But until then, this ad doesn't tell a non-geek anything...except that Linux is pretentious.
Sounds like a solid start to me. What more do they need to know? Does the ad feature nerds? Then they'll go find a pretentious nerd who will tell them more than they ever wanted to hear about Linux. Perfect.
I'm sick of this CRA FUD. How is disallowing discrimination in lending the same as requiring bad loans? It isn't. All CRA did was end the practice of "redlining", where entire neighborhoods were considered no-lend zones regardless of the particulars of any applicant, and the practice of requiring higher down-payements for minorities compared to equally qualified non-minority lenders. CRA never required banks to make loans to unqualified applicants. It merely required that they stop assuming anyone with dark skin or from a poor neighborhood was unqualified. It had nothing to do with sub-prime lending.
Many banks were fully compliant with CRA, and they did just fine through the crisis, and in surveys have not listed the CRA loans as risky. The ones who got greedy, decided to leverage themselves at ridiculous ratios, and started handing out sub-prime "liar loans" because all they were going to do was package it up in a bunch of other securities to hide the risk and resell it chose to do so.
Then, once the crisis hit, they decided to blame it all on poor people. Even though most of the sub-prime lending came from banks that weren't even covered by CRA! There's plenty of blame to go around, including on the liberals/Ds who did ignore warnings, but it was not CRA (and by extension, poor minorities) that did it.
No, let's cut the BS and get down to brass tacks: "Capitalism" is people doing whatever they can within the law to make a buck. "20% down with good credit and insurance" is sound lending, and one way to make a buck. "0% down with us believing whatever you say on the form since we won't be taking on the risk anyway" is unsound lending, but still a way to make a buck. Both are capitalism, but sadly you don't get to get to pick which route people pursue. You just get to face the aftermath when too much of the industry goes the stupid route. So guess what, if you want everyone to follow your utopian view of how "capitalism" lends money, then you need to regulate that behavior.
People complain about providers advertising "unlimited" that they can't provide for the price. People complain when providers have unpublished caps. People complain when providers publish caps. People complain when providers offer an "unlimited" service for a price that supports it.
Yeah, people complain about overpriced crap service no matter how they decide to dress it up, and complain when they charge more for less service. How bizarre!
Bandwidth and infrastructure cost real money.
And yet they're making money hand-over-fist, but not investing any of it into new infrastructure. So... who gives a fuck. Saying that as though it matters to this situation is a lie, one you believed apparently.
If that line you're paying for isn't coming with a 5-9s uptime guarantee and a ton of other commercial features from your upstream provider, you're getting raped too.
I am missing something here-- is this a simplistic view, or are ISPs simply too greedy to bother investing in their own future?
Well maybe, but remember we're talking about Time Warner here. Time Warner is first and foremost a media company, not an internet utility company. They care vastly more about their HD Digital Cable service than they do about internet. They probably think they can charge more for delivering 200 channels of HD cable than they can for the bandwidth to get essentially the same content from Hulu or Netflix (having just priced out the services, I can safely say this is true in practice pre-caps-and-overages). Therefore, they design their internet service so that it is impractical to use the service as a replacement for their digital cable service. In theory this would stop people from canceling their digital cable and using the internet for everything, but if you want internet you still have to pay for that. Best of both worlds for them, you see.
And when you can play these kinds of games simply because few people have many realistic choices, then why exactly would you be worried about investing in the future? Why invest to increase profits when you can simply start screwing your captive customer harder? Oh sure maybe you or I could see how this could explode in their face. First off they can't hear us over the "ca-ching! ca-ching!" of our subscriptions (and soon overage) fees rolling in while they do nothing. Second off, whatever hypothetical explosion may occur is probably far enough in the future that the current executives et. al. could happily retire on $mega by the time it happens.
So yeah, maybe this isn't in the company's long-term interests. I'd like to think we'll remember The Aughts as the decade where we finally stopped thinking of companies as sentient entities with interests, and start thinking of them as what they are -- collections of people who ultimately only care about their own interests. Then things like destroying the company's future for the sake of the individual's short-term benefit are no longer surprising.
I'm in Austin, so I stand to be affected by this in the near future.
Same here. Worse, I just moved from the east side of town where you can get Grande Communications cable -- decent service, decent price, no caps that I ever ran into, though their DNS seemed a little flakey -- to the west side where my only options are TW and AT&T. I just hooked up TW, but I'm seriously considering switching, not that this is much of a choice.
If I could do that with bandwidth (at a reasonable rate per GB), I'd be perfectly happy.
Ha ha! If "reasonable" was even invited to the planning meeting for this scheme, then I think we'd all be a lot happier. But this is TW we're talking about, so "reasonable" was down-sized in the 90s, with the CEO's nephews "greed" and "sadism" being brought in on cushy VP salaries.
Their flat-metered plan would probably be equally atrocious. I'd bet dollars-to-donuts that it would come out to more per GB than the news caps do, maybe more than the per-GB overage charges. Similar to cell phone plans with no built-in minutes. Given that I'm going to be raped by TW, in some ways it's better to be able to pick a plan based on my usage patterns so that I can at least predict the pain I'll experience at the end of the month.
The basic point of the pricing structure appears to be to control my behavior online, and it irritates me no end.
Exactly. If and when I cancel, I intend on telling them that their blatant attempt to prevent me from using video services other than their own is the reason I'm doing so. The bandwidth cap itself is onerous, and the proximate reason why I'll quit, but the fundamental reason for the cap and thus my irritation is their attempt to protect their media monopoly.
Well I think this is trivial because it's happening at GameStop. I feel lucky if I can get in and out of there without somebody shitting on my chest. I don't really care if they play the game before they sell it to me as long as they wipe their spooge off the disc before putting it back in the case. Which they do nearly half the time, so really, what's the big deal?
Is that why I never learned that Obama is the holy one and perfect (except actually satan)? Dang, I need to listen to more Rush to find out what I'm supposed to think!
This is one of the reasons I was against the war to begin with, which wasn't a popular opinion. And now I'm against pulling out completely, which, again, isn't popular.
I don't think they were that unpopular, but then again I shared both of them. I do want us to leave Iraq as quick as possible, and that doesn't mean everything is rainbows and sunshine and Iraq is now Kansas-2 and we don't have to admit it was basically a huge fuck-up. Rather we should leave when we can leave without it becoming an even bigger fuck-up, not just rush off like we rushed in with no plan or consideration.
Talking about this with my father, who is 180 degrees from me on Iraq, we did reach agreement on one thing: The end result wasn't going to be that different regardless of who won the Presidency. McCain was more likely to try to end without admitting defeat, but with the war as unpopular as it is I don't think he could avoid handing control of the country over to the new government even if he didn't want to. That means letting the new government decide when we leave and that negotiation would have ended largely the same either way.
Also either way Robert Gates would have stayed as Sec Def, and boy has he been a breath of fresh air after Rummy. Between that and a refocus on Afghanistan, the conflict that at least made sense, I would have gotten largely what I wanted on our wars either way.
Or maybe it's because female chimps are satisfied with what they have, instead of constantly demanding more and more like little bitchy princesses! (sigh). No I'm not bitter. I just have this gnawing pain in my gut until I can feel the bile rising-up into my mouth. Or maybe it's just indigestion. Anyone have a tic-tac?
Ha!
For some reason this reminds me of the other day when I was watching some house finches. It's their breeding season now. Male house finches try to impress females with the brightness of their red plumage, with their singing, and also with gifts of food. I saw one male go after a female, standing on a branch and singing vigorously. The female seemed to appreciate it, or at least listen. Then the two flew down to where the bird seed was, and the male picked up a seed and gave it to the female. Aw, how sweet. Then the female started chirping, and the male regurgitated a previously swallowed seed for her. Uh kinda gross, but still sweet. Then the male flew back up to the branch, the female followed him, and started chirping and fluttering her wings with the same vigor the male had been singing with. The male dutifully coughed up another seed. Then the female continued her demand for food, getting more and more animated as the male desperately tried to regurgitate more food. I could see his little belly and throat undulating with the effort, but nothing came up. She wouldn't let up, though, so he flew down to the seed, ate one, flew back up, and coughed it up into her mouth. She finally seemed satisfied, and flew down to the seed and got some for her own damn self.
Sound, perhaps, familiar? Yeah I thought so. Gave me a self-aware laugh. "Birds and the bees" indeed.:)
If the war was for oil, and US imperialism to take over that country for oil, I'd have thought we'd at least have seen the oil benefits by now.
The ones for whose benefit the war was fought have certainly seen the benefit.
What, you thought that this might include you?
LOL.
Oil is a commodity. When Middle East instability jacks the price of oil up to $160/bar, that means everyone's oil is now selling for that much, even though if they aren't in the Middle East then their supply was not affected at all. This is just one of the many ways in which the war benefited people who aren't you or I or our Iraqi counterparts.
Ever since some years ago we read on/. that they had discovered the secret behind geckos' amazing abilities, I've been waiting for practical applications of this in the form of gecko tape and the soon-to-follow gecko shoes and gloves.
Glad to see that they'll be using it in space soon, guess that means it'll only be a matter of time before I can get it at Home Depot. In the meantime, whenever I want something stuck to the wall, I just tie it to a gecko and then let the gecko do the sticking for me. Tough part is keeping them in one place, but ironically a little traditional glue does the job nicely. The other problem is I can only put things out of the reach of my cat...
No, you just suck at sarcasm. The real point you were trying to make about considering usage models existed nowhere in your submission, and in this thread you've repeatedly posted anti-CFL misinformation. It would appear equally plausible based on what you said to assume you think a carbon arc light is better than a CFL. So... try being funny instead of stupid and maybe people will get the joke?
Simply being incarcerated is more cruel than watching a movie.
But the incarceration of a wanted criminal is a given. Therefore once he's incarcerated, any further cruelty you heap upon them that when considered out of context could be called less cruel than incarceration is okay? No. We imprisoned him, and yes that's cruel but necessary. No further cruelty is necessary or justified.
Yes because you'd rather use your imagination to allow yourself to think whatever you want, rather than understand the actual standards used for determining voter intent which if you bothered you'd discover are quite good, and then ignorantly blurt "No matter how you counted Bush won!" despite complete non-factuality. You don't give a shit about facts.
Just keep pretending that a mark for Gore and a write-in for Gore is somehow a difficult issue to resolve.
Ignore that the directions on ballot marking were confusing. Ignore that error rates for ballots are consistent across most of Florida, but that different locations had machines programmed to react to invalid ballots in different ways (some were spit out and allow correct, others were accept but don't count). Just ignore everything because otherwise you couldn't spout ignorant truisms while denying people representation. May you be subject to the world you wish for, and be denied a voice for your ignorance.
LOL, you think any of the agencies falling under the umbrella of national defense would be gagging for funds, that the NSA would simply be too poor to wire tap, in a McCain administration?
Naw, defense would be the one area of our country that was flush with funds while the rest were gagging.
Yeah, because when someone marks the box for Al Gore and writes Al Gore in the write-in slot, it's so fucking hard and subjective to figure out what they meant. No way could we count those votes, and this is surely the same as people who decided not to vote at all.
I'm sure you didn't actually check the link or the NORC sources that inform it, but under a variety of ballot recounting standards, a full recount resulted in a Gore victory.
Anyway, thanks for admitting that when you said no matter how you recount, you meant if you recount how you personally approve of.
Because the whatever subset of the Obama Administration you are thinking of is not capable of tracking all issues simultaneously. That's why they have appointees to handle each sub-task, and in this case the one responsible for that would be the head of the DoJ, the Attorney General. Except that his appointee has yet to be confirmed.
You get that government is big, and that there are many issues including many lawsuits ongoing from the previous administration, yes? And that to the extent that their positions allow them to, many people in the government act independently without daily approval of the President? That's why the politically-motivated firings of DoJ lawyers was seen as Gonzales' fault, not Bush's?
I'm still not happy about this, and I wish Obama would specifically target this issue in a way that I like. But honestly, until his own AG is confirmed and weighs in, this really doesn't mean a whole lot. Don't worry, Obama still has plenty of time to be the fascist ass we all fear he is.
even the NYTs and the WaPo plus others say he won no matter how you counted.
No, wrong. Bush won if you counted how Al Gore said they should, or if you recounted how the Florida SC ruled they should. If you had the crazy idea of recounting everything, all counties and both undervotes and overvotes, rejecting those where voter intent was not clear, then Gore won.
It's somewhat ironic, I guess, that if Al Gore had gotten his way he still would have lost. But who cares what he wished for if what you care about is valid elections? Honestly the only thing SCOTUS had right in that case was that neither Al Gore's request nor FSC's ruling obeyed the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. Their answer of stopping recounting and declaring a winner knowing many votes were not counted was equally bad, however.
"Even in the NYT", lol. Yeah they sure proved in the run up to war how independent and liberal or whatever else is supposed to imply that if they said Bush still won then he definitely did. The press certainly did phrase it in such a way as to imply that Bush won no matter what, at least in their headlines. But this simply was not the case.
It's all history now, though. I'm much more worried about the future and securing our elections, not a ridiculous travesty of an election 8 years ago. But I would like to say that there is something to that ready-made anti-following.
Slashdot Mirror
But until then, this ad doesn't tell a non-geek anything...except that Linux is pretentious.
Sounds like a solid start to me. What more do they need to know? Does the ad feature nerds? Then they'll go find a pretentious nerd who will tell them more than they ever wanted to hear about Linux. Perfect.
I'm sick of this CRA FUD. How is disallowing discrimination in lending the same as requiring bad loans? It isn't. All CRA did was end the practice of "redlining", where entire neighborhoods were considered no-lend zones regardless of the particulars of any applicant, and the practice of requiring higher down-payements for minorities compared to equally qualified non-minority lenders. CRA never required banks to make loans to unqualified applicants. It merely required that they stop assuming anyone with dark skin or from a poor neighborhood was unqualified. It had nothing to do with sub-prime lending.
Many banks were fully compliant with CRA, and they did just fine through the crisis, and in surveys have not listed the CRA loans as risky. The ones who got greedy, decided to leverage themselves at ridiculous ratios, and started handing out sub-prime "liar loans" because all they were going to do was package it up in a bunch of other securities to hide the risk and resell it chose to do so.
Then, once the crisis hit, they decided to blame it all on poor people. Even though most of the sub-prime lending came from banks that weren't even covered by CRA! There's plenty of blame to go around, including on the liberals/Ds who did ignore warnings, but it was not CRA (and by extension, poor minorities) that did it.
No, let's cut the BS and get down to brass tacks: "Capitalism" is people doing whatever they can within the law to make a buck. "20% down with good credit and insurance" is sound lending, and one way to make a buck. "0% down with us believing whatever you say on the form since we won't be taking on the risk anyway" is unsound lending, but still a way to make a buck. Both are capitalism, but sadly you don't get to get to pick which route people pursue. You just get to face the aftermath when too much of the industry goes the stupid route. So guess what, if you want everyone to follow your utopian view of how "capitalism" lends money, then you need to regulate that behavior.
The batteries are recyclable. Their environmental hazards are minimal. The idea that they are worse than an ICE is nothing but FUD.
a 1-speed manual tranny
Okay, I don't know cars, so I'm picturing a car with a clutch and a stick with two positions: F and R.
Well, that or a transexual prostitute who gives hand-jobs at a single precise rhythm.
Overheard at JPL, while working on a problem with entry on the next Mars rover project...
"Come on, people, it shouldn't be this hard! This isn't exactly talking to the opposite gender, you know."
People complain about providers advertising "unlimited" that they can't provide for the price. People complain when providers have unpublished caps. People complain when providers publish caps. People complain when providers offer an "unlimited" service for a price that supports it.
Yeah, people complain about overpriced crap service no matter how they decide to dress it up, and complain when they charge more for less service. How bizarre!
Bandwidth and infrastructure cost real money.
And yet they're making money hand-over-fist, but not investing any of it into new infrastructure. So... who gives a fuck. Saying that as though it matters to this situation is a lie, one you believed apparently.
If that line you're paying for isn't coming with a 5-9s uptime guarantee and a ton of other commercial features from your upstream provider, you're getting raped too.
I am missing something here-- is this a simplistic view, or are ISPs simply too greedy to bother investing in their own future?
Well maybe, but remember we're talking about Time Warner here. Time Warner is first and foremost a media company, not an internet utility company. They care vastly more about their HD Digital Cable service than they do about internet. They probably think they can charge more for delivering 200 channels of HD cable than they can for the bandwidth to get essentially the same content from Hulu or Netflix (having just priced out the services, I can safely say this is true in practice pre-caps-and-overages). Therefore, they design their internet service so that it is impractical to use the service as a replacement for their digital cable service. In theory this would stop people from canceling their digital cable and using the internet for everything, but if you want internet you still have to pay for that. Best of both worlds for them, you see.
And when you can play these kinds of games simply because few people have many realistic choices, then why exactly would you be worried about investing in the future? Why invest to increase profits when you can simply start screwing your captive customer harder? Oh sure maybe you or I could see how this could explode in their face. First off they can't hear us over the "ca-ching! ca-ching!" of our subscriptions (and soon overage) fees rolling in while they do nothing. Second off, whatever hypothetical explosion may occur is probably far enough in the future that the current executives et. al. could happily retire on $mega by the time it happens.
So yeah, maybe this isn't in the company's long-term interests. I'd like to think we'll remember The Aughts as the decade where we finally stopped thinking of companies as sentient entities with interests, and start thinking of them as what they are -- collections of people who ultimately only care about their own interests. Then things like destroying the company's future for the sake of the individual's short-term benefit are no longer surprising.
I'm in Austin, so I stand to be affected by this in the near future.
Same here. Worse, I just moved from the east side of town where you can get Grande Communications cable -- decent service, decent price, no caps that I ever ran into, though their DNS seemed a little flakey -- to the west side where my only options are TW and AT&T. I just hooked up TW, but I'm seriously considering switching, not that this is much of a choice.
If I could do that with bandwidth (at a reasonable rate per GB), I'd be perfectly happy.
Ha ha! If "reasonable" was even invited to the planning meeting for this scheme, then I think we'd all be a lot happier. But this is TW we're talking about, so "reasonable" was down-sized in the 90s, with the CEO's nephews "greed" and "sadism" being brought in on cushy VP salaries.
Their flat-metered plan would probably be equally atrocious. I'd bet dollars-to-donuts that it would come out to more per GB than the news caps do, maybe more than the per-GB overage charges. Similar to cell phone plans with no built-in minutes. Given that I'm going to be raped by TW, in some ways it's better to be able to pick a plan based on my usage patterns so that I can at least predict the pain I'll experience at the end of the month.
The basic point of the pricing structure appears to be to control my behavior online, and it irritates me no end.
Exactly. If and when I cancel, I intend on telling them that their blatant attempt to prevent me from using video services other than their own is the reason I'm doing so. The bandwidth cap itself is onerous, and the proximate reason why I'll quit, but the fundamental reason for the cap and thus my irritation is their attempt to protect their media monopoly.
Well I think this is trivial because it's happening at GameStop. I feel lucky if I can get in and out of there without somebody shitting on my chest. I don't really care if they play the game before they sell it to me as long as they wipe their spooge off the disc before putting it back in the case. Which they do nearly half the time, so really, what's the big deal?
And we thought we were just having some innocent fun on a Friday night!
That's what you say, but this was clearly a dry-run for your plan to move your living room into the intersection permanently. You must be stopped!
Is that why I never learned that Obama is the holy one and perfect (except actually satan)? Dang, I need to listen to more Rush to find out what I'm supposed to think!
Yes the behavioral significance was obvious. It was still funny.
This is one of the reasons I was against the war to begin with, which wasn't a popular opinion. And now I'm against pulling out completely, which, again, isn't popular.
I don't think they were that unpopular, but then again I shared both of them. I do want us to leave Iraq as quick as possible, and that doesn't mean everything is rainbows and sunshine and Iraq is now Kansas-2 and we don't have to admit it was basically a huge fuck-up. Rather we should leave when we can leave without it becoming an even bigger fuck-up, not just rush off like we rushed in with no plan or consideration.
Talking about this with my father, who is 180 degrees from me on Iraq, we did reach agreement on one thing: The end result wasn't going to be that different regardless of who won the Presidency. McCain was more likely to try to end without admitting defeat, but with the war as unpopular as it is I don't think he could avoid handing control of the country over to the new government even if he didn't want to. That means letting the new government decide when we leave and that negotiation would have ended largely the same either way.
Also either way Robert Gates would have stayed as Sec Def, and boy has he been a breath of fresh air after Rummy. Between that and a refocus on Afghanistan, the conflict that at least made sense, I would have gotten largely what I wanted on our wars either way.
Or maybe it's because female chimps are satisfied with what they have, instead of constantly demanding more and more like little bitchy princesses! (sigh). No I'm not bitter. I just have this gnawing pain in my gut until I can feel the bile rising-up into my mouth. Or maybe it's just indigestion. Anyone have a tic-tac?
Ha!
For some reason this reminds me of the other day when I was watching some house finches. It's their breeding season now. Male house finches try to impress females with the brightness of their red plumage, with their singing, and also with gifts of food. I saw one male go after a female, standing on a branch and singing vigorously. The female seemed to appreciate it, or at least listen. Then the two flew down to where the bird seed was, and the male picked up a seed and gave it to the female. Aw, how sweet. Then the female started chirping, and the male regurgitated a previously swallowed seed for her. Uh kinda gross, but still sweet. Then the male flew back up to the branch, the female followed him, and started chirping and fluttering her wings with the same vigor the male had been singing with. The male dutifully coughed up another seed. Then the female continued her demand for food, getting more and more animated as the male desperately tried to regurgitate more food. I could see his little belly and throat undulating with the effort, but nothing came up. She wouldn't let up, though, so he flew down to the seed, ate one, flew back up, and coughed it up into her mouth. She finally seemed satisfied, and flew down to the seed and got some for her own damn self.
Sound, perhaps, familiar? Yeah I thought so. Gave me a self-aware laugh. "Birds and the bees" indeed. :)
If the war was for oil, and US imperialism to take over that country for oil, I'd have thought we'd at least have seen the oil benefits by now.
The ones for whose benefit the war was fought have certainly seen the benefit.
What, you thought that this might include you?
LOL.
Oil is a commodity. When Middle East instability jacks the price of oil up to $160/bar, that means everyone's oil is now selling for that much, even though if they aren't in the Middle East then their supply was not affected at all. This is just one of the many ways in which the war benefited people who aren't you or I or our Iraqi counterparts.
Zelda decals. Duh.
You suck at sarcasm = conspiracy? Was that supposed to be funny? Because regardless that was even dumber than your attempt at sarcasm.
Ever since some years ago we read on /. that they had discovered the secret behind geckos' amazing abilities, I've been waiting for practical applications of this in the form of gecko tape and the soon-to-follow gecko shoes and gloves.
Glad to see that they'll be using it in space soon, guess that means it'll only be a matter of time before I can get it at Home Depot. In the meantime, whenever I want something stuck to the wall, I just tie it to a gecko and then let the gecko do the sticking for me. Tough part is keeping them in one place, but ironically a little traditional glue does the job nicely. The other problem is I can only put things out of the reach of my cat...
No, you just suck at sarcasm. The real point you were trying to make about considering usage models existed nowhere in your submission, and in this thread you've repeatedly posted anti-CFL misinformation. It would appear equally plausible based on what you said to assume you think a carbon arc light is better than a CFL. So... try being funny instead of stupid and maybe people will get the joke?
Simply being incarcerated is more cruel than watching a movie.
But the incarceration of a wanted criminal is a given. Therefore once he's incarcerated, any further cruelty you heap upon them that when considered out of context could be called less cruel than incarceration is okay? No. We imprisoned him, and yes that's cruel but necessary. No further cruelty is necessary or justified.
I don't give a shit what it said.
Yes because you'd rather use your imagination to allow yourself to think whatever you want, rather than understand the actual standards used for determining voter intent which if you bothered you'd discover are quite good, and then ignorantly blurt "No matter how you counted Bush won!" despite complete non-factuality. You don't give a shit about facts.
Just keep pretending that a mark for Gore and a write-in for Gore is somehow a difficult issue to resolve.
Ignore that the directions on ballot marking were confusing. Ignore that error rates for ballots are consistent across most of Florida, but that different locations had machines programmed to react to invalid ballots in different ways (some were spit out and allow correct, others were accept but don't count). Just ignore everything because otherwise you couldn't spout ignorant truisms while denying people representation. May you be subject to the world you wish for, and be denied a voice for your ignorance.
LOL, you think any of the agencies falling under the umbrella of national defense would be gagging for funds, that the NSA would simply be too poor to wire tap, in a McCain administration?
Naw, defense would be the one area of our country that was flush with funds while the rest were gagging.
Yeah, because when someone marks the box for Al Gore and writes Al Gore in the write-in slot, it's so fucking hard and subjective to figure out what they meant. No way could we count those votes, and this is surely the same as people who decided not to vote at all.
I'm sure you didn't actually check the link or the NORC sources that inform it, but under a variety of ballot recounting standards, a full recount resulted in a Gore victory.
Anyway, thanks for admitting that when you said no matter how you recount, you meant if you recount how you personally approve of.
Because the whatever subset of the Obama Administration you are thinking of is not capable of tracking all issues simultaneously. That's why they have appointees to handle each sub-task, and in this case the one responsible for that would be the head of the DoJ, the Attorney General. Except that his appointee has yet to be confirmed.
You get that government is big, and that there are many issues including many lawsuits ongoing from the previous administration, yes? And that to the extent that their positions allow them to, many people in the government act independently without daily approval of the President? That's why the politically-motivated firings of DoJ lawyers was seen as Gonzales' fault, not Bush's?
I'm still not happy about this, and I wish Obama would specifically target this issue in a way that I like. But honestly, until his own AG is confirmed and weighs in, this really doesn't mean a whole lot. Don't worry, Obama still has plenty of time to be the fascist ass we all fear he is.
even the NYTs and the WaPo plus others say he won no matter how you counted.
No, wrong. Bush won if you counted how Al Gore said they should, or if you recounted how the Florida SC ruled they should. If you had the crazy idea of recounting everything, all counties and both undervotes and overvotes, rejecting those where voter intent was not clear, then Gore won.
It's somewhat ironic, I guess, that if Al Gore had gotten his way he still would have lost. But who cares what he wished for if what you care about is valid elections? Honestly the only thing SCOTUS had right in that case was that neither Al Gore's request nor FSC's ruling obeyed the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. Their answer of stopping recounting and declaring a winner knowing many votes were not counted was equally bad, however.
"Even in the NYT", lol. Yeah they sure proved in the run up to war how independent and liberal or whatever else is supposed to imply that if they said Bush still won then he definitely did. The press certainly did phrase it in such a way as to imply that Bush won no matter what, at least in their headlines. But this simply was not the case.
It's all history now, though. I'm much more worried about the future and securing our elections, not a ridiculous travesty of an election 8 years ago. But I would like to say that there is something to that ready-made anti-following.