Yeah, but wouldn't it be nice? Don't you think we should try? I mean, netblocks don't just pop into existance on thier own. RIPE, ARIN, etc. could certainly agree to enforce a policy along those lines without too much trouble.
If there is a message behind it, wouldn't it make more sense to spam the message, deface webservers with the message, etc? DDoSes are about nobody getting any messages through... If there is a message behind this, this isn't the way to spread the word.
egress filtering. Sure, you can get hit from 30 or 40 netblocks, but you know that the netblocks are valid if egress filtering is in place at every AS border.
A simpler solution is based on the ownership of netblocks. If ownership of netblocks was tied to good behavior, ISPs would have an incentive to make sure that they were not hosting bad behavior, and egress filtering would become much more widespread. Where egress filtering is in place, spoofing does not happen (ie - packets must be addressed with a valid address or they are blocked outbound from the ISP), and so you know what admin to call. As long as you can track the packets back to an ISP, you can track back to the machine responsible. If the ISP doesn't like getting pages at 3am about kiddie behavior, they'll mention attacks in the AUP, and kiddies will lose their accounts. There's no need to do anything further than encourage egress filters and make sure that people are aware of AUPs.
Mmmm, revise that thought a bit. A best effort sort of thing would be reasonable - if J. Random Sysadmin ignores 2 years worth of patches and becomes the host to a DoS, J. Random Sysadmin is partially responsible. If J. Random Sysadmin follows up on patches and closes known vulnerabilities, etc, and practices a reasonable amount of care, then chances are the boxes s/he admins will be too protected for kiddies to deal with... There's a legal term for this idea, iirc, although I don't recall what it was.
Well, conveniently enough, the aircraft carriers based in Pearl Harbor were all at sea when the Japanese struck. The war in the Pacific ended up being very carrier-centric, and the monstrous battleships and cruisers have pretty much been phased out of the navy. Most of the ships that were at Pearl were older boats, too. But hey, it's the government. They never lie. They never cheat. They never deceive.
Right, but blocking all of 123.456.0.0/16 because you don't like the spam you get from abc@xyz.com is still wrong. You can procmail the spam away, or you can filter sendmail, or you can refuse SMTP from xyz.com, but null routing the netblock's BGP advert is wrong.
Speak for yourself, sparky. I don't get tired until I've been up for about 18 hours, but then I like a good 10 hours of sleep. Although 24 and 12 work okay, too.
Re: common carrier status, iirc, a company has to apply for common carrier status, and they give up certain rights when they do so, although it gives them a number of privledges as well. In this case, I feel that backbone providers should be asked to apply for common carrier, since they fit the definition.
But you can't change phone companies if you don't like the service. If I don't like the service that Verizon provides here (Philly), I can deal with it or lose the landline. There is no other company providing POTS. (btw, 212 is new york) There are still areas where the same is true of ISPs. Also, MAPS offers the BGP based spam blocking, where spammish netblocks are null routed in BGP. Without a valid BGP entry, you obviously can't talk to that netblock. Using netblocks is simply not granular enough. Even basing it on IP might not be granular enough, as one host might be serving several domains through aliasing.
Arguing that MAPS only publishes the list isn't a valid argument, because of the ways that the list is published and the methods suggested for blocking. Either way, the RBL is based on content - spam is content, too. If the list is overly broad, as it may be in this case, then stuff that isn't spam is getting blocked on content as well, however invalid the content judgement. If the RBL was only available as a procmail filter, this problem wouldn't exist. Offering it as a BGP filter is just plain wrong - everything on the netblock gets filtered based on partial content, like every other piece of badly specified censorware. A better design would be a procmail filter, because that will do the filtering and leave the option of still receiving the mail in case it truly isn't spam and it wouldn't interfere with other traffic from the offending netblock. Blocking the website because the website offers spamware is just as much (corporate/organizational) censorship as blocking a website because it offers porn or viewpoints offensive to the local admin/manager.
1) Just because the courts have said they aren't common carriers doesn't make the courts right. I would agrue that backbone providers should be common carriers for situations such as this. If then end user wants to filter based on content, that's fine - you or I can very easily screen phone calls based on caller ID, but think about what life would be like if telcos decided that the 212 area code was offensive and wouldn't get to your phone for you to deice. I wouldn't mind, but you might.
2) RBL is based on the netblock, but the decision to carry or not carry the netblock is based on contect originating in the netblock, therefore it is making a decision based on the content at a fixed point in time. It's still a content based decision, it's just a question of when the content was examined.
itachi, enjoying work through office party induced beer goggles...
Censorship is something that can only be conducted by the government. Private organizations such as ISP's or MAPS can choose to carry or not carry whatever they like.
It's not quite that simple, though. Common carriers, although private organizations, don't have the choice to carry or not carry based on content. Now a local dialup provider is hardly a common carrier, but I would say that a tier one provider really should be a common carrier. After all, a local dialup in Peoria can't reach Bangladesh without crossing some backbone provider's network.
The notion is that you load up the washing machine, dishwasher, whatever, and then let it run at low usage hours (ie, 3am) in order to reduce draw on the grid during peak hours. Many European power comanpies offer plans based on this, where you get a discounted rate for this. It's a good idea, too - it is more efficient to spread the load equally across 24 hours and have lower capacity power plants that run closer to capacity around the clock than to have higher capacity plants that generate equal amounts all day with highly varied loads.
But there are so many calendar apps, why change the mail server just to get a calendar functionality you can find or implement without mucking with the working mailserver?
I don't think it's contradictory. The first quoted bit above was assuming some OSHA regulations. If the OSHA regs require the widget industry to improve working conditions or shut down, they're going to improve working conditions. What you'll find is that the marginal cost of widget production rises, and production will fall somewhat, meaning that there will be some job cuts in the widget industry. It will hurt consumers, too - prices will rise. So yes, OSHA regs have a downside. If they are written carefully, it wont be much of a downside. Ideally, every OSHA reg would be cheap and painless, but in certain industries, safety is expensive. Look at computer parts. The long term health problems that result from some of the chemicals used are really frightening, and the environmental systems that are used in those facilities are really pricey. Would you argue that a worker should have the right to choose to expose themselves to long term damage that will alter make them an expensive burden on the health care system? Especially if the long term health care costs far outweigh the costs of the OSHA protections? I think that, like seatbelt laws, it makes sense in a long term opportunity cost sort of way. The onther solution is to figure out a way whereby people can voluntarily write themselves out of society - "I'll work here with no safety precautions because I don't mind taking the risks, and then society will have no obligation to help me no matter how ill I get due to chemical exposure" sort of thing. But I sort of have a moral issue with that last bit. It's economic slavery.
Re: employee pressure making these changes, it might work in some cases, the regulations are, imho, for the cases where employee pressure wont work. My understanding is that OSHA doesn't take a look at a business unless they are aware of or suspect violations. Given that, OSHA is harmless and good. If I'm wrong, then OSHA could in fact be wasteful and bad in some cases.
Re the coal mines, I'll halfway give in on that. A lot has changed with regards to medicine and biology and mining technology, etc. But you can get people to work in those conditions - sweatshops still exist, and clothing fibers can cause serious lung damage as well as coal dust. Different lung damage, but serious lung damage. Take a look at how many sweatshop stories you see in the news. If 3/4 of them are lies, and the other 1/4 are exaggerated, that's still a lot of sweatshop work going on. It's harder to get people to work in those conditions, but it still happens, mostly in developing nations which don't have OSHA style regulations but instead rely on industry self-regulation. Even in the U.S. it happens - migrant workers in agriculture still deal with terrible health issues from pesticides for significantly less than $7/hour, and much harder work that what you might see at the local McDonald's. Not to mention the "company store" con, where they can end up owing their employer money at the end of the day...
But OSHA does improve conditions for workers. And yes, some of the costs will be passed along to the workers/consumers. However, the employer can only pass on so much to the worker - pay cuts only go so far before you hit minimum wage. And in most cases they can't make the employees pay directly out of pocket. (I know that in some cases they can, but in those situations the employee can then turn around and write it off at tax time) Most employers accept the fact that paying more per worker for health and safety means less in workers comp and lawsuits filed by injured workers. Unemployment might rise in areas high in worker-unfriendly industry, though, as those companies cut back on jobs due to increased cost per employee. But if the widget industry is worker-unfriendly, they'll find that they have to improve working conditions if they want to keep widget production at the same level. And most of this stuff is cheap and easy - look at the OSHA regs, it's pretty tame. The fact remains that if the company is required to provide minimum health and safety standards, the quality of life increases for those workers (look at coal mines circa 1800 next to coal mines now, in any terms). You are right, if the employer thinks that there is an economic advantage to screwing the worker, they will try it. But look at what the penalties can be. With most health and safety regulations, the penalties are high enough that the risk and penalty of getting caught in the act make compliance more attractive than screwing the workers. Fire codes, for example. Most businesses have the fire exits marked, unblocked, etc, and it's not because they all are concerned about fire safety. Health and safety regs really do make a difference - after an OSHA inspection, my own employer was really quick about cleaning up some of the serious health hazards they were exposing employees to (unlit exterior stairs, unmarked asbestos, exposed wiring in steam tunnels and wiring closets, etc). OSHA really does help.
Ultimately, there's one reason and only one reason employers treat their employees well-- because they know they'll leave if they don't.
Well, have you ever worked a crappy job? Have you ever been an unskilled worker in a high-unemployment area? There are a great many people who can't just get up and move to a new job. Take migrant workers, for example. If you don't take the job, someone else will. For the same pay and conditions that you are turning your nose up at. And so you take the job and damage your back, your wrists, your arms, expose yourself to the pesticides, etc.
These OSHA regulations are essential, because there are evil bastards out there, and they will hire people to do jobs that are dangerous. Look at how many stories you can find about managers locking the fire doors to prevent employees from taking smoke breaks. Or exposing workers to seriously hazardous chemicals without warning them of the precautions to take during usage and handling. These OSHA regulations are not just for you, but for the package handler at FedEx, the person bagging groceries down at the corner store, the mailman, and so forth. These people are covered by the OSHA regs just as much as any computer worker, but they don't have the same job flexibility and mobility.
Finally, if Bush takes office, it will be a sign that it is time to leave the country. Compassionate fascism isn't my idea of a good time.
Way off base. Hypothetically, if my boss refuses to fix the office ergonomics to prevent/help treat/whatever my work-induced RSI, then I can either quit or use the OSHA regs to fix the situation. If OSHA didn't have this set of regs, then my only option would be quit and find a new job. It's harder to find a new job if you go into the interview telling them a list of conditions they'll have to meet before you'll take the job. By the logic you're using, we should allow child labor (hey, it's the kids choice to work in a coal mine, if they lose a few limbs, it was their own fault. Besides, they knew that it was dangerous work...). The regs are not for the company, they're for the worker, they simply place the burden on the company.
The why isn't relevant, though, is it? The important part is the result. I mean, if you aren't sure which box to check to vote for your candidate, and the poll workers may not tell you, you're just as confused as if they may tell you but will not tell you.
Also, re the military vote, the only large military unit from Florida that potentially might be overseas is in fact at home (the USS JFK, an aircraft carrier based in Mayport, according to the Washington Post). The overseas voters from Florida who migh make a difference apparently include a number of US/Israeli dual citizens (~1000, heavily Democrat, and their votes wont be tallied until as late as the 17th) So there's a lot still up in the air.
Also, I highly recommend taking a look at the questionable ballot (Findlaw's picture)
Well, if the results were in for florida, it would be hinging on the next state that announced or it would be decided, since if Florida went Bush, he'd be declared winner, and if Gore had Florida plus any other state remaining in contention (as of 1:30 eastern), he wins. If you look at the exit polls for florida (MSNBC or CNN), assuming that they are a statistically correct sample, Gore will take Florida by the tiniest margin. And at this point, whoever takes Florida wins the election. So there's still a chance that we (the voters) wont fuck ourselves up the ass with a moron this year.
itachi, bitter and wondering why Bush has gotten any votes at all.
He (Nader) does matter. Take a look at Oregon's exit polls. And with Florida, Nader almost makes up the difference between Gore and Bush. It looks like Nader might actually be the difference between waking up to President Gore tomorrow and hoping to die in my sleep... I'd rather elect a hamster than that moron. We need to amend the constitution to add a "you must be at least this smart to run for president" clause. Dubya can't even speak his native language, how can he run a nation? At least his father was smart. Involved in Iran-Contra, devious and weasel-y, but smart.
Did you read the salon article? Sure, like the article kept saying, "we may never know", but the telling point for me was that they were considered outcasts even within the (TCM) outcasts. If you aren't even considered part of the freak outcast group, then where are you socially? Sure, they might not be the same picked-on kids as the hellmouth stories, but that's irrelevant. Humans are social animals, and one of the things that screws people up the most is social isolation. I'd bet that if you picked a similar sized high school anywhere in the U.S., you could find at least one or two kids who had considered the Littleton plan, and that those kids would almost definitely be the outcasts. But that's just a guess.
So many moons ago, when I was doing tech support in college, something like that happened. A bunch of students living off campus had a house fire, and lost just about everything. So one of them finds a somewhat charred floppy with a term paper on it, and brings it to us to see if we can save any of it. A co-worker of mine cracks open the disk, swabs the media clean with alcohol and q-tips, puts the media into a different floppy shell, and recovers the entire disk... Now, the media itself wasn't melted or anything, so maybe a more direct application of fire might make a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but wouldn't it be nice? Don't you think we should try? I mean, netblocks don't just pop into existance on thier own. RIPE, ARIN, etc. could certainly agree to enforce a policy along those lines without too much trouble.
itachi
If there is a message behind it, wouldn't it make more sense to spam the message, deface webservers with the message, etc? DDoSes are about nobody getting any messages through... If there is a message behind this, this isn't the way to spread the word.
itachi
egress filtering. Sure, you can get hit from 30 or 40 netblocks, but you know that the netblocks are valid if egress filtering is in place at every AS border.
itachi
A simpler solution is based on the ownership of netblocks. If ownership of netblocks was tied to good behavior, ISPs would have an incentive to make sure that they were not hosting bad behavior, and egress filtering would become much more widespread. Where egress filtering is in place, spoofing does not happen (ie - packets must be addressed with a valid address or they are blocked outbound from the ISP), and so you know what admin to call. As long as you can track the packets back to an ISP, you can track back to the machine responsible. If the ISP doesn't like getting pages at 3am about kiddie behavior, they'll mention attacks in the AUP, and kiddies will lose their accounts. There's no need to do anything further than encourage egress filters and make sure that people are aware of AUPs.
itachi
Mmmm, revise that thought a bit. A best effort sort of thing would be reasonable - if J. Random Sysadmin ignores 2 years worth of patches and becomes the host to a DoS, J. Random Sysadmin is partially responsible. If J. Random Sysadmin follows up on patches and closes known vulnerabilities, etc, and practices a reasonable amount of care, then chances are the boxes s/he admins will be too protected for kiddies to deal with... There's a legal term for this idea, iirc, although I don't recall what it was.
itachi
Well, conveniently enough, the aircraft carriers based in Pearl Harbor were all at sea when the Japanese struck. The war in the Pacific ended up being very carrier-centric, and the monstrous battleships and cruisers have pretty much been phased out of the navy. Most of the ships that were at Pearl were older boats, too. But hey, it's the government. They never lie. They never cheat. They never deceive.
itachi
Subaru Imprezza WRX, Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 6, Nissan Skyline GT-R. You can get acceleration, speed, and have room for a backseat.
itachi
Right, but blocking all of 123.456.0.0/16 because you don't like the spam you get from abc@xyz.com is still wrong. You can procmail the spam away, or you can filter sendmail, or you can refuse SMTP from xyz.com, but null routing the netblock's BGP advert is wrong.
itachi
Speak for yourself, sparky. I don't get tired until I've been up for about 18 hours, but then I like a good 10 hours of sleep. Although 24 and 12 work okay, too.
itachi
Re: common carrier status, iirc, a company has to apply for common carrier status, and they give up certain rights when they do so, although it gives them a number of privledges as well. In this case, I feel that backbone providers should be asked to apply for common carrier, since they fit the definition.
But you can't change phone companies if you don't like the service. If I don't like the service that Verizon provides here (Philly), I can deal with it or lose the landline. There is no other company providing POTS. (btw, 212 is new york) There are still areas where the same is true of ISPs. Also, MAPS offers the BGP based spam blocking, where spammish netblocks are null routed in BGP. Without a valid BGP entry, you obviously can't talk to that netblock. Using netblocks is simply not granular enough. Even basing it on IP might not be granular enough, as one host might be serving several domains through aliasing.
Arguing that MAPS only publishes the list isn't a valid argument, because of the ways that the list is published and the methods suggested for blocking. Either way, the RBL is based on content - spam is content, too. If the list is overly broad, as it may be in this case, then stuff that isn't spam is getting blocked on content as well, however invalid the content judgement. If the RBL was only available as a procmail filter, this problem wouldn't exist. Offering it as a BGP filter is just plain wrong - everything on the netblock gets filtered based on partial content, like every other piece of badly specified censorware. A better design would be a procmail filter, because that will do the filtering and leave the option of still receiving the mail in case it truly isn't spam and it wouldn't interfere with other traffic from the offending netblock. Blocking the website because the website offers spamware is just as much (corporate/organizational) censorship as blocking a website because it offers porn or viewpoints offensive to the local admin/manager.
itachi
Well, in response:
1) Just because the courts have said they aren't common carriers doesn't make the courts right. I would agrue that backbone providers should be common carriers for situations such as this. If then end user wants to filter based on content, that's fine - you or I can very easily screen phone calls based on caller ID, but think about what life would be like if telcos decided that the 212 area code was offensive and wouldn't get to your phone for you to deice. I wouldn't mind, but you might.
2) RBL is based on the netblock, but the decision to carry or not carry the netblock is based on contect originating in the netblock, therefore it is making a decision based on the content at a fixed point in time. It's still a content based decision, it's just a question of when the content was examined.
itachi, enjoying work through office party induced beer goggles...
Censorship is something that can only be conducted by the government. Private organizations such as ISP's or MAPS can choose to carry or not carry whatever they like.
It's not quite that simple, though. Common carriers, although private organizations, don't have the choice to carry or not carry based on content. Now a local dialup provider is hardly a common carrier, but I would say that a tier one provider really should be a common carrier. After all, a local dialup in Peoria can't reach Bangladesh without crossing some backbone provider's network.
itachi
The notion is that you load up the washing machine, dishwasher, whatever, and then let it run at low usage hours (ie, 3am) in order to reduce draw on the grid during peak hours. Many European power comanpies offer plans based on this, where you get a discounted rate for this. It's a good idea, too - it is more efficient to spread the load equally across 24 hours and have lower capacity power plants that run closer to capacity around the clock than to have higher capacity plants that generate equal amounts all day with highly varied loads.
itachi
But there are so many calendar apps, why change the mail server just to get a calendar functionality you can find or implement without mucking with the working mailserver?
itachi
I don't think it's contradictory. The first quoted bit above was assuming some OSHA regulations. If the OSHA regs require the widget industry to improve working conditions or shut down, they're going to improve working conditions. What you'll find is that the marginal cost of widget production rises, and production will fall somewhat, meaning that there will be some job cuts in the widget industry. It will hurt consumers, too - prices will rise. So yes, OSHA regs have a downside. If they are written carefully, it wont be much of a downside. Ideally, every OSHA reg would be cheap and painless, but in certain industries, safety is expensive. Look at computer parts. The long term health problems that result from some of the chemicals used are really frightening, and the environmental systems that are used in those facilities are really pricey. Would you argue that a worker should have the right to choose to expose themselves to long term damage that will alter make them an expensive burden on the health care system? Especially if the long term health care costs far outweigh the costs of the OSHA protections? I think that, like seatbelt laws, it makes sense in a long term opportunity cost sort of way. The onther solution is to figure out a way whereby people can voluntarily write themselves out of society - "I'll work here with no safety precautions because I don't mind taking the risks, and then society will have no obligation to help me no matter how ill I get due to chemical exposure" sort of thing. But I sort of have a moral issue with that last bit. It's economic slavery.
Re: employee pressure making these changes, it might work in some cases, the regulations are, imho, for the cases where employee pressure wont work. My understanding is that OSHA doesn't take a look at a business unless they are aware of or suspect violations. Given that, OSHA is harmless and good. If I'm wrong, then OSHA could in fact be wasteful and bad in some cases.
Re the coal mines, I'll halfway give in on that. A lot has changed with regards to medicine and biology and mining technology, etc. But you can get people to work in those conditions - sweatshops still exist, and clothing fibers can cause serious lung damage as well as coal dust. Different lung damage, but serious lung damage. Take a look at how many sweatshop stories you see in the news. If 3/4 of them are lies, and the other 1/4 are exaggerated, that's still a lot of sweatshop work going on. It's harder to get people to work in those conditions, but it still happens, mostly in developing nations which don't have OSHA style regulations but instead rely on industry self-regulation. Even in the U.S. it happens - migrant workers in agriculture still deal with terrible health issues from pesticides for significantly less than $7/hour, and much harder work that what you might see at the local McDonald's. Not to mention the "company store" con, where they can end up owing their employer money at the end of the day...
itachi
But OSHA does improve conditions for workers. And yes, some of the costs will be passed along to the workers/consumers. However, the employer can only pass on so much to the worker - pay cuts only go so far before you hit minimum wage. And in most cases they can't make the employees pay directly out of pocket. (I know that in some cases they can, but in those situations the employee can then turn around and write it off at tax time) Most employers accept the fact that paying more per worker for health and safety means less in workers comp and lawsuits filed by injured workers. Unemployment might rise in areas high in worker-unfriendly industry, though, as those companies cut back on jobs due to increased cost per employee. But if the widget industry is worker-unfriendly, they'll find that they have to improve working conditions if they want to keep widget production at the same level. And most of this stuff is cheap and easy - look at the OSHA regs, it's pretty tame. The fact remains that if the company is required to provide minimum health and safety standards, the quality of life increases for those workers (look at coal mines circa 1800 next to coal mines now, in any terms). You are right, if the employer thinks that there is an economic advantage to screwing the worker, they will try it. But look at what the penalties can be. With most health and safety regulations, the penalties are high enough that the risk and penalty of getting caught in the act make compliance more attractive than screwing the workers. Fire codes, for example. Most businesses have the fire exits marked, unblocked, etc, and it's not because they all are concerned about fire safety. Health and safety regs really do make a difference - after an OSHA inspection, my own employer was really quick about cleaning up some of the serious health hazards they were exposing employees to (unlit exterior stairs, unmarked asbestos, exposed wiring in steam tunnels and wiring closets, etc). OSHA really does help.
itachi
Ultimately, there's one reason and only one reason employers treat their employees well-- because they know they'll leave if they don't.
Well, have you ever worked a crappy job? Have you ever been an unskilled worker in a high-unemployment area? There are a great many people who can't just get up and move to a new job. Take migrant workers, for example. If you don't take the job, someone else will. For the same pay and conditions that you are turning your nose up at. And so you take the job and damage your back, your wrists, your arms, expose yourself to the pesticides, etc.
These OSHA regulations are essential, because there are evil bastards out there, and they will hire people to do jobs that are dangerous. Look at how many stories you can find about managers locking the fire doors to prevent employees from taking smoke breaks. Or exposing workers to seriously hazardous chemicals without warning them of the precautions to take during usage and handling. These OSHA regulations are not just for you, but for the package handler at FedEx, the person bagging groceries down at the corner store, the mailman, and so forth. These people are covered by the OSHA regs just as much as any computer worker, but they don't have the same job flexibility and mobility.
Finally, if Bush takes office, it will be a sign that it is time to leave the country. Compassionate fascism isn't my idea of a good time.
itachi
Way off base. Hypothetically, if my boss refuses to fix the office ergonomics to prevent/help treat/whatever my work-induced RSI, then I can either quit or use the OSHA regs to fix the situation. If OSHA didn't have this set of regs, then my only option would be quit and find a new job. It's harder to find a new job if you go into the interview telling them a list of conditions they'll have to meet before you'll take the job. By the logic you're using, we should allow child labor (hey, it's the kids choice to work in a coal mine, if they lose a few limbs, it was their own fault. Besides, they knew that it was dangerous work...). The regs are not for the company, they're for the worker, they simply place the burden on the company.
itachi
funny, it looked fine when I previewed....
itachi
Actually, there was a really interesting article in the Washington Post about election disputes under Fla. law. Any voter or candidate may challenge the election if the is a "reasonable doubt" that the election results "[express] the will of the voters". If the judge rules that the ballot did not meet the specifications set out under Florida law, then obviously some rememdy needs to be implemented. This is not about changing the rules, it's about making sure that the rules were indeed followed.
itachi
The why isn't relevant, though, is it? The important part is the result. I mean, if you aren't sure which box to check to vote for your candidate, and the poll workers may not tell you, you're just as confused as if they may tell you but will not tell you.
Also, re the military vote, the only large military unit from Florida that potentially might be overseas is in fact at home (the USS JFK, an aircraft carrier based in Mayport, according to the Washington Post). The overseas voters from Florida who migh make a difference apparently include a number of US/Israeli dual citizens (~1000, heavily Democrat, and their votes wont be tallied until as late as the 17th) So there's a lot still up in the air.
Also, I highly recommend taking a look at the questionable ballot (Findlaw's picture)
itachi
Well, if the results were in for florida, it would be hinging on the next state that announced or it would be decided, since if Florida went Bush, he'd be declared winner, and if Gore had Florida plus any other state remaining in contention (as of 1:30 eastern), he wins. If you look at the exit polls for florida (MSNBC or CNN), assuming that they are a statistically correct sample, Gore will take Florida by the tiniest margin. And at this point, whoever takes Florida wins the election. So there's still a chance that we (the voters) wont fuck ourselves up the ass with a moron this year.
itachi, bitter and wondering why Bush has gotten any votes at all.
He (Nader) does matter. Take a look at Oregon's exit polls. And with Florida, Nader almost makes up the difference between Gore and Bush. It looks like Nader might actually be the difference between waking up to President Gore tomorrow and hoping to die in my sleep... I'd rather elect a hamster than that moron. We need to amend the constitution to add a "you must be at least this smart to run for president" clause. Dubya can't even speak his native language, how can he run a nation? At least his father was smart. Involved in Iran-Contra, devious and weasel-y, but smart.
itachi, feeling bitter
Did you read the salon article? Sure, like the article kept saying, "we may never know", but the telling point for me was that they were considered outcasts even within the (TCM) outcasts. If you aren't even considered part of the freak outcast group, then where are you socially? Sure, they might not be the same picked-on kids as the hellmouth stories, but that's irrelevant. Humans are social animals, and one of the things that screws people up the most is social isolation. I'd bet that if you picked a similar sized high school anywhere in the U.S., you could find at least one or two kids who had considered the Littleton plan, and that those kids would almost definitely be the outcasts. But that's just a guess.
itachi
So many moons ago, when I was doing tech support in college, something like that happened. A bunch of students living off campus had a house fire, and lost just about everything. So one of them finds a somewhat charred floppy with a term paper on it, and brings it to us to see if we can save any of it. A co-worker of mine cracks open the disk, swabs the media clean with alcohol and q-tips, puts the media into a different floppy shell, and recovers the entire disk... Now, the media itself wasn't melted or anything, so maybe a more direct application of fire might make a difference.
itachi