As a table tennis lover my favourite election game is this one. It took me a while to master the game but now I can secure a Bush defeat on a regular basis.:p
My favourite election drinking game is to take a swig every time President Bush uses the word "freedom" or "free" in a speech. Guaranteed intoxication in three minutes or less.:D
I've been wanting to check out President Bush's site for weeks but have not once managed to connect. Is this a case of a DDOS? Piss-poor capacity planning? Or is access from outside the US being blocked on purpose perhaps?
How can they think that people accessing google news via RSS is bad for them, especially since google is not making money from google news via advertising?
Possibly because the RSS feed can cause people to bypass the google news page and skip directly to the original source of the story (CNN, Reuters, etc). They may not run ads on the news page right now, but they intend to.
Even the biggest, most ethical companies are audited every year*. In fact, the willingnes to submit oneself to external scrutiny sends a much more comforting signal that there is nothing to hide or be ashamed of.
Why shouldn't the same be true for elections?
* Yes, audits of public (and certain private) companies are mandatory not voluntary, but it's the principle of the matter that applies.
This is interesting but surely the more pertinent question is: how many voters see a candidate's science policy as being important enough to influence how they would vote?
The MOU outlining the debate procedures strike me as incredibly anal, cf:
Notwithstanding subparagraph 5(c), the candidates may take notes during the debate on the size, color, and type of paper each prefers and using the type of pen or pencil that each prefers. Each candidate must submit to the staff of the Commission prior to the debate all such paper and pencils with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and the staff of the Commission will place such paper, pens, and pencils on the podium, table, or other structure to be used by the candidate in that debate.
or:
The stools shall be identical and have backs and a footrest and shall be approved by the candidates' representatives.
Mindboggling, but I suppose given the stakes that's not surprising.
I guess the following is to protect Bush or Kerry's ass if either stuffs up majorly:
Neither film footage nor video footage nor any audio excerpts from the debates may be used publicly by either candidate's campaign through any means, including but not limited to, radio, television, internet, or videotapes, whether broadcast or distributed in any other manner.
As if a major faux pas (or pratfall!) wouldn't get media coverage anyway, but I guess it's not as bad as if it was used in an opposition campaign ad...
Can someone explain this to me? I'm not sure what is meant by it:
The candidates shall not address each other with proposed pledges.
But what irks me most is that the format does not allow sufficient time for comprehensive, you know - debate. Come on: 120 seconds for a statement, 90 seconds for a rebuttal and a maximum of a further 60 seconds split between both candidates for extended discussion (and then only at the moderator's discretion)?
Coupled with the following:
The candidates may not ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions.
I know there are a lot of topics and only so much time, but this isn't going to lead to debate (as I understand the term) but a series of extended and pre-rehearsed soundbites. And the inability to actually ask your opponent questions strikes me as stupid and cowardly (what are these guys afraid of?), but I guess I'm used to a parliamentary model where candidates are at each other's throats much more directly.
Incidentally, I wonder how often the domestic/economic questions will be turned into homeland "security" questions, viz economic security, healthcare security, unborn child security, national park preservation... security.
I believe that/. started out as very much a technology-oriented news aggregator. The addition of a politics section is just another sign of the maturation and diversification of the site as "nerds" move more and more into the mainstream of society.
It's clear from the press release and FAQ that it's not going to happen, but I always thought that Star Trek, with its multi-century future history, was perfectly placed to create a MMORPG gaming experience like no other.
Imagine a game where everyone started out as characters in the ENT (or even ST:FC) era. Imagine them having adventures that took them into the 23rd, then 24th centuries (changing characters as necessary... yes, aging could play a part in this game unlike most MMORPGs, or by playing long-lived races like Vulcans).
Imagine players having the opportunity to shape history by partaking in or deciding the outcomes of, key events like the Federation/Klingon wars, Wolf 359, first contact with Cardassians, discovery of the transporter or deflector etc.
Imagine playing the character responsible for introducing TOS-style uniforms into the game, or the character who discovered transwarp, or the character who introduced the Akira-class ship into the fleet, or the character who was responsible for holding AR-558 before Sisko's arrival or... the possibilities are virtually endless.
Eventually, sure, the future history would outstrip the "documented" canon but that wouldn't happen for a few years and the servers could either be re-set or the history extended. (Server launches could be staggered so that there would be a choice of eras for people to play in, for those who were determined to stick to one timeline.)
But given that MMORPG game design is based on the principle of maintaining the status quo while only giving the illusion of advancement and change, this isn't going to happen.
Interview with the Vampire - Best evil vampire ever.... and actually the only role he has ever done that didn't make me cringe. Obviously not Oscar material, but not bad.
Cruise in Magnolia got a well-deserved best supporting actor Oscar nomination. It did make me cringe, but for all the right reasons.
Let's suppose North Korea suddenly stopped acting like they were under seige by the entire world and started feeding their own people and acting like citizens of a greater whole. Countries far and wide might start sending economic and humanitarian aid, foreign investments might increase, and the quality of life would increase. It would, however, mean that the military dictatorships and tyrants would lose control, and control equals power.
Let's suppose the USA suddenly stopped acting like they were under siege by the entire world and started feeding their own people and acting like citizens of a greater whole. Countries far and wide might stop resenting the growing US imperialism, terrorism against US interests might decrease, and the quality of life would increase. It would, however, mean that the neoconservatives would lose control, and control equals power.
Slashdot Mirror
As a table tennis lover my favourite election game is this one. It took me a while to master the game but now I can secure a Bush defeat on a regular basis. :p
:D
My favourite election drinking game is to take a swig every time President Bush uses the word "freedom" or "free" in a speech. Guaranteed intoxication in three minutes or less.
I've been wanting to check out President Bush's site for weeks but have not once managed to connect. Is this a case of a DDOS? Piss-poor capacity planning? Or is access from outside the US being blocked on purpose perhaps?
Possibly because the RSS feed can cause people to bypass the google news page and skip directly to the original source of the story (CNN, Reuters, etc). They may not run ads on the news page right now, but they intend to.
Even the biggest, most ethical companies are audited every year*. In fact, the willingnes to submit oneself to external scrutiny sends a much more comforting signal that there is nothing to hide or be ashamed of.
Why shouldn't the same be true for elections?
* Yes, audits of public (and certain private) companies are mandatory not voluntary, but it's the principle of the matter that applies.
Polly has been heard to croak: "Polly wants a hacker! Polly wants a hacker!"
This is interesting but surely the more pertinent question is: how many voters see a candidate's science policy as being important enough to influence how they would vote?
Let me see if I get this straight...
The US government has set up a website to help overseas Americans to vote.
But it's blocked access to that website by overseas ISPs, the ISPs that overseas American voters would need to use to access that site.
But wait! It's okay - only the big ISPs are blocked... just the ones most American voters are likely to use.
And all this to prevent the site from being hacked.
I guess they had to destroy the global village in order to save it.
or:
Mindboggling, but I suppose given the stakes that's not surprising.
I guess the following is to protect Bush or Kerry's ass if either stuffs up majorly:
As if a major faux pas (or pratfall!) wouldn't get media coverage anyway, but I guess it's not as bad as if it was used in an opposition campaign ad...
Can someone explain this to me? I'm not sure what is meant by it:
But what irks me most is that the format does not allow sufficient time for comprehensive, you know - debate. Come on: 120 seconds for a statement, 90 seconds for a rebuttal and a maximum of a further 60 seconds split between both candidates for extended discussion (and then only at the moderator's discretion)?
Coupled with the following:
I know there are a lot of topics and only so much time, but this isn't going to lead to debate (as I understand the term) but a series of extended and pre-rehearsed soundbites. And the inability to actually ask your opponent questions strikes me as stupid and cowardly (what are these guys afraid of?), but I guess I'm used to a parliamentary model where candidates are at each other's throats much more directly.
Incidentally, I wonder how often the domestic/economic questions will be turned into homeland "security" questions, viz economic security, healthcare security, unborn child security, national park preservation
Yeah - I was hoping the comment would be funny even with the inaccuracy. Going by the moderation I was wrong.
Maybe they're trying to short the stock?
I believe that /. started out as very much a technology-oriented news aggregator. The addition of a politics section is just another sign of the maturation and diversification of the site as "nerds" move more and more into the mainstream of society.
It's clear from the press release and FAQ that it's not going to happen, but I always thought that Star Trek, with its multi-century future history, was perfectly placed to create a MMORPG gaming experience like no other.
... yes, aging could play a part in this game unlike most MMORPGs, or by playing long-lived races like Vulcans).
... the possibilities are virtually endless.
Imagine a game where everyone started out as characters in the ENT (or even ST:FC) era. Imagine them having adventures that took them into the 23rd, then 24th centuries (changing characters as necessary
Imagine players having the opportunity to shape history by partaking in or deciding the outcomes of, key events like the Federation/Klingon wars, Wolf 359, first contact with Cardassians, discovery of the transporter or deflector etc.
Imagine playing the character responsible for introducing TOS-style uniforms into the game, or the character who discovered transwarp, or the character who introduced the Akira-class ship into the fleet, or the character who was responsible for holding AR-558 before Sisko's arrival or
Eventually, sure, the future history would outstrip the "documented" canon but that wouldn't happen for a few years and the servers could either be re-set or the history extended. (Server launches could be staggered so that there would be a choice of eras for people to play in, for those who were determined to stick to one timeline.)
But given that MMORPG game design is based on the principle of maintaining the status quo while only giving the illusion of advancement and change, this isn't going to happen.
Imagine Peter Jackson making a cluster of Beowulf movies using those...
http://www.cfr.org/ The Council on Foreign Relations tries to present non-partisan information on matters global.
So's Angel.
If you violate Italian anti-trust law, you get a slap on the wrist with a wet noodle!
... google had its own slashdot section?
I think I'll give it two.
You obviously haven't seen theirs.
Cruise in Magnolia got a well-deserved best supporting actor Oscar nomination. It did make me cringe, but for all the right reasons.
Star Wars Episode 4 didn't suck.
And if you look at John's username, he probably knows that for a fact.
Let's suppose the USA suddenly stopped acting like they were under siege by the entire world and started feeding their own people and acting like citizens of a greater whole. Countries far and wide might stop resenting the growing US imperialism, terrorism against US interests might decrease, and the quality of life would increase. It would, however, mean that the neoconservatives would lose control, and control equals power.
To procreate rather than recreate.
Everybody needs good neighbours.