'Why would anyone go out and spend their hard-earned money to see a movie when they could download it from the net for free?'
If anything the last two re-releases 'Legend of Drunken Master', and 'Crouching Tiger...' have shown that people will go to theatres and pay for what's been available more cheaply on VHS. Same with Akira. There's value added by seeing something on the big screen or getting inserts / liner notes with DVD's you could otherwise download.
It's pretty clear that open availability of a movie will not drive the movie industry out of business, shooting a big hole in their argument on why everything must be encrypted and propriety.
I worked at a startup here in San Jose that was basically the development team of another company who were tasked with designing a product they ultimately turned into the business plan for their new company. If this is the case (as it probably is, considering their dot.net'ish webpage) then microsoft is in the right to get after this startup who probably stole wholesale a microsoft project.
Read what you sign, and know it's reprocussions. If you don't like it don't sign it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head, if you don't like the arrangement then walk away. But if you do sign it then live up to your end of the deal.
Cars already run from organic molecules, Oil is just plant matter that's been rotting for hundreds of thousands of years.
Our machines are not the only things producing greenhouse gasses. Animals breath in O2, and breathe it out as CO2, a greenhouse gas. It would be an interesting excercise to measure the greenhouse gasses produced by a 300 horsepower car and compare those to the gasses produced by 300 running horses. It would be interesting to see which generates more greenhouse gasses.
I'm not sure an animal-type metabolic system for energy would be any more efficient than the existing internal-comustion engine. Take our previous example, and compare how much fuel (five gallons, or around 30 pounds) it takes for our 300 horsepower car to go ~100 miles. Compare that to how much food/water you'd need for your team of 300 horses.
The situation is analogous to a censorware company blackmailing a service provider into removing Holocaust-denial material, by blocking thousands of innocent websites. Now, I don't like Holocaust denial, but standing up for free speech means standing up for speech I don't believe in.
MAPS only publishes a list of people who it views as spammers or those providing assistance to spammers. Akin to someone, for instance, publishing a list of people who run 'Holocaust denial' websites with their personal view that they disagree with the authors of these sites. People can do with that list what they wish.
Media3, on the other hand, is seeking to use the courts, and ultimately the (physical deadly) force of government, to end publication of the MAPS list.
Yes there is censorship going on here, but opposite way than which you claim. You should be standing up for the free speech of MAPS to publish whatever they want, in this case a list of who they belive are spammers; instead of advocating the government censorship of these lists via the proxy of court action.
Another analogy I'd like to put forward, in defense of ISP's using the RBL, is to say that this is a 'consumer boycot' situation. If the ever popular *snicker* starbucks coffee chose to no longer buy coffee beans from indonesia because of it's human rights violations then is it justified for you to take them to court to compel them to buy coffee beans from indonesia because you happen to like indonesian coffee? After all, if you have to now go a mile out of your way to visit a different coffee shop that carries indonesian coffee then you are 'suffering at the hands of the tirranical starbucks corporation'.
If ISP's don't want to accept packets (coffee beans) from bulk-mailers (indonesia) thats their right as property owners, and it's your right as a customer to take your business elsewhere.
Just a correction, according to spamhaus media3 is hosting not 1 but 21 spam sites, the largest on the list, and considering media3 is a grand total of a few class C networks, thats a pretty high percentage of their customers being spammers. My understanding is that it's a similar situation to the AGIS thing awhile ago. media3 won't cancel sites who spam using other accounts to advertise a site on media3. Because media3 won't wipe out these sites it's become quite a spammer's haven.
You are very good at reciting mindless socialist propaganda. Marx would be proud.
Technically you are 'licenced by the state', through the form of a birth certificate. So you have 'similar responsibilities'?
The only path to totalitarian or any other form of government is through government itself or the application of (deadly) force to overthrow said government.
Doesn't anyone realize, the more 'laws' you urge the government to make to protect childeren, workers, minorities, turtles, ad nauseum the more power you give to the politicians who you also accuse of abusing their powers to 'hold down the people' for the deep pockets of 'big [evil icon of the day]'?
If people come into your house constantly and make obscene phone calls to me in the middle of the night do I have the right to have your phone number blocked? I think so.
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. The difference is of course that everyone 'owns' and funds the government which therefore has no right to moral or policical content it makes available. However private individuals have full discression over their own property and how they choose to utilize it.
If a government library refuses to cary 'Hucklberry fin' because of it's content then that's censorship. However private organizations should not be forced to carry or not carry a given item. You cannot compel me to carry a slashdot bumper sticker on the back of my car claiming that if I refuse I am 'censoring' your right to free speech.
By the same token you should not be able to force a private entity such as an ISP to carry traffic they choose not to carry, i.e. traffic identified by the MAPS RBL. If you don't like MAPS then don't use their service or use the services of ISP's who do.
This also carries over to 'censorware'. Government institutions should not censor internet content through manditory filtering. However it's morally acceptable to me for a parent to by some software (that arguably does a poor job) to filter the content on their privately owned computers.
Lets say I'm the owner of one of these two auto shops; and lets assume two mechanics are needed for each of these shops to operate. Lets also assume that because only four mechanics are needed in this small town there are only four people qualified as mechanics that live here; the one's trained by the owners of the auto shops to be mechanics.
Well if one of my mechanics suddenly decides to go join a commune, as a owner I've suddenly lost 50% of my workforce and am gonna be really screwed trying to either entice someone from another town to move here, or alternatively be short qualified help for a year while I pay to have some local kid trained to be a mechanic.
The employer has the ability to be just as easily screwed as the employee.
Abuse of owners is just as common throughout history as the abuse of laborers. Owners often lose their lives work and savings when countries outlaw or nationalize industries. Owners are also 'abused' (by your loose definition) when consumers no longer want or need their product. If you are for a 'minimum working standards' which employers must meet for employees, are you also for a 'minimum sales' in which consumers must purchase a given amount of product? They both derive from the same concept of entitlement!
So the government legislates that we work 40 hour weeks. Thats all great and dandy if thats what I want to work; but suppose I want to work (and be paid for) 60 hour weeks for 9 months then take three months off every year? Oops, thanks to the laws I can't do that. California has a law which roughly mandates a work week of 5 days, 8 hours each. But sysadmining sometimes requires 12 hour days when things are crashing, and 4 hour days when there's nothing going on. Thanks to california lawmakers I'm technically in violation of the law.
I am one of those proponents of a so-called 'living wage' for the poorest folks.
What happens when an employer can only afford to pay, say 45K/yr for a given task?? Instead of the three people hired to perform that task, one person is hired and the other two starve.
Minimum/Living wages do one of two things, either they increase the cost of goods (increasing inflation, and therefore pricing things outside the wageearner's income) or increase unemployment (therefore increasing poverty and the percentage of unskilled labor in a population).
There are various, benefitial, reasons why a market-decided wage is appropriate. If I am fresh outa high school, unskilled, living with parents or roomates, I would gladly take a salary exponentially less than what would support a family of four so that I could learn skills and make a living for just myself while working my way up the organization. However if I cannot work for less than the rather high amount that would support a family of four I will find myself chronically unemployed and never able to get the skills required to advance in ability!
I do agree with one statement you made:
Of course, since the lawsuit in 97, they now terminate you after that year, and you can't go back to work for them for over three months. Guess what. You still lose. Sucks being on the bottom of the pile, doesn't it?
Yes, government intervention in the market place (this suit) has actually made life harder for both employers and employees. Government invervention often amplifies, rather than smoothes, the percived inequalities of a free-market economy.
How could you say that if I were in that position, I'm not being abused?
Well, lets suppose I'm an employer.. There is such a glut of unskilled homeless crackheads available to the market that I can't get but a few dollars a day for the services of my ditch-digging company. I can't price my services any higher (and provide better wages to my crackhead employees) because every other ditch digging company in town can get cheap crackhead employees, and there just aren't that many more people who need ditches dug. So if the employment arrangement is benefitial to me (someone to dig ditches at the market price) and benefitial to my crackheaded employee (food and shelter) and both parties enter the agreement then nobody is being abused. And obviously the homeless crackhead is deriving benefit from the arrangement because he's not starving anymore.
I suppose you missed the day in school when they taught basic economics; supply and demand. You get paid what you are worth. If you aren't getting paid what you are worth you go find someone who will pay you that. If you can't find anyone who'll do that then you are already being paid at your fair market value.
The only entity in society that can coerce, abuse, or otherwise impress their will on others is the government, as it is the only entity that can legally use force. Unfortunately people think that government is the solution to any situation they see as 'unfair', when they have their own ability to correct the problem by not dealing with the perpetrator of the 'unfair'ness. Handing more power to government just makes it more rife for manipulation by presure groups, at the detrement of the rest of the population.
I'm pretty sure Bill Gates spends ~50% of his money on taxes, which government mostly dole's out to special interest groups, which could be considered 'charity'; then again it could be considered extortion. If you are making 20K/Yr your taxes are substantially less (less than 20%?) Therefore, yes, Bill Gates does give more to 'charity' than you. Notably he also provides a living for ~40,000 people (employees), which surely provides vastly more than you are providing to anyone.
to anyone's head? The temps' knew when they were going in what their pay and benefits were, and they could have rejected the offer if they found it unacceptable. Instead they took the jobs then turned around and sued Microsoft.
I interviewed at hotmail shortly after they were aquired by MS. They wanted me to sign the 'standard microsoft paperwork' which had terms I could not agree to so I chose not to sign and went somewhere else. These people had the same option but instead entered legal contracts with Microsoft for their employment then turned around, breached their contracts, and sued Microsoft for damages. This is rediculous. Although this affects microsoft directly, all employers are now going to be wary about taking on non-employees, making contractor's lives more difficult.
I've been a longtime applix user. I've tried star office but IMHO I want an office suite that does office things, not re-implement windows95 in all it's bloated glory. S.O. was slow, had intensive system requirements, and was very prone to bugs and crashes. Applix more-or-less did what I expected it to. Although the open-source alternatives have been getting better they still lag behind most of the features available in applix. One place that applix was weak is the lag in MS-office import filters.. they always seemed to be a generation behind. Ah well, I should just spring for VMware personal and run windows in a window.
Speaking as a network administrator, whois records perform a vital function. It allows admins from one site to be able to find and contact admins at another site when network problems occur. Problems such as routing issues security compromises and open mail relays. There is no better way to find out how to contact the maintainers of a network for operational problems than WHOIS.
OTOH, I dispise the commercial abuse of the whois database to spam those listed.
WHOIS should stay, with strict penalties for those proven to data-mine and spam listees; Without involving the legal system it could simply be ruled that anyone guilty of wholesale mining of WHOIS would be effectively removed from the internet by putting all of their registered domains on hold.
Think about it this way. At least they had paper ballots to go back to and recount after the bug was found in the software. Humans can sanity-check ballots against the electronic counters by doing hand-counting to be sure the counting software is performing as it should. Even if Y2K came 11 months late we'd be able to hold an election and have the ballots counted.
If there had been purely electronic voting in New Mexico the story probably wouldn't be on the front page because the software would most likely have silently dropped the votes which were straight party votes and no-one would have noticed.
Punch cards a a perfect compromise because they are easily machine tallied while being a permanent physical record that can be reffered to if mechanical error has made the automated count suspect.
Go to fuckedcompany and count the number of tech's that have been put out of work; then tell me why that sector of the economy is not relevant to slashdot.
The Cuban-american population in Broward and Dade countines (in florida) gave the Democrats the big F-U for the Elian raid. Perhaps we should talk about gun control for federal agencies.
It's said that 60% of Nader's votes are coming from people who would otherwise vote for Gore.
But, OTOH, most of the people who'd vote for Buchanan or Browne would have otherwise voted for Bush. And those two canidates votes add up most places to the number of votes Nader got.
And like Nader says, who's to say a vote for Gore isn't a vote against Nader (or a vote for Bush being a vote against Browne for that matter)!
In many of the counties that they assumed Al Gore would win and list him as the winner are now reporting in ~20% of their results and for quite a few of them GW is up ~60% to ~30%. I think when everything is tallied up California is going to be an upset going to GW. Or perhaps they know california is going to GW and declare it Gore to sell more advertisements. *shrug*
I just watched CNN go through the Wisconson results, stepping through the third parties.
Why is it they are consistantly reporting the 'natural law' party results (Hagelin) and not Libertarian (Browne) when the LP has eight times the votes of Natural Law?
By all their counts, Browne is doing nearly as well as Buchanan. At the state and local level I would suspect LP is beating all the other parties.. Yet no mention on the networks.. Why is the LP shunned by the media? Lame.
Slashdot Mirror
'Why would anyone go out and spend their hard-earned money to see a movie when they could download it from the net for free?'
If anything the last two re-releases 'Legend of Drunken Master', and 'Crouching Tiger...' have shown that people will go to theatres and pay for what's been available more cheaply on VHS. Same with Akira. There's value added by seeing something on the big screen or getting inserts / liner notes with DVD's you could otherwise download.
It's pretty clear that open availability of a movie will not drive the movie industry out of business, shooting a big hole in their argument on why everything must be encrypted and propriety.
-- Greg
I worked at a startup here in San Jose that was basically the development team of another company who were tasked with designing a product they ultimately turned into the business plan for their new company. If this is the case (as it probably is, considering their dot.net'ish webpage) then microsoft is in the right to get after this startup who probably stole wholesale a microsoft project.
Read what you sign, and know it's reprocussions. If you don't like it don't sign it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head, if you don't like the arrangement then walk away. But if you do sign it then live up to your end of the deal.
-- Greg
Haven't seen the ebonics-over-IP RFC yet, is that part of the IP-V6 spec?
-- Greg
Cars already run from organic molecules, Oil is just plant matter that's been rotting for hundreds of thousands of years.
Our machines are not the only things producing greenhouse gasses. Animals breath in O2, and breathe it out as CO2, a greenhouse gas. It would be an interesting excercise to measure the greenhouse gasses produced by a 300 horsepower car and compare those to the gasses produced by 300 running horses. It would be interesting to see which generates more greenhouse gasses.
I'm not sure an animal-type metabolic system for energy would be any more efficient than the existing internal-comustion engine. Take our previous example, and compare how much fuel (five gallons, or around 30 pounds) it takes for our 300 horsepower car to go ~100 miles. Compare that to how much food/water you'd need for your team of 300 horses.
-- Greg
The situation is analogous to a censorware company blackmailing a service provider into removing Holocaust-denial material, by blocking thousands of innocent websites. Now, I don't like Holocaust denial, but standing up for free speech means standing up for speech I don't believe in.
MAPS only publishes a list of people who it views as spammers or those providing assistance to spammers. Akin to someone, for instance, publishing a list of people who run 'Holocaust denial' websites with their personal view that they disagree with the authors of these sites. People can do with that list what they wish.
Media3, on the other hand, is seeking to use the courts, and ultimately the (physical deadly) force of government, to end publication of the MAPS list.
Yes there is censorship going on here, but opposite way than which you claim. You should be standing up for the free speech of MAPS to publish whatever they want, in this case a list of who they belive are spammers; instead of advocating the government censorship of these lists via the proxy of court action.
Another analogy I'd like to put forward, in defense of ISP's using the RBL, is to say that this is a 'consumer boycot' situation. If the ever popular *snicker* starbucks coffee chose to no longer buy coffee beans from indonesia because of it's human rights violations then is it justified for you to take them to court to compel them to buy coffee beans from indonesia because you happen to like indonesian coffee? After all, if you have to now go a mile out of your way to visit a different coffee shop that carries indonesian coffee then you are 'suffering at the hands of the tirranical starbucks corporation'.
If ISP's don't want to accept packets (coffee beans) from bulk-mailers (indonesia) thats their right as property owners, and it's your right as a customer to take your business elsewhere.
-- Greg
Would you be reffering to a public bridge built by the government? You prove my point.
-- Greg
Just a correction, according to spamhaus media3 is hosting not 1 but 21 spam sites, the largest on the list, and considering media3 is a grand total of a few class C networks, thats a pretty high percentage of their customers being spammers. My understanding is that it's a similar situation to the AGIS thing awhile ago. media3 won't cancel sites who spam using other accounts to advertise a site on media3. Because media3 won't wipe out these sites it's become quite a spammer's haven.
-- Greg
You are very good at reciting mindless socialist propaganda. Marx would be proud.
Technically you are 'licenced by the state', through the form of a birth certificate. So you have 'similar responsibilities'?
The only path to totalitarian or any other form of government is through government itself or the application of (deadly) force to overthrow said government.
Doesn't anyone realize, the more 'laws' you urge the government to make to protect childeren, workers, minorities, turtles, ad nauseum the more power you give to the politicians who you also accuse of abusing their powers to 'hold down the people' for the deep pockets of 'big [evil icon of the day]'?
-- Greg
but you can't come in and change the locks on me
If people come into your house constantly and make obscene phone calls to me in the middle of the night do I have the right to have your phone number blocked? I think so.
-- Greg
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. The difference is of course that everyone 'owns' and funds the government which therefore has no right to moral or policical content it makes available. However private individuals have full discression over their own property and how they choose to utilize it.
If a government library refuses to cary 'Hucklberry fin' because of it's content then that's censorship. However private organizations should not be forced to carry or not carry a given item. You cannot compel me to carry a slashdot bumper sticker on the back of my car claiming that if I refuse I am 'censoring' your right to free speech.
By the same token you should not be able to force a private entity such as an ISP to carry traffic they choose not to carry, i.e. traffic identified by the MAPS RBL. If you don't like MAPS then don't use their service or use the services of ISP's who do.
This also carries over to 'censorware'. Government institutions should not censor internet content through manditory filtering. However it's morally acceptable to me for a parent to by some software (that arguably does a poor job) to filter the content on their privately owned computers.
-- Greg
Lets say I'm the owner of one of these two auto shops; and lets assume two mechanics are needed for each of these shops to operate. Lets also assume that because only four mechanics are needed in this small town there are only four people qualified as mechanics that live here; the one's trained by the owners of the auto shops to be mechanics.
Well if one of my mechanics suddenly decides to go join a commune, as a owner I've suddenly lost 50% of my workforce and am gonna be really screwed trying to either entice someone from another town to move here, or alternatively be short qualified help for a year while I pay to have some local kid trained to be a mechanic.
The employer has the ability to be just as easily screwed as the employee.
Abuse of owners is just as common throughout history as the abuse of laborers. Owners often lose their lives work and savings when countries outlaw or nationalize industries. Owners are also 'abused' (by your loose definition) when consumers no longer want or need their product. If you are for a 'minimum working standards' which employers must meet for employees, are you also for a 'minimum sales' in which consumers must purchase a given amount of product? They both derive from the same concept of entitlement!
So the government legislates that we work 40 hour weeks. Thats all great and dandy if thats what I want to work; but suppose I want to work (and be paid for) 60 hour weeks for 9 months then take three months off every year? Oops, thanks to the laws I can't do that. California has a law which roughly mandates a work week of 5 days, 8 hours each. But sysadmining sometimes requires 12 hour days when things are crashing, and 4 hour days when there's nothing going on. Thanks to california lawmakers I'm technically in violation of the law.
-- Greg
I am one of those proponents of a so-called 'living wage' for the poorest folks.
What happens when an employer can only afford to pay, say 45K/yr for a given task?? Instead of the three people hired to perform that task, one person is hired and the other two starve.
Minimum/Living wages do one of two things, either they increase the cost of goods (increasing inflation, and therefore pricing things outside the wageearner's income) or increase unemployment (therefore increasing poverty and the percentage of unskilled labor in a population).
There are various, benefitial, reasons why a market-decided wage is appropriate. If I am fresh outa high school, unskilled, living with parents or roomates, I would gladly take a salary exponentially less than what would support a family of four so that I could learn skills and make a living for just myself while working my way up the organization. However if I cannot work for less than the rather high amount that would support a family of four I will find myself chronically unemployed and never able to get the skills required to advance in ability!
I do agree with one statement you made:
Of course, since the lawsuit in 97, they now terminate you after that year, and you can't go back to work for them for over three months. Guess what. You still lose. Sucks being on the bottom of the pile, doesn't it?
Yes, government intervention in the market place (this suit) has actually made life harder for both employers and employees. Government invervention often amplifies, rather than smoothes, the percived inequalities of a free-market economy.
-- Greg
How could you say that if I were in that position, I'm not being abused?
Well, lets suppose I'm an employer.. There is such a glut of unskilled homeless crackheads available to the market that I can't get but a few dollars a day for the services of my ditch-digging company. I can't price my services any higher (and provide better wages to my crackhead employees) because every other ditch digging company in town can get cheap crackhead employees, and there just aren't that many more people who need ditches dug. So if the employment arrangement is benefitial to me (someone to dig ditches at the market price) and benefitial to my crackheaded employee (food and shelter) and both parties enter the agreement then nobody is being abused. And obviously the homeless crackhead is deriving benefit from the arrangement because he's not starving anymore.
I suppose you missed the day in school when they taught basic economics; supply and demand. You get paid what you are worth. If you aren't getting paid what you are worth you go find someone who will pay you that. If you can't find anyone who'll do that then you are already being paid at your fair market value.
The only entity in society that can coerce, abuse, or otherwise impress their will on others is the government, as it is the only entity that can legally use force. Unfortunately people think that government is the solution to any situation they see as 'unfair', when they have their own ability to correct the problem by not dealing with the perpetrator of the 'unfair'ness. Handing more power to government just makes it more rife for manipulation by presure groups, at the detrement of the rest of the population.
I'm pretty sure Bill Gates spends ~50% of his money on taxes, which government mostly dole's out to special interest groups, which could be considered 'charity'; then again it could be considered extortion. If you are making 20K/Yr your taxes are substantially less (less than 20%?) Therefore, yes, Bill Gates does give more to 'charity' than you. Notably he also provides a living for ~40,000 people (employees), which surely provides vastly more than you are providing to anyone.
Go read Ayn Rand, you'll thank me later.
-- Greg
to anyone's head? The temps' knew when they were going in what their pay and benefits were, and they could have rejected the offer if they found it unacceptable. Instead they took the jobs then turned around and sued Microsoft.
I interviewed at hotmail shortly after they were aquired by MS. They wanted me to sign the 'standard microsoft paperwork' which had terms I could not agree to so I chose not to sign and went somewhere else. These people had the same option but instead entered legal contracts with Microsoft for their employment then turned around, breached their contracts, and sued Microsoft for damages. This is rediculous. Although this affects microsoft directly, all employers are now going to be wary about taking on non-employees, making contractor's lives more difficult.
-- Greg
I've been a longtime applix user. I've tried star office but IMHO I want an office suite that does office things, not re-implement windows95 in all it's bloated glory. S.O. was slow, had intensive system requirements, and was very prone to bugs and crashes. Applix more-or-less did what I expected it to. Although the open-source alternatives have been getting better they still lag behind most of the features available in applix. One place that applix was weak is the lag in MS-office import filters.. they always seemed to be a generation behind. Ah well, I should just spring for VMware personal and run windows in a window.
-- Greg
Speaking as a network administrator, whois records perform a vital function. It allows admins from one site to be able to find and contact admins at another site when network problems occur. Problems such as routing issues security compromises and open mail relays. There is no better way to find out how to contact the maintainers of a network for operational problems than WHOIS.
OTOH, I dispise the commercial abuse of the whois database to spam those listed.
WHOIS should stay, with strict penalties for those proven to data-mine and spam listees; Without involving the legal system it could simply be ruled that anyone guilty of wholesale mining of WHOIS would be effectively removed from the internet by putting all of their registered domains on hold.
-- Greg
Think about it this way. At least they had paper ballots to go back to and recount after the bug was found in the software. Humans can sanity-check ballots against the electronic counters by doing hand-counting to be sure the counting software is performing as it should. Even if Y2K came 11 months late we'd be able to hold an election and have the ballots counted.
If there had been purely electronic voting in New Mexico the story probably wouldn't be on the front page because the software would most likely have silently dropped the votes which were straight party votes and no-one would have noticed.
Punch cards a a perfect compromise because they are easily machine tallied while being a permanent physical record that can be reffered to if mechanical error has made the automated count suspect.
-- Greg
Go to fuckedcompany and count the number of tech's that have been put out of work; then tell me why that sector of the economy is not relevant to slashdot.
-- Greg
Janet Reno cost Gore the election
The Cuban-american population in Broward and Dade countines (in florida) gave the Democrats the big F-U for the Elian raid. Perhaps we should talk about gun control for federal agencies.
-- Greg
For all those hollywood lusers like Rosie O'donell Barbara Streisand and the Baldwins for plane trips to canada?
"Thanks for coming, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."
-- Greg
It's said that 60% of Nader's votes are coming from people who would otherwise vote for Gore.
But, OTOH, most of the people who'd vote for Buchanan or Browne would have otherwise voted for Bush. And those two canidates votes add up most places to the number of votes Nader got.
And like Nader says, who's to say a vote for Gore isn't a vote against Nader (or a vote for Bush being a vote against Browne for that matter)!
-- Greg
Yes it's broken up, but even in the counties they are handing to Gore the votes are showing Bush up by around ~60% to ~30%..
See my other post
-- Greg
Check out California By County
In many of the counties that they assumed Al Gore would win and list him as the winner are now reporting in ~20% of their results and for quite a few of them GW is up ~60% to ~30%. I think when everything is tallied up California is going to be an upset going to GW. Or perhaps they know california is going to GW and declare it Gore to sell more advertisements. *shrug*
-- Greg
I just watched CNN go through the Wisconson results, stepping through the third parties.
Why is it they are consistantly reporting the 'natural law' party results (Hagelin) and not Libertarian (Browne) when the LP has eight times the votes of Natural Law?
By all their counts, Browne is doing nearly as well as Buchanan. At the state and local level I would suspect LP is beating all the other parties.. Yet no mention on the networks.. Why is the LP shunned by the media? Lame.
-- Greg
They chocked up Michigan for Gore hours ago, but right now it's 49% to 49% with a slight Bush lead. only 45% precicents reporting.
-- Greg