Actually, no. I sort of figured this would be moderated "-1, Like, Duh!" Imagine my surprise.
My pat argument about socialism has always been: If you get three normal people together, it is a Herculean task to get them to agree on pizza toppings. Do you think it possible that they can come to consensus on economics? This is why government only works when it has very little to do.
Jesus... Slashdot is the new home for the perpetually whiny.
8 years ago, it was "why doesn't Apple have a sub-notebook?" Now everybody wants a huge, testicle-frying Super-notebook.
6 years ago, it was "why doesn't Apple have a server?" Well, golly, Apple's server offerings kick everybody else's ass, but of course, since you actually have to pay money for them, some people bitch about them.
2 years ago, it was "if only Apple sold a cheap headless Mac, I'd buy one!" Okay, your time is now, hero.
Some people are never satisfied. You got what you wanted--now you want more? If they included a mouse, you'd bitch about how it was the 1-button Apple mouse, or you'd bitch that the keyboard wasn't wireless.
Ah, yes, this is a old chestnut: "Communism is a good system run by bad people."
The problem with communism/socialism is not the people who are running it, it's people. We just don't work that way in groups larger than a high school study group, and that's why it fails every time.
Smart, sure. I can buy that. But having watched Gleaming the Cube? It was a "big" movie when I was of the proper age, and I never saw it then. I talked to a fifth-grader (now sixth-) who hasn't seen the original Star Wars movies. How likely is it that he has seen GtC?
While it certainly is possible, I just don't quite buy the pat nature of the article. It seems too good to be true.
Apache 2 and a recent Linux kernel come pretty close to the theoretical limits of the hardware when it comes to serving static content. It just loafs along while saturating whatever net connection you give it.
As I recall, an old benchmark showed that a 486 running Linux and Apache could saturate a T1 serving static content. I'm not sure what benefit a "static content" metric has to any discussion concerning modern Web technologies. If static content is your problem, there are gobs of Web server solutions, such as that old kernel HTTP server, whatever it was called. Threading, pre-fork, blah blah blah--it's all gobbledy-gook when you're talking serving plain-jane HTML files.
I think Apache solved the problem too well with the 1.3 branch. It's a robust, fairly clean solution to serving Web content, either static pages or some degree of dynamically-created Web application. If you need to do either, or somewhere in between, Apache 1.3 is a decent solution. The way I see it, if Apache wanted to differentiate their 2.0 branch, they could have gone either one or both of these routes: 1) build it with the intention of catering to the Web application market; or 2) build it with the intention of catering to the Web hosting business.
With 1), the core problem of dynamic Web sites is the glue between a database and the HTTP server. Quite a lot of Web sites would be equally well-served by a lightweight HTTP server on top of a relational database. Something like Oracle's IAS, but... not. If Apache 2 could offer something like that, then they would have something to offer Web application developers. (And, incidentally, create a new market the way Tomcat/Java servlets did and thus a stable base of users.)
With 2), there's a lot of work done by companies such as PSoft and Ensim to provide a facility for hosting several Web sites from a single IP address, and allowing those Web sites to have some control over their site. If Apache 2 could offer some method for improving this situation--"how" I leave as an exercise for the reader--then they would have something to offer hosting companies. (And, incidentally, create a whole raft of adopters as most people who buy Web space at a hosting company for $29.95/mo, or whatever, don't give a fig for what HTTP server is running behind their site.)
As-is, Apache 1.3 can do both 1) and 2) good enough, and as we all know, good enough is good enough. Everybody will eventually move to 2.0, if only because RedHat stops supporting 1.3 in their up2date utility. I don't think there will be a mass exodus to Apache 2.0 for any technical reason, like the movement we see today towards FireFox from IE, because Apache 1.3 isn't a complete piece of shit. It's pretty good, as a matter of fact, and that Apache 2.0 isn't exactly bursting with new, revolutionary ideas that can change the world, the change will come slowly and quietly, until one day you'll sit up in bed and wonder, "Whatever happened to Apache 1.3?"
After all the money and effort poured into the shitholes of the world, they're still shitholes. However, a platoon or two of U.S. Marines have brought more freedom to the world than an aircraft carrier-full of Kofi Annans.
$500 million dollars to Egypt--they still hate us. $500 million dollars worth of grunts and bombs in Egypt? They'll hate us, but they'll be very coy about it.
It tries to address a threat that is not there now and NEVER will be. Even the most hare-brained dictator knows that lobbing ICBMs at the U.S. mainland isn't going to work and will just result in the "liberation" of their country.
You miss the nuance. A missile defense system effectively eliminates a rogue nation's nuclear bragging-rights. A nuclear North Korea is meaningless if any missle launched gets plinked before it can leave the peninsula.
And, you miss the whole concept of proactive defense. You do your best to build things before you need them, not after. A missle defense shield isn't needed today--but what about tomorrow?
Distraction? Technology is not, a priori, a distraction. The highest tech in the world, at the time, was made popular by religion, and the desire to see the word of God spread as far and as wide as possible.
False idols, I can maybe see that. If you'd trade one minute of your time with your family for another round of Counterstrike, I'd say that you've got a problem with a false idol. So, in that case, I'd say religion has a point, wouldn't you?
You probably got these ideas from a whacko, ultra-secularist worldview, or some bullshit like that. You should maybe get out and experience some religion yourself, rather than parrot lines from the equally ignorant.
Your specifications are mutually exclusive. No Palms (that I'm aware of) run from AA cells. All of the older Palms use AAA cells. In order to make use of either AA or AAA cells, with the current demands for color screens, big screens, faster processors and other geegaws, the Palm would end up looking like a brick. And nobody would buy it. The rechargable batteries in new Palms, with their high power density, mean the difference between a palmtop and a pain in the ass.
I'm still a huge fan of my IIIxe. To my mind, it's the pinnacle of Palm engineering and suits me down to the ground. I use rechargable AAA cells, but having the option to pick up a pack of alkalines at any drugstore in the country for chump change is a nice option. The Palm modem for the III series is adequate for simple Web browsing, and for sending FAXes--and it too accepts AAA cells. The speed is nothing to write home about, but it's fast enough for what the Palm was designed for, and in a pinch I can use it as a replacement computer. (I even have a SSH client for it, which largely turns the Palm into a full computer.)
While I see where you're coming from, the new Palms are quite good for the current market demands. The Zire 72 is what I'd buy now, if I needed a new Palm, as it combines the things I'd want in a PDA at a price point that is non-insane. I could afford to replace two or three of them a year, which for me is very important. I've dropped my share of Palms, and replacing a $250 device is much better than replacing a $400 device.
At one time, I was quite enamored of the Treos, but now I'm thinking that a Zire with a Bluetooth phone would actually be better. Throw in a foldable keyboard, and I've got a mini-office at less than the cost of a Treo. (The Treo's lack of WiFi also contributes to this change of heart.)
You can do that now, for a couple/three hundred bucks. Mini-ITX comes to mind.
Actually, I think your idea has merit--providing a home-server unit that combines the best parts of Free software and Internet technologies and mixes it with fast broadband. But not for this case, where they are trying to provide an Internet-capable device that is built for ease of use, durability and low-cost, and that won't require expensive tech support.
Also, the PIC does come with a real hard disk. When did 10 gigs become chump-change? I remember when we only had 6K of hand-wrapped core memory, and we LIKED IT, blah blah blah....
The computers are "subsidized"--I imagine the connectivity is similarly "subsidized". (Scare-quoted because a government subsidy is an oxymoron. That money comes from somewhere.)
What does "IT" mean? To some, it means a hardware monkey who re-Ghosts workstations. That's scut work, and doesn't require an advanced certification. To some, it means a Cisco expert. That's more technical, but of an uncertain future, as hardware continues to increase features and speed, and decreases price and complexity.
To be perfectly honest, the most important parts of being a good employee is 1) to show up, on time, and 2) finish your work, exceeding expectations whenever possible. The niggly bits are much less important than your A+ Certification may insinuate.
Going to college for an IT degree is probably overkill. It's not the same now as it was 8 years ago. Going to college to round out your education, to get access and exposure to new techniques and idea, to be allowed to work on a project that may or may not be commercially viable, but still important in the greater scheme of things (Free software, of one stripe or another)--all of those things are a good use for college, as long as you can afford it. If you can't, I wouldn't borrow money to go, because you'll come out with a degree that isn't a guarantee for a job of any sort and a gob of debt.
Damn, that's about the most wrong thing I've ever read. 9/11 is an example of gross malfeasance of a single person?
Amazing. If only G.W. hadn't been reading about goats, the twin towers never would have fallen! Oh, what's that? That's not what you said? I'm afraid it is exactly what you've claimed. The central focus of 9/11 is NOT the Pentagon, though it certainly isn't without importance. Whether G.W. spent the morning reading a book or going beedle-beedle-beedle with his finger on his lips would not have prevented the WTC from being brought down.
The intelligence brief has been throroughly discussed, and that bin Laden intended to attack the US has exactly zero significance. Everybody knew bin Laden had it in for us. USS Cole? Khobar Towers? Bringing it to our shores was inevitable. The question was, and still is: how? It's a question that is answered readily with the benefit of hindsight, but less clearly evident when you're looking at next week.
I know it's hard, but try--try--to not knee-jerk with "George W. Bush is Satan!" every time you think politics. While your ideological buddies will high-five you and flash the secret "Bush = Hitler" gang sign, people with half the sense God gave a dog simply looks at you like you're a loon.
Nobody ever discusses this, because it's laced with bad historical context: black disenfranchisement and the like. But, let's be honest, there are a lot of dead, fake, or duplicate votes that go on in an election, on both sides. Eliminating that is equally important to having a paper-trail.
Of course, the real issue here isn't about ensuring a fair election. It's not about universal suffrage, or anything like it. It's about keeping George W. Bush out of office at all costs.. Are you sure you want to recount Florida? There's a lot of Florida to recount, including the Panhandle; and let's not forget to check voter rolls--some tens of thousands of voters double-registered in New York and Florida, for instance. Or the corpses voting in Illinois, or a number of other electioneering stunts performed and perfected over many, many years.
I suggest that it's best if Democrats stop hating Republicans with all their heart and soul. You'll have a happier life, and you won't give yourself an ulcer every four years. Republicans weren't thrilled with a Clinton victory, so instead of questioning the vote (skewed by Ross Perot), they worked on their platform and got a majority in the House--the first since, basically, forever. Democrats could do the same. Well, except for that unfortunate fact that a majority of people do NOT cotton to the more wingnut portions of the generic Democrat platform.
Remember last week? I was standing behind you, about 4 people back, trying to by a CD. ("Best of Bread") Fuck you, you Naderite dilettante, buy your shit and keep the line moving!
What's controversial got to do with it? Bathing every day was controversial at first.
Computers are apparently good enough to control our power grids, nuclear generators, water supplies, Space Shuttles and XBoxes, but can't be trusted to count votes.
You realize that there is no difference between a human putting a record into a database and a computer putting a record into a database, except that the human may decide to do it because he doesn't like your skin color. A buggy computer, in all likelyhood, won't put just you in for Grand Theft Auto randomly--there will be a lot of other people with the middle initial "Z.", or people who live on Steal Drive, or people who renewed their license on Wednesday, June 14th. A computer will make errors in patterns. A human will make errors randomly; or worse, very specifically and thus much harder to catch and correct.
The way I read it, the E-voting machines seemed to work well, and the "paper ballots" with their hallowed paper-trail seemed to be off base. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I read the story.
This is because after you've voted in the EU, nobody cares. Some stuffed shirt in Brussels is going to look at your ballot, wipe his ass with it, and say "Pfft, this guy sure was wrong."
I reject your assertion that there would be riots in the street, though. Probably just a strongly worded letter to the Guardian, and then back in the dole queue on Wednesday.
I don't understand the "half-blind" part. Are you saying that you are only partially sighted? or are you saying that you had just been woken up, and were therefore a bit bleary-eyed? If it's the latter, hey, that sucks, but I don't see the relevancy. If it's the former, I don't get how your physical shortcomings make any difference at all, unless you're attempting a sympathy ploy.
As far as I can see, you weren't accused of being a terrorist. Accusation is a pretty specific term. They were following up on suspicious behavior--when they found that there was no merit, they wrapped it up, apologized for the inconvenience, returned your property and left you alone. What thanks do they get for the professional and reasonable behavior? You, being dramatic about how oppressed you are by The Man and The Pigs. How very tedious.
(HITLER!!!!!!1 is hyperbole. Or sarcasm. Maybe sarcastic hyperbole, but either way you show yourself to lack the most rudimentary sense of humor, and which explains you, here and now, complaining about nothing.)
It's a poor system that is designed with a single point of failure. If we had a presidential election that was arbitrated at the last minute by a round of nude hop-scotch, that shouldn't be cause for massive alarm by the electorate.
Why? and a better question, how? Well, first of all, this is America. Whoever is elected President is largely irrelevant to your happiness. If it is not, you are probably a pollster or a political consultant (hi James!). The biggest determining factor for your success and well-being is yourself. You don't require a permission slip from Terry McAulliffe to be happy. So if a few votes get farged up by incompetance... meh.
Second, being President will certainly help you be extra-smooth with the ladies (hi Bill!), but you're not God. There are two other branches to the government, either of which can put the smack down on the others--though, if you wanted to be frank, the legislative branch is probably the most powerful of all. That prevents us from hiring a new Stalin on the first Tuesday in November and suddenly finding ourselves carted off to a gulag in... well, wherever our Siberia would be. ANWR would be my suggestion.
Finally, our Party system prevents complete nutballs from becoming nominees. Of course, Badnarik was a complete nutball, but he got fewer votes than the number of people who live in the crack house down the street. If the Libertarian Party were a higher profile Party, they wouldn't be nominating moonbats. If anybody replies denying this, I'm going to sift through every comment you've ever made (not really) to see if you every made a "to-may-to, to-mah-to" comment on the lack of "real choice" between the Demicans and the Republocrats.
Now, some on both sides would argue that Kerry (/Bush) proves me wrong because Bush (/Kerry) is obviously evil/dumb/too tall/looks like a chimp/Communist/Evangelical, and therefore Just Too Damn Awful to be President. Now, I would not have been happy about a Kerry presidency, but it wouldn't have ruined America. We muddled through 8 years of Bill Clinton--it's all downhill from there. But in the end, they're more alike than not, and either one would be acceptable. It's simply a matter of which one is better, and I think Bush made a decent case of him being the best choice. The voters agreed.
So if 50,000 votes got fungled and you think those votes made the difference between living in Utopia and Hell, you should definitely get out more, and you're probably a pollster or a political consultant. (Hi Karl!)
Slashdot Mirror
My pat argument about socialism has always been: If you get three normal people together, it is a Herculean task to get them to agree on pizza toppings. Do you think it possible that they can come to consensus on economics? This is why government only works when it has very little to do.
8 years ago, it was "why doesn't Apple have a sub-notebook?" Now everybody wants a huge, testicle-frying Super-notebook.
6 years ago, it was "why doesn't Apple have a server?" Well, golly, Apple's server offerings kick everybody else's ass, but of course, since you actually have to pay money for them, some people bitch about them.
2 years ago, it was "if only Apple sold a cheap headless Mac, I'd buy one!" Okay, your time is now, hero.
Some people are never satisfied. You got what you wanted--now you want more? If they included a mouse, you'd bitch about how it was the 1-button Apple mouse, or you'd bitch that the keyboard wasn't wireless.
Buy your own goddamn keyboard and mouse and STFU.
The problem with communism/socialism is not the people who are running it, it's people. We just don't work that way in groups larger than a high school study group, and that's why it fails every time.
I had some trouble using RSS when the LJ was "friends only", so it's only a partial solution.
While it certainly is possible, I just don't quite buy the pat nature of the article. It seems too good to be true.
As I recall, an old benchmark showed that a 486 running Linux and Apache could saturate a T1 serving static content. I'm not sure what benefit a "static content" metric has to any discussion concerning modern Web technologies. If static content is your problem, there are gobs of Web server solutions, such as that old kernel HTTP server, whatever it was called. Threading, pre-fork, blah blah blah--it's all gobbledy-gook when you're talking serving plain-jane HTML files.
I think Apache solved the problem too well with the 1.3 branch. It's a robust, fairly clean solution to serving Web content, either static pages or some degree of dynamically-created Web application. If you need to do either, or somewhere in between, Apache 1.3 is a decent solution. The way I see it, if Apache wanted to differentiate their 2.0 branch, they could have gone either one or both of these routes: 1) build it with the intention of catering to the Web application market; or 2) build it with the intention of catering to the Web hosting business.
With 1), the core problem of dynamic Web sites is the glue between a database and the HTTP server. Quite a lot of Web sites would be equally well-served by a lightweight HTTP server on top of a relational database. Something like Oracle's IAS, but... not. If Apache 2 could offer something like that, then they would have something to offer Web application developers. (And, incidentally, create a new market the way Tomcat/Java servlets did and thus a stable base of users.)
With 2), there's a lot of work done by companies such as PSoft and Ensim to provide a facility for hosting several Web sites from a single IP address, and allowing those Web sites to have some control over their site. If Apache 2 could offer some method for improving this situation--"how" I leave as an exercise for the reader--then they would have something to offer hosting companies. (And, incidentally, create a whole raft of adopters as most people who buy Web space at a hosting company for $29.95/mo, or whatever, don't give a fig for what HTTP server is running behind their site.)
As-is, Apache 1.3 can do both 1) and 2) good enough, and as we all know, good enough is good enough. Everybody will eventually move to 2.0, if only because RedHat stops supporting 1.3 in their up2date utility. I don't think there will be a mass exodus to Apache 2.0 for any technical reason, like the movement we see today towards FireFox from IE, because Apache 1.3 isn't a complete piece of shit. It's pretty good, as a matter of fact, and that Apache 2.0 isn't exactly bursting with new, revolutionary ideas that can change the world, the change will come slowly and quietly, until one day you'll sit up in bed and wonder, "Whatever happened to Apache 1.3?"
After all the money and effort poured into the shitholes of the world, they're still shitholes. However, a platoon or two of U.S. Marines have brought more freedom to the world than an aircraft carrier-full of Kofi Annans.
$500 million dollars to Egypt--they still hate us. $500 million dollars worth of grunts and bombs in Egypt? They'll hate us, but they'll be very coy about it.
You miss the nuance. A missile defense system effectively eliminates a rogue nation's nuclear bragging-rights. A nuclear North Korea is meaningless if any missle launched gets plinked before it can leave the peninsula.
And, you miss the whole concept of proactive defense. You do your best to build things before you need them, not after. A missle defense shield isn't needed today--but what about tomorrow?
So, basically, I had to disregard everything you've said, and everything you will say, because you're a frothing moonbat. Go Bush!
Modded funny, but it actually works the other way around.
False idols, I can maybe see that. If you'd trade one minute of your time with your family for another round of Counterstrike, I'd say that you've got a problem with a false idol. So, in that case, I'd say religion has a point, wouldn't you?
You probably got these ideas from a whacko, ultra-secularist worldview, or some bullshit like that. You should maybe get out and experience some religion yourself, rather than parrot lines from the equally ignorant.
I'm still a huge fan of my IIIxe. To my mind, it's the pinnacle of Palm engineering and suits me down to the ground. I use rechargable AAA cells, but having the option to pick up a pack of alkalines at any drugstore in the country for chump change is a nice option. The Palm modem for the III series is adequate for simple Web browsing, and for sending FAXes--and it too accepts AAA cells. The speed is nothing to write home about, but it's fast enough for what the Palm was designed for, and in a pinch I can use it as a replacement computer. (I even have a SSH client for it, which largely turns the Palm into a full computer.)
While I see where you're coming from, the new Palms are quite good for the current market demands. The Zire 72 is what I'd buy now, if I needed a new Palm, as it combines the things I'd want in a PDA at a price point that is non-insane. I could afford to replace two or three of them a year, which for me is very important. I've dropped my share of Palms, and replacing a $250 device is much better than replacing a $400 device.
At one time, I was quite enamored of the Treos, but now I'm thinking that a Zire with a Bluetooth phone would actually be better. Throw in a foldable keyboard, and I've got a mini-office at less than the cost of a Treo. (The Treo's lack of WiFi also contributes to this change of heart.)
You can do that now, for a couple/three hundred bucks. Mini-ITX comes to mind.
Actually, I think your idea has merit--providing a home-server unit that combines the best parts of Free software and Internet technologies and mixes it with fast broadband. But not for this case, where they are trying to provide an Internet-capable device that is built for ease of use, durability and low-cost, and that won't require expensive tech support.
Also, the PIC does come with a real hard disk. When did 10 gigs become chump-change? I remember when we only had 6K of hand-wrapped core memory, and we LIKED IT, blah blah blah....
The computers are "subsidized"--I imagine the connectivity is similarly "subsidized". (Scare-quoted because a government subsidy is an oxymoron. That money comes from somewhere.)
What does "IT" mean? To some, it means a hardware monkey who re-Ghosts workstations. That's scut work, and doesn't require an advanced certification. To some, it means a Cisco expert. That's more technical, but of an uncertain future, as hardware continues to increase features and speed, and decreases price and complexity. To be perfectly honest, the most important parts of being a good employee is 1) to show up, on time, and 2) finish your work, exceeding expectations whenever possible. The niggly bits are much less important than your A+ Certification may insinuate. Going to college for an IT degree is probably overkill. It's not the same now as it was 8 years ago. Going to college to round out your education, to get access and exposure to new techniques and idea, to be allowed to work on a project that may or may not be commercially viable, but still important in the greater scheme of things (Free software, of one stripe or another)--all of those things are a good use for college, as long as you can afford it. If you can't, I wouldn't borrow money to go, because you'll come out with a degree that isn't a guarantee for a job of any sort and a gob of debt.
Damn, that's about the most wrong thing I've ever read. 9/11 is an example of gross malfeasance of a single person?
Amazing. If only G.W. hadn't been reading about goats, the twin towers never would have fallen! Oh, what's that? That's not what you said? I'm afraid it is exactly what you've claimed. The central focus of 9/11 is NOT the Pentagon, though it certainly isn't without importance. Whether G.W. spent the morning reading a book or going beedle-beedle-beedle with his finger on his lips would not have prevented the WTC from being brought down.
The intelligence brief has been throroughly discussed, and that bin Laden intended to attack the US has exactly zero significance. Everybody knew bin Laden had it in for us. USS Cole? Khobar Towers? Bringing it to our shores was inevitable. The question was, and still is: how? It's a question that is answered readily with the benefit of hindsight, but less clearly evident when you're looking at next week.
I know it's hard, but try--try--to not knee-jerk with "George W. Bush is Satan!" every time you think politics. While your ideological buddies will high-five you and flash the secret "Bush = Hitler" gang sign, people with half the sense God gave a dog simply looks at you like you're a loon.
Which, truth be told, you probably are.
Ensure that the person voting is a legal voter.
Nobody ever discusses this, because it's laced with bad historical context: black disenfranchisement and the like. But, let's be honest, there are a lot of dead, fake, or duplicate votes that go on in an election, on both sides. Eliminating that is equally important to having a paper-trail.
Of course, the real issue here isn't about ensuring a fair election. It's not about universal suffrage, or anything like it. It's about keeping George W. Bush out of office at all costs.. Are you sure you want to recount Florida? There's a lot of Florida to recount, including the Panhandle; and let's not forget to check voter rolls--some tens of thousands of voters double-registered in New York and Florida, for instance. Or the corpses voting in Illinois, or a number of other electioneering stunts performed and perfected over many, many years.
I suggest that it's best if Democrats stop hating Republicans with all their heart and soul. You'll have a happier life, and you won't give yourself an ulcer every four years. Republicans weren't thrilled with a Clinton victory, so instead of questioning the vote (skewed by Ross Perot), they worked on their platform and got a majority in the House--the first since, basically, forever. Democrats could do the same. Well, except for that unfortunate fact that a majority of people do NOT cotton to the more wingnut portions of the generic Democrat platform.
Remember last week? I was standing behind you, about 4 people back, trying to by a CD. ("Best of Bread") Fuck you, you Naderite dilettante, buy your shit and keep the line moving!
What? Your link says no such thing that I can find. Quote the relevant passage for me, since I seem to be suffering from cataracts.
Computers are apparently good enough to control our power grids, nuclear generators, water supplies, Space Shuttles and XBoxes, but can't be trusted to count votes.
You realize that there is no difference between a human putting a record into a database and a computer putting a record into a database, except that the human may decide to do it because he doesn't like your skin color. A buggy computer, in all likelyhood, won't put just you in for Grand Theft Auto randomly--there will be a lot of other people with the middle initial "Z.", or people who live on Steal Drive, or people who renewed their license on Wednesday, June 14th. A computer will make errors in patterns. A human will make errors randomly; or worse, very specifically and thus much harder to catch and correct.
The way I read it, the E-voting machines seemed to work well, and the "paper ballots" with their hallowed paper-trail seemed to be off base. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I read the story.
No, it's the waiting lines in Socialistic countries that keep children from getting health care.
I reject your assertion that there would be riots in the street, though. Probably just a strongly worded letter to the Guardian, and then back in the dole queue on Wednesday.
As far as I can see, you weren't accused of being a terrorist. Accusation is a pretty specific term. They were following up on suspicious behavior--when they found that there was no merit, they wrapped it up, apologized for the inconvenience, returned your property and left you alone. What thanks do they get for the professional and reasonable behavior? You, being dramatic about how oppressed you are by The Man and The Pigs. How very tedious.
(HITLER!!!!!!1 is hyperbole. Or sarcasm. Maybe sarcastic hyperbole, but either way you show yourself to lack the most rudimentary sense of humor, and which explains you, here and now, complaining about nothing.)
Why? and a better question, how? Well, first of all, this is America. Whoever is elected President is largely irrelevant to your happiness. If it is not, you are probably a pollster or a political consultant (hi James!). The biggest determining factor for your success and well-being is yourself. You don't require a permission slip from Terry McAulliffe to be happy. So if a few votes get farged up by incompetance... meh.
Second, being President will certainly help you be extra-smooth with the ladies (hi Bill!), but you're not God. There are two other branches to the government, either of which can put the smack down on the others--though, if you wanted to be frank, the legislative branch is probably the most powerful of all. That prevents us from hiring a new Stalin on the first Tuesday in November and suddenly finding ourselves carted off to a gulag in... well, wherever our Siberia would be. ANWR would be my suggestion.
Finally, our Party system prevents complete nutballs from becoming nominees. Of course, Badnarik was a complete nutball, but he got fewer votes than the number of people who live in the crack house down the street. If the Libertarian Party were a higher profile Party, they wouldn't be nominating moonbats. If anybody replies denying this, I'm going to sift through every comment you've ever made (not really) to see if you every made a "to-may-to, to-mah-to" comment on the lack of "real choice" between the Demicans and the Republocrats.
Now, some on both sides would argue that Kerry (/Bush) proves me wrong because Bush (/Kerry) is obviously evil/dumb/too tall/looks like a chimp/Communist/Evangelical, and therefore Just Too Damn Awful to be President. Now, I would not have been happy about a Kerry presidency, but it wouldn't have ruined America. We muddled through 8 years of Bill Clinton--it's all downhill from there. But in the end, they're more alike than not, and either one would be acceptable. It's simply a matter of which one is better, and I think Bush made a decent case of him being the best choice. The voters agreed.
So if 50,000 votes got fungled and you think those votes made the difference between living in Utopia and Hell, you should definitely get out more, and you're probably a pollster or a political consultant. (Hi Karl!)