
More right wing nonsense, sorry. The right constantly screams "tax & spend liberals!", "big government democrats!". Well, if that's the case, how come there were fewer government employees under Clinton then under Bush 1 (I haven't heard any stats for W.)? How come Clinton was able to balance the budget, when Reagan & Bush 1 (& 2 for that matter) set record deficits?
The right has consistently painted Moore as a propagandist. Well he is. He admits it.
And I don't fault the right for having an agenda, of course they do. That's their job. I fault them for lying to further there agenda, and then criticizing the left when they do the same. Those who live in glass houses... If you criticize Moore for his dishonesty, without criticizing Rush, Anne Coulter, etc. then you are just as dishonest as they are.
"I would love to see the day when people make documentaries that try to be more balanced, and to show both sides of an issue, rather than taking just one side".
And I would love to see the day when talk radio hosts try to be more balanced, and to show both sides of an issue, rather than taking just one side. Of course, there are numerous unbiased documentaries. But that doesn't mean that there isn't room in the world for opinionated documentaries as well. What it sounds like you really want is documentaries that agree with your point of view. Fortunately, your goal hasn't came about yet. But if Bush gets four more years...
This is an odd thing for you to say. Not only did I not call Drudge a leftist, I explicitly said that, as far as I can tell, Drudge is a more or less moderate republican.
You're right here, you did say that Drudge isn't a liberal. Though it certainly reads that way, I didn't intend to misrepresent what you said. However I stand by my basic point that you shouldn't have even mentioned his sexual preference. It has absolutely nothing to do with his political preference.
The rest of your post is something I hear a lot, and it makes no more sense coming from you than it does anyone else. Politics in this country is a high stakes game, and both sides do whatever it takes to win, all the while accusing the OTHER side of doing whatever it takes to win. The only possible way to arrive at the point of view that you do is to acknowledge all the low-down stuff the other side has done, and try to ignore or overlook all the low-down things your side does.
But this is EXACTLY what you're doing. You are not calling out the republicans for doing the same thing you are criticizing Moore for. If you criticize Moore, you also need to criticize those on the right, otherwise you are being as dishonest as he is.
I agree with you that Moore is less honest then I would like. The only reason that I applaud him is because he's doing what the republicans have been doing for years. If the republicans are going to play dirty, then the democrats need to also.
I hope to live to see the day when politics is elevated to a civil debate on the issues, not the game of dirty tricks and one-upsmanship that it is today. Unfortunately, I think that's a long way off. Until then, I want my side to be just as dirty as the other side, since I want them to win.
Taxpayors have lost their representation in the federal government.
Someone, please, moderate this +1 funny. This is probably the most hilarious, absurd thing I've heard all day.
On the other hand, this might actually encourage the rich to pay their taxes, rather then sticking their money in off shore banks or using other dodges to get out of most of their obligation (or just getting bush to give them bigger & bigger tax cuts).
So? I know of several Far right wing gays. True, most gays are liberal, but it is absurd to give Drudge a free pass just because of his sexuality. I judge his biases based on what he has demonstrated in the past. True, he's written critically of the right from time to time as well, but that certainly doesn't make him a leftist.
As for Rush Limbaugh's level of honesty, there have been entire books written on the subject. "Logic & Mr. Limbaugh", "The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error", and several others as well. He is well known for taking facts out of context, spinning things, etc. One classic example is the Paul Wellstone Funeral debacle. What was universally reported by attendees as a loving, non-political event, was spun by Rush, and then picked up by the rest of the national media as a highly politicized, shameful event. Had he (and the rest of the media) bothered to watch the -televised event-, rather then just the 30 second clip that the pundits were criticizing, they would have known this. There are hundreds of other examples, but I'm not going to cite them all.
I do believe that the Left should have higher standards then the right, and we historically, we usually have. Unfortunately, the failure in 2000 to use the same techniques that the right has been using since at least 1992, cost Gore the election. Many of us on the left are fed up with the right pulling this buillshit over & over again, and never getting called on it. Moore is finally taking a page from the republican playbook & using it to great success. Personally, he's one of my heroes.
I guess you don't remember Moore's "war room" remark referring to the lawyers he has assembled to attack those that point out falacies in his film.
From the article you link to (the first paragraph!) "Any attempts to libel me will be met by force,'" Fahrenheit 9/11 director Michael Moore told the New York Times on Sunday (June 20, 2004). "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."
The key words here are "knowingly telling a lie with malice". The right constantly spins Moore as a liar, but they are being very disingenuous with these characterizations. Moore is very careful & precise with his wording. Yes, he spins the truth. Yes he chooses facts to support his arguments. That is absolutely not illegal. If it was, Bush would be in the cell next to Moore. So would every other politician & pundit in the country. Slander and libel, on the other hand are defined as "knowingly telling a lie with malice", and in the US, this is illegal. Moore has just as much right to sue someone for libel as you do.
He's not saying that you cant criticize him, he's only saying that he will defend himself from outright liiies, as the law allows. Stick to the truth in your critiques and you'll be fine.
Well, sometimes the "messenger" bears some scrutiny. Moore certainly not is the messenger, he wrote the message.
And just as determining whether a witness is credible in court is a valid procedure for determining if their testimony is valid, so is analyzing whether Moore is a credible source of information on Bush. He may have done research, but he certainly has an agenda he's pushing, and its not objective fact reporting.
Once again, don't criticize Moore as the messenger without equally criticizing Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Drudge... They all use exactly the same techniques to support their arguements. The only differences between Moore & the rest are 1) their agenda, and 2) their format.
I've never understood these criticisms of Moore. I mean Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Matt Drudge, and virtually every other right wing pundit is guilty of exactly the same things-- and often far worse (Moore spins the truth to support his agenda, but everything is at least loosely based on fact. The aforementioned pundits have all been known to just make shit up to support their agenda). Why is it OK for them to use "lies & Half Truths", but not OK for Moore?
(To anticipate your next argument: Yes, Bush could conceivably claim to be harmed by the lies/distortions, but under American law would almost certainly lose any lawsuit based not on the validity of his claims but on the simple fact that he is a leading political figure.)
But the same thing could be true for Kerry (swift boat veterans for untruth), and certainly is true in the case of McCain in 2000 and Max Cleland in 2002. The Americas slander/lible laws have benefited Bush & the Republicans at least as much, probably far more, as they have Democrats.
No, they don't really give a damn if he's happy, they just want his money.
Did you ever watch Fight Club? There's a great scene where Edward Norton's character is describing his job:
JACK (V.O.) On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Two TECHNICIANS lead Jack to the BURNT-OUT SHELL of a WRECKED AUTOMOBILE. Jack sets down his briefcase, opens it and starts to make notes on a CLIP BOARDED FORM.
JACK (V.O.) I'm a recall coordinator. My job is to apply the formula. It's a story problem.
TECHNICIAN #1 Here's where the infant went through the windshield. Three points.
JACK (V.O.) A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 miles per hour. The rear differential locks up.
TECHNICIAN #2 The teenager's braces around the backseat ashtray would make a good "anti-smoking" ad.
JACK (V.O.) The car crushes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now: do we initiate a recall?
TECHNICIAN #1 The father's must've been huge. See how the fat burnt into the driver's seat with the polyester shirt? Very "modern art".
JACK (V.O.) Take the number of vehicles in the field (A), multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement (C). A times B times C equals X...
CUT TO:
INT. AIRPLANE CABIN - MOVING DOWN RUNWAY - NIGHT
Jack is speaking to the BUSINESSWOMAN next to him.
JACK If X is less that the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
BUSINESSWOMAN Are there a lot of these kinds of accident?
JACK You wouldn't believe.
BUSINESSWOMAN Which car company do you work for?
JACK A major one.
The same formula works for any other product. Sure, the manufacturer would prefer that the customer is happy, so long as it doesn't hurt the bottom line.
You're right, the poster should contact the manufacturers, but don't expect that the results will be quite as rosy as you seem to imply. Most likely, the DVD publisher will happily send him a new disk 5. But, assuming he does get a replacement disk, is he going to risk yet another dvd player by actually playing it?
Beyond that, it's doubtful that he'll get a new DVD player without taking them to court. Even if he goes to court, it's going to be a tough case to prove. Sure, the guy has two dead dvd players, but how can he prove they were killed by the dvd? He could play the dvd in a third dvd player in court, but what if it dooesn't kill that one? The judge isn't going to be happy waiting around while you play the dvd dozens of times hoping it eventually kills another dvd player. Even if you win, you've had to destroy another dvd player in court to do so, so now you're out three dvd players-- and I don't believe court costs are typically rewarded in small claims court, so that third dvd player comes out of your pocket regardless...
As for "Why would you ask Slashdot?", arming himself with even anecdotal evidence that other people are having the smae problem, he can drop those three magic words: "class action lawsuit". While his results are still far from guaranteed, he has at least a bit more leverage to use in his dealings.
Slashdot Mirror
At this point, an electoral college would actually be meaningless, because the only thing that makes it interesting is that it prevents direct election of a president. Once electoral votes become irrevocably tied to the popular vote, the electoral system becomes meaningless.
No, it wouldn't be meaningless, it would still be fundamentally flawed. The small states would still hold an inordinate amount of influence relative to their population. Since this is the core of the problem as it exists now, this would do nothing to fix the problem. This is demonstrated by the original article. Even though Gore won the popular vote, he still would not have won the election had the electoral votes have been assigned proportionally.
And finally... who the fuck would trust City People to run this country? That's what would happen with straight representative votes. Presidential candidates wouldn't have to worry AT ALL about the issues of farmers, Alaskans, hunters, people who fish for a living, gun owners, miners, military communities, or anything else that takes place outside a major urban area.
So, instead, you're saying that it's better that the president doesn't have to care about the wills of city dwellers?
In reality, popular vote would not mean that city dwellers held all the power, it would only shift the power away from swing states. As it is today, certain states are solidly democratic, others are solildly republican. It's the remaining 15 or so states that have all of the representation, since the candidates spend all of their time pandering to those states desires.
There are enough rural voters in america that no candidate could afford to ignore their desires, even under a popular vote. And such a system would mean the president would be accountable to all americans, not just those in swing states.
One person one vote is the only system that makes any sense. Any other system is biased due to arbitrary rules such as, early states tended to be smaller (thus more senators per area), some states have very few people and get way more votes for that--beyond reason. I can understand the two senators, but three times the votes for president! That is not democratic.
I think you're right. This is the only system that I can see that stops the candidates from pandering to the wills of a few swing states, and instead focus on what is best for the country.
Unfortunately, this will never happen since it would require a constitutional ammendment. The current system favors republican candidates (they tend to do much better in the less populous states), so they will never vote to change the system. Even if you could get the republicans in congress to approve the change, none of the small states would vote to ratify the change.
If Congress wanted to keep the electoral college but make it fairer, there is a simple (but unlikely) solution: increase the size of the House of Representatives. There is nothing in the constitution mandating a particular size except that each member must represent at least 30,000 people (which puts an upper limit on the House of about 10,000 members). In fact, the House has been expanded repeatedly in the past as the nation grew. The most recent expansion was in 1911, when the U.S. population was about 93 million, so a representative had 212,000 constituents. With the current population of 293 million, a representative has 674,000 constituents. To bring this number back to its 1911 value, the House should be expanded to 1370 members. Since a state's electoral vote is equal to its congressional representation, with 1370 House members, the effect of the 100 senators would be much smaller and the electoral votes would be almost proportional to population. To increase the size of the House, Congress would merely have to pass a law; the states would not be involved at all. (This last paragraph was wantonly plagiarized from Electoral-Vote.com)
Google makes very little money from its search engine. Most of their revenue (on the order of 98%) comes from advertisements, so it is'nt such a stretch for them to not support browsers that filter out ads.
Since they don't sell rankings, 100% of their search related revenue comes from ads. And while they do sell ads on many other sites, I bet half of their overall revenue still comes from the search engine (though I could be wrong).
Now, I don't know of any browsers that filter text ads, but I'll assume that one exists. No browser that I know of filters ads by default. So you're suggesting that Google will piss off much of the computer world and risk an antitrust lawsuit for the sole reason of blocking people who may or may not be blocking ads? This is paranoia of the most silly kind. Any website could block browsers because they are capable of blocking ads. But they don't, because it's not worth it. If this were MS, I would at least understand your paranoia, since they have a history of dirty tricks. But since Google doesn't, why assume the worst based simply on the remote possibility of bad behavior?
Then, lets say 6 months later, google only allows the googlebrowser and IE to access google.com (with a deal where MS pays google big bucks). Lets assume google still dominates, it could be 2+ years before a viable alternative exists.
This is an absurd theory. The only rational reason that Google would do such a thing is if they believed they could make more money from the browser then they can from the search engine. Since that's a highly unlikely notion, it would be silly for them try this.
The brains behind Gooogle have been very smart and have shown that building with open standards is a very good business model. Why would you think that just because they are now public, they would throw out everything they have learned in the past, and all of the goodwill that they have earned-- all for a scheme that would be almost certain to drive them out of business overnight?
This is false for several reasons.
1) Drugs are expensive because they are illegal. If Heroin were legal, there's no technical reason that it need cost more then aspirin. Of course, if it were legal, it would be taxed heavily, but even with a 1000% tax, a single dose would be dramatically cheaper then it is today.
2) Several studies have shown that when junkies get their fix consistently, they are perfectly able to maintain their jobs and responsibilities. The only time they turn to crime is when they can't finance their addiction through legal means. This is why you don't see too many smokers turning to crime to finance their habit.
3) If even 10% of the money that we currently spend on fighting the drug war were directed towards drug treatment, we could greatly reduce the drug problems we face right now. Unfortunately, this hasn't happened since it reaks of being "soft on drugs". If drugs were actually legalized, you could take a portion of the tax generated & put it towards treatment, and we'd actually come out ahead. Peter McWilliams, in the fabulous "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, claims that if all consensual crimes (primarily drugs, gambling, prostitution) were legalized, with the reduced enforcement expenditures and increased taxes we could:
- Pay off the national debt in less than ten years.
- Reduce personal income taxes by more than 75 percent.
- Allow the Pentagon to purchase 23 wrenches, 16 office chairs, and 243 paper clips.
- Send every man, woman, and child in the United States a check for $2,000 each year.
- Finance three rounds of congressional pay raises.
- Pay everyone's doctor, dentist, phone, and utility bills, as well as pay for gasoline and repair of every car in the United States.
- Send a check for $217,000 to every high school graduate for furthering his or her education or for starting real life.
- Spend sixteen times more money on education than we currently do.
- Send every person over 85 years old a check for $165,000 with a note saying, Hey, congratulations!
Wouldn't any of those options be better then the situation as it stands now?Well, not so much about Geek parents, but there's always this classic childrens book.
I'm all for personal responsibility: Miranda needs to be held responsible for his actions.
I absolutely agree with you, but there are two additional points that should be made. As you said, what he did was unethical, but it's important to acknowledge that it may not have actually been illegal. In this case, he should be fired, regardless of whether he is convicted of a crime.
The larger issue, though, is whether his bosses knew & encouraged his taking the documents. If so, they should be held to the same standard. Unfortunately, they won't be, and for good reason (from the politicians point of view): If the dems hold the republicans responsible, then next time there's a similar issue on the dems side, they'll be held to the same standard. By hanging an underling rather then the actual responsible parties, they earn favor for their next transgression.
FYI, for more information on the Reagan tax increases, see this article.
Well, I'm not an economist, but I think that Reaganomics, aka trickle-down economics, aka supply side economics, says that cutting the taxes of the wealthy means that they will invest more, meaning that more jobs will be created, meaning that the lower- & middle-class will benefit. Unfortunately, it didn't seem to work as promised. During the Reagan/Bush I years, the rich got richer, the poor got poorer. Despite popular mythology, both Reagan & Bush passed massive tax increases, in spite of campaigning on no new tax platforms. In fact, the largest tax-increase in history up to that time (I believe it's still the largest if you adjust for inflation) was passed under Reagan. The only reason most people were somewhat insulated from the terrible effects of their policies was that they did so much deficit spending, that they managed to put off the worst of the problems for future generations.
Now, you want to re-elect Bush II, whose fiscal policies make Reagan & his dads policies look downright responsible. Shrub, in spite of a war going on, cut taxes. Unfortunately, his tax cuts were mostly for the rich & super-rich. The middle-class did have their federal taxes cut as well, but the effects are almost entirely offset by increased expenses & decreased income. If you are a family of four making $40,000, with two children under 17, you -federal- tax burden went down by ~$1,900, but the average household income is down by $1,500 before taxes during the first three years of the Bush presidency (according to the US census bureau). I addition, health care costs are up dramatically under Bush, and many jurisdictions have had to raise local taxes to pay for the various unfunded mandates passed by Bush (No Child Left Behind, various homeland security bills). An estimated 4.3 million more people are now living in poverty today then when Bush took office. (these statistics are mostly from tonights Newshour, in their interview segment with Brooks Davis from the non-partisan factcheck.org).
As far as Kerry's "tax-everything-that moves" policies, I'm afraid you need to check your sources. Kerry's proposed tax increases are only for those making more then $200,000/year. You claim to be a worker, so I doubt highly that you fall into that category. In addition, though the final cost of his proposed healthcare plan is under debate (Kerry & some independent studies claim it will cost 600-700 billion over 10 years, the conservative leaning American Enterprise Intitute claims 1.5 Trillion), even the AEI claims it will provide catastrophic health insurance to 27,000,000 people who are currently uninsured, and lower the healthcare costs for all americans who are currently insured, which should lower your overall household expenses.
Kerry may not be as fiscally conservative as you are, but calling him a socialist clearly demonstrates that you have no idea what his actual policies are. Until you do, you really should refrain from commenting (& preferably from voting).
It runs at 12Mbps. This is more than fast enough to bring MP3s or OGGs from the drive to your PepperPad and play them back in real time.
Granted. Perhaps I should have said "that's not a -good- option". What about copying 10 gigs of mp3s to the internal hard drive? Sure it can be done, but it will take hours. How about listening to mp3s from an external drive while copying files from a wired network? What about other applications that I didn't think of? My point was that, assuming the cost to add usb2 was not extreme, it is a silly omission.
Hardware designers never know exactly how there hardware is going to be used, so artificially limiting it's usefulness with things like this seems shortsighted. That's not to say that they need to add every possible hardware option, but they shouldn't omit something as flexible as usb2 just to save a few bucks. Of course there may well be other reasons for the omission.
USB2.0 might be bog-standard on ever PeeCee motherboard available today, but that's not yet the case for every XScale, MIPS, or PowerPC System-On-a-Chip (SoC) eval board. A similar point should be made for IEEE1394 support as well.
My point wasn't that it was standard everywhere, only that the costs in implementing it would be negligible.I'll admit that I don't work in embedded systems, so I'm not all that familiar with the market, but I assume that the motherboards can be customized to the application. Assuming this is the case, why not add it?
I do agree that Firewire seems a bit redundant. It would be nice, but I don't see much compelling advantage to having two competing high-speed busses.
That was the first thing I noticed as well. USB 2.0 is standard on the even cheapest motherboards on the market today, so I can't imagine that it would have added more than a buck or two to the manufacturing cost. And it would have added a lot of new flexibility. My desired use, for example, is as a CarPC/Mp3 player, and a 20 gig hd isn't big enough. The easy solution, and perfectly appropriate for use in the car, is an external hd, but that's not an option here due to the slow USB.
This would also make it more practical to use wired ethernet via a USB adapter (I'm sure you can do this over usb 1.1, but I'm not certain if there'd be a speed hit). WiFi is great, but not always an option.
I'm sure many others can come up with other applications for faster conectivity, and for the small premium in price, I can't see any reason not to include it.
Ok, I'm going to drop this after following up on a one minor point...
You're saying the right doesn't get accused of stretching the truth and distorting things? Look, I'm sorry, but I don't have time to do a comprehensive news analysis for you. All I can tell you is that I have seen many, many, many examples.
That's not quite what I'm saying. Certainly the right gets criticized, in fact I'm the one who originally mentioned the various books on criticizing Rush. But, while discussing F911, I haven't seen them called on it, even though they are criticizing moore for this very behaviour. The news media all want to follow your edict of remaining "on topic". But THIS IS THE TOPIC. Certainly we're discussing Moore specifically, and if the topic had stayed specifically on the airing of F911 on TV, then it would be off topic to bring up the right. But as soon as people start criticizing the movie for it's dishonesty, it's 100% on topic to point out that the right are guilty of the same tactics.
This thread is about Michael Moore. If you'd like to start some thread about a highly lauded republican who distorts the truth the way he does, be my guest. I'll gleefully join in.
I don't buy it. You should get free time to attack Moore, without anyone pointing out that others are guilty of the same thing? Bullshit.
To be fair, you did say earlier "I completely understand your point. I just don't know of anyone who actually thinks it is OK for Rush, O'Reilly and Drudge to lie and use half-truths, but not for Moore to do so." But for all of the news coverage I've seen over the last few months, I have not seen a single person, on either side of the issue call the right out on this issue. Rush Limbaugh has just as big of a soapbox as Moore does, so it's absurd that not only is he getting a free ride, but he's one of the main ones doing the complaining.
The REASON so much is at stake is because government is so much bigger and more important than it used to be, a trend that really began in the 1940s. And the liberals are the ones who created the modern-day colossus that we call the government.
More right wing nonsense, sorry. The right constantly screams "tax & spend liberals!", "big government democrats!". Well, if that's the case, how come there were fewer government employees under Clinton then under Bush 1 (I haven't heard any stats for W.)? How come Clinton was able to balance the budget, when Reagan & Bush 1 (& 2 for that matter) set record deficits?
The right has consistently painted Moore as a propagandist. Well he is. He admits it.
And I don't fault the right for having an agenda, of course they do. That's their job. I fault them for lying to further there agenda, and then criticizing the left when they do the same. Those who live in glass houses... If you criticize Moore for his dishonesty, without criticizing Rush, Anne Coulter, etc. then you are just as dishonest as they are.
"I would love to see the day when people make documentaries that try to be more balanced, and to show both sides of an issue, rather than taking just one side".
And I would love to see the day when talk radio hosts try to be more balanced, and to show both sides of an issue, rather than taking just one side. Of course, there are numerous unbiased documentaries. But that doesn't mean that there isn't room in the world for opinionated documentaries as well. What it sounds like you really want is documentaries that agree with your point of view. Fortunately, your goal hasn't came about yet. But if Bush gets four more years...
This is an odd thing for you to say. Not only did I not call Drudge a leftist, I explicitly said that, as far as I can tell, Drudge is a more or less moderate republican.
You're right here, you did say that Drudge isn't a liberal. Though it certainly reads that way, I didn't intend to misrepresent what you said. However I stand by my basic point that you shouldn't have even mentioned his sexual preference. It has absolutely nothing to do with his political preference.
The rest of your post is something I hear a lot, and it makes no more sense coming from you than it does anyone else. Politics in this country is a high stakes game, and both sides do whatever it takes to win, all the while accusing the OTHER side of doing whatever it takes to win. The only possible way to arrive at the point of view that you do is to acknowledge all the low-down stuff the other side has done, and try to ignore or overlook all the low-down things your side does.
But this is EXACTLY what you're doing. You are not calling out the republicans for doing the same thing you are criticizing Moore for. If you criticize Moore, you also need to criticize those on the right, otherwise you are being as dishonest as he is.
I agree with you that Moore is less honest then I would like. The only reason that I applaud him is because he's doing what the republicans have been doing for years. If the republicans are going to play dirty, then the democrats need to also.
I hope to live to see the day when politics is elevated to a civil debate on the issues, not the game of dirty tricks and one-upsmanship that it is today. Unfortunately, I think that's a long way off. Until then, I want my side to be just as dirty as the other side, since I want them to win.
Taxpayors have lost their representation in the federal government.
Someone, please, moderate this +1 funny. This is probably the most hilarious, absurd thing I've heard all day.
On the other hand, this might actually encourage the rich to pay their taxes, rather then sticking their money in off shore banks or using other dodges to get out of most of their obligation (or just getting bush to give them bigger & bigger tax cuts).
You do know he's gay, right?
So? I know of several Far right wing gays. True, most gays are liberal, but it is absurd to give Drudge a free pass just because of his sexuality. I judge his biases based on what he has demonstrated in the past. True, he's written critically of the right from time to time as well, but that certainly doesn't make him a leftist.
As for Rush Limbaugh's level of honesty, there have been entire books written on the subject. "Logic & Mr. Limbaugh", "The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error", and several others as well. He is well known for taking facts out of context, spinning things, etc. One classic example is the Paul Wellstone Funeral debacle. What was universally reported by attendees as a loving, non-political event, was spun by Rush, and then picked up by the rest of the national media as a highly politicized, shameful event. Had he (and the rest of the media) bothered to watch the -televised event-, rather then just the 30 second clip that the pundits were criticizing, they would have known this. There are hundreds of other examples, but I'm not going to cite them all.
I do believe that the Left should have higher standards then the right, and we historically, we usually have. Unfortunately, the failure in 2000 to use the same techniques that the right has been using since at least 1992, cost Gore the election. Many of us on the left are fed up with the right pulling this buillshit over & over again, and never getting called on it. Moore is finally taking a page from the republican playbook & using it to great success. Personally, he's one of my heroes.
I guess you don't remember Moore's "war room" remark referring to the lawyers he has assembled to attack those that point out falacies in his film.
From the article you link to (the first paragraph!)
"Any attempts to libel me will be met by force,'" Fahrenheit 9/11 director Michael Moore told the New York Times on Sunday (June 20, 2004). "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."
The key words here are "knowingly telling a lie with malice". The right constantly spins Moore as a liar, but they are being very disingenuous with these characterizations. Moore is very careful & precise with his wording. Yes, he spins the truth. Yes he chooses facts to support his arguments. That is absolutely not illegal. If it was, Bush would be in the cell next to Moore. So would every other politician & pundit in the country. Slander and libel, on the other hand are defined as "knowingly telling a lie with malice", and in the US, this is illegal. Moore has just as much right to sue someone for libel as you do.
He's not saying that you cant criticize him, he's only saying that he will defend himself from outright liiies, as the law allows. Stick to the truth in your critiques and you'll be fine.
Well, sometimes the "messenger" bears some scrutiny. Moore certainly not is the messenger, he wrote the message.
And just as determining whether a witness is credible in court is a valid procedure for determining if their testimony is valid, so is analyzing whether Moore is a credible source of information on Bush. He may have done research, but he certainly has an agenda he's pushing, and its not objective fact reporting.
Once again, don't criticize Moore as the messenger without equally criticizing Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Drudge... They all use exactly the same techniques to support their arguements. The only differences between Moore & the rest are 1) their agenda, and 2) their format.
I've never understood these criticisms of Moore. I mean Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Matt Drudge, and virtually every other right wing pundit is guilty of exactly the same things-- and often far worse (Moore spins the truth to support his agenda, but everything is at least loosely based on fact. The aforementioned pundits have all been known to just make shit up to support their agenda). Why is it OK for them to use "lies & Half Truths", but not OK for Moore?
(To anticipate your next argument: Yes, Bush could conceivably claim to be harmed by the lies/distortions, but under American law would almost certainly lose any lawsuit based not on the validity of his claims but on the simple fact that he is a leading political figure.)
But the same thing could be true for Kerry (swift boat veterans for untruth), and certainly is true in the case of McCain in 2000 and Max Cleland in 2002. The Americas slander/lible laws have benefited Bush & the Republicans at least as much, probably far more, as they have Democrats.
I'm curious about your sig: Kerry/Edwards 2004! We'll make Socialism work this time! No, really!
So what part of the Kerry platform is socialist?
And of course there's the flipside: "Bush/Cheney 2004! We'll make Reaganomics work this time! No, really!"
No, they don't really give a damn if he's happy, they just want his money.
Did you ever watch Fight Club? There's a great scene where Edward Norton's character is describing his job:
JACK (V.O.)
On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Two TECHNICIANS lead Jack to the BURNT-OUT SHELL of a WRECKED AUTOMOBILE. Jack sets down his briefcase, opens it and starts to make notes on a CLIP BOARDED FORM.
JACK (V.O.)
I'm a recall coordinator. My job is to apply the formula. It's a story problem.
TECHNICIAN #1
Here's where the infant went through the windshield. Three points.
JACK (V.O.)
A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 miles per hour. The rear differential locks up.
TECHNICIAN #2
The teenager's braces around the backseat ashtray would make a good "anti-smoking" ad.
JACK (V.O.)
The car crushes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now: do we initiate a recall?
TECHNICIAN #1
The father's must've been huge. See how the fat burnt into the driver's seat with the polyester shirt? Very "modern art".
JACK (V.O.)
Take the number of vehicles in the field (A), multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement (C). A times B times C equals X...
CUT TO:
INT. AIRPLANE CABIN - MOVING DOWN RUNWAY - NIGHT
Jack is speaking to the BUSINESSWOMAN next to him.
JACK
If X is less that the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
BUSINESSWOMAN
Are there a lot of these kinds of accident?
JACK
You wouldn't believe.
BUSINESSWOMAN
Which car company do you work for?
JACK
A major one.
The same formula works for any other product. Sure, the manufacturer would prefer that the customer is happy, so long as it doesn't hurt the bottom line.
You're right, the poster should contact the manufacturers, but don't expect that the results will be quite as rosy as you seem to imply. Most likely, the DVD publisher will happily send him a new disk 5. But, assuming he does get a replacement disk, is he going to risk yet another dvd player by actually playing it?
Beyond that, it's doubtful that he'll get a new DVD player without taking them to court. Even if he goes to court, it's going to be a tough case to prove. Sure, the guy has two dead dvd players, but how can he prove they were killed by the dvd? He could play the dvd in a third dvd player in court, but what if it dooesn't kill that one? The judge isn't going to be happy waiting around while you play the dvd dozens of times hoping it eventually kills another dvd player. Even if you win, you've had to destroy another dvd player in court to do so, so now you're out three dvd players-- and I don't believe court costs are typically rewarded in small claims court, so that third dvd player comes out of your pocket regardless...
As for "Why would you ask Slashdot?", arming himself with even anecdotal evidence that other people are having the smae problem, he can drop those three magic words: "class action lawsuit". While his results are still far from guaranteed, he has at least a bit more leverage to use in his dealings.