Liberate is a highly subjective word. I don't think the Iraqis would consider us liberators since they are dying under the heel of a foreign invader. Would you rather die under Saddams invasion forces, or under your government? Democracy cannot be delivered down the barrel of a gun; it must evolve naturally to be successful. Over the last 50 years the US has removed leaders in the middle east, installed evil regimes as our puppets, and propped up other evil ones as long as they officially support us. It was inevitable that one day all of our interference would blow up in our collective faces.
What bothers me is that 3 of my good friends from high school have died in Iraq; and two of them in unarmored Hummers and one by a thumbnail sized piece of metal that went through the door and just happened to hit a major artery in his leg. Less than a quarter inch piece of steel could have prevented two deaths. Most the people who serve in the military are either there to protect their country, get funding for an education, or both. How is it that we have the most technologically advanced military in history yet don't provide everything possible to protect the people on the ground? We respect them enough to ban images of returning caskets and try to sweep their existence under the rug, but not enough to equip them in the first place. To bad there isn't a way to die for your country without also dying for your government.
Yes, Saddam was not a good man, but I don't remember the President basing his argument on that in his now infamous state of the union address. Imagine if he stood in front of the nation and said that there are no links between Saddam and Bin Laden and Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction and posed no threat to us, but we need to go to war because he is a bad man. I also do not recall that being part of Powell's address to the UN. The excuses for war have evolved slowly over time and represent the frog in the frying pan scenario. By slowly changing your excuses over time you allow the public to change their view and justify the war without pissing off a lot of people. It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I guess that our leaders are so strong that they just don't ever do anything wrong; that they are physically incapable of it.
"If you couldn't vote for Kerry or Bush, who would you choose?"
Because voting for one of the minority parties is a waste. The last one to run of note was Nader and he admitted that he was just trying to get a 5% vote so his party could get funding.
It's a waste as long as popular mentality continues along those lines. The average Libertarian stance is rather Republican concerning business. They usually favor much more limited regulation when compared to the Dems, but propose much, much stronger punishment for offenders when the regulations are violated. They tend to hold more Democratic points of view on social concerns. Since this party would seem to speak more directly to the lower and middle classes I wonder why the 5 corporate media owners don't advertise thier agenda a bit more. The whole wasted vote thing is circular logic, at best.
People from other nations tend to be a lot more aware of the world community
You can back this up yes?
Look at a map of Europe. There are many countries each with their own heritage and idea of society, yet they have thus far been able to operate as part of the EU. Despite the standard squabbling, they must be able to pay attention to the political and social climates of other countries. It's they way they have to operate in order for cooperation. America doesn't really need to cooperate nearly as well since we can just throw our weight around and impose our will on others. I mean, what fun is power if you can't abuse it from time to time?
As far as they knew, Americans were under the same kind of gov't as they were - dictatorship. They had no clue that we vote for our leaders.
And they should respect their occupiers because the minority of US the population voted for its leader? A president who lost the popular vote, deregulation and vastly increased influence of internationl corporate activities, and the gutting of the constitution with the patriot act are not acceptable ways for a respectable democracy operate. How can we be expected to serve as a model of democracy when we can't even practice it? The Democratic and Republican parties combined do represent a dictatorship. They have more political viewpoints in common than in difference. It's like in Soviet Russia when they held elections. You could choose either hard line communist A or hard line communist B. In America you can choose rich, elitist, college frat boy A or rich, elitist, college frat boy B. As long as the preception of freedom exists, the population will remain docile, and the illusion of freedom can continue to reign in place of actual freedom.
So you are saying that Blair, Americas lap dog, has just as much influence as the President of the US? Americans usually choose to be ignorant of the ways of foreigners, which is why Bush makes a great representation of the average person. We live in our own sphere and refuse to believe that outsiders can influence us. People from other nations tend to be a lot more aware of the world community, especially America.
Are we to believe that people in the Bush campaign aren't rich enough to foot the bill for the last week of a site that's been up in one form or another since 1999? While anyone can find a mirror or archive, it's the thought that counts. It's just another example of how, generally speaking, Bush doesn't care about the worlds population unles it suits his agenda. He doesn't read papers or watch the news because he doesn't like what they say. When the world community disagrees with he, he just ignores them and does it his own way, mocking the other countires the whole time, until he shows back up on their doorstep, hat in hand, pleading for help. It sounds like this man lives in his own world.
You know what I would love to see as the next/. poll? "If you couldn't vote for Kerry or Bush, who would you choose?"
I bet most Americans couldn't even name any of the policies of the Libertarian or Green partys, the 2 largest 3rd party candidates. I find it hard to believe that so many people believe all they hype by the media and fail to realize that the Dems and Repubs are unable to represent the majority of the country. Is America so diverse that only two colors can fill in the map of our demographic? Imagine if all the disillusioned voters and non-voters banded together and voted for Nader, the person with the strongest standing on the presidental ballot with a major part of his campaign being to abolish the winner take all electoral system. Even if you don't agree with his policy to pardon all non-violent drug offenders, or make drugs a health and social issue nstead of continuing the failing criminal model, or even if you think his semi-isolationist internationl stance is crap, he and other 3rd party candidates are the only way electoral reform has a shot in hell of happening. The two major parties agree to refuse sharing their power, while America eats its own shit, continuing to believe that the lesser of two evils is an acceptabe mentality in a democracy.
Ummm... How about Americana travelling abroad voting by absentee ballot? Oh, that's right, Americans don't travel abroad any more because we spend half our time saying "I don't know why people voted for him, I didn't, but yea, he's an idiot." It really sucks that when leaving the borders of the U.S. you spend half the time apologizing for a leader that has no respect for the consequences of his (in)actions.
America is like that meathead at the bar. He's the biggest guy in the room, but is nice until he starts drinking. In Bush's case, it's drunk with power. And Saddam is the squirly guy at the end of the bar that America swears is looking at him crosseyed, so he starts talking shit. Americas friends, the Europeans, grab him by the arm and tell him he's drunk, acting like an ass, and embarassing all of them by not acting very civil. So what's America do? He gives his freinds a good, hard shove and yells at teh top of his voice that eh doesn't need to listen to anyone because he can kick everyone's ass in the whole room. His friends walk out the door and leave him to trash the bar and kick that one dudes ass at the end of the bar. The next moringing when hes a bit more sober he realizes that now he needs his buddys to drop some bail money to get him out of trouble and is suprised that they won't pick up the phone.
Congratulations GW, you've turned America into that spoiled, meathead, fratboy, asshole that everyone loves to hate.
Personally, I think he blocked his website for the international community in some half-assed attempt to prevent outside news sources from tearing his propaganda to shreds. I'm actually happy that I live in a red state. That means I don't have to vote for a tool like Kerry just to block Bush. Now I can actually vote for the best person instead of the lesser of two evils. And if anyone else here thinks that the lesser of two evils is a sham of a democracy, you can find out almost anything about the many people running for president, and other offices here. For a good laugh, read throught the NPAT of the guy running on the platform of the United Fascist Union.
It's public awareness. Is there some sort of law that says common publications have to report technological problems to the public 4-5 years after the nerds, geeks, dweebs, and dorks came to a consensus?
Privitizing also reduces what transparency there is left. It's also another degree away from electoral oversight, as far as control is concerned. We don't get to vote corporate leaders in. Why not trim spending where it counts instead of these half-ased attempts? Does Halliburton really need all this money? We know the military can do a lot of it for much less. For all the bitching that goes on about 'big governemnt' at least its bottom line is self-perpetuation instead of profit, like corporations. Which of these would paying for severe illnesses adversely affect more: the pencil pushing government officals, or potential executive bonuses at one of the major insurance providers?
Everyone still treats socialism
as a dirty word, but form where I'm sitting corporations are using advertising and politicians in the design and construction of their own planned economy. If only the consumers were a bit more predictable and calculable they might succeed.
Unfortunately, I think soon as Jon Stewart starts presenting himself as too serious, then he will not be able to get the guests he does, nor be able to act the way he does on show from too much outside pressure.
Face it, TDS has a comparatively well educated, young demographic. Jon is building himself quite a reputation with that demographic. I think he could get away with a second, more legitimate, news show airing right afterwards. With a large and under-represented demographic like his, not appearing on the show could be political suicide. Imagine if Kerry came back on the Monday before the election and let Jon rip him up a bit. Then imagine if Kerry dropped some of the party spin bullshit and said Look... I don't like it, but that's how the system works and if you want change then you have to do it within the bounds of systems' own rules. When you saw me in the debates I couldn't say everything on my mind because that would have scared the old people, and since the young adults watching this program vote in such low numbers, I have to kiss elderly ass to stand a fair chance.
Nobody has any idea how many people are going to vote for the first time this year. Last month I got registered. I actually went downtown and talked the people there. While I was at the desk making idle chit-chat the lady told me that there would be a longer than usual delay in mailing the registration card because of all the new voters this year. She said so far it was over 150,000 (that was the beginning of September). Not bad for a county with only 863,251 people. It's not enough to swing the states electoral vote, but it's a message for the future if I ever saw one. All these polls you see in the paper or on TV have no way to know anything. They don't consider first time voters... at all. I also hope during this Election Day that the networks learn from their mistakes and keep their estimates to themselves. CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX News do not tell us who won the elections because they report whom the official polls say won. They don't need to masterbate peoples sense of instant gratification by estimating the results before people go to bed. This isn't football, we don't need an instant replay, and we don't need John Madden style commentary. This is the person who will be ruling over us for the next 4 years so we can afford to take our time.
>>The Daily Show is the only news channel myself and many people i know watch on a regular basis.
That statement is one that the Daily Show itself states is horribly wrong if ppl's only news source is that show. Stewart has said this a few times.
You missed the point made in the other sentence. That says volumes about not only the quality of that show, but the state of news in this country. He wasn't commenting on the legitimacy of Jon's show, he was making a comment about the legitimacy of 'legitimate' news outlets.
Well, John Steward goes to great pains to describe his own show as "fake news" - and I think he, of all people, should know. Of course he's being disingenuous - many a true word is spoken in jest - but the fact is he's been very careful to leave himself the "comedy show" escape clause, and I'm willing to let him have it.
The one thing I noticed in that clip was that the guys at crossfire we trying to use Jon's interview with Kerry to show that even he couldn't ask tough questions. I will say that I was very disappointed with that episode. I don't know if he choked or what, but it was like watching a Barbra Walters interview. But the comparison between The Daily Show and other outlets is like apples and oranges. I can't believe that news shows criticize Stewart for not asking hard questions when most of their material is based on sophomoric jokes about bodily functions. Why should his show be held to the level of good journalistic ethos, when the journalists themselves can't even reach that goal? Yes, he dropped the ball big time when it came to his interview with Kerry, but that doesn't make his argument about the news media any less valid.
One thing brought up occasionally on Jon's show is the political duopoly that permeates our culture. It doesn't take a genius to discover that America's electoral system is mathematically capable of supporting no more than a two party majority for an extended period of time.* Regardless of your opinion of the Florida debacle last election, it served to backlight many of the shortcomings of a system which hasn't been modified since its inception. Every aspect of our culture and government has evolved in the nearly 200 years since the ratification, except the electoral process. It was designed for a time when few people were formally educated and even fewer were literate, yet it continues to operate under that original premise. For all the differences between the two parties, the historical record shows one topic where they have made an unspoken pact: don't mess with the system. It's been a two party majority forever, and it will stay that way as long as they have a say. Why were the electoral problems on everyone's lips for months afterwards, but no one gives a damn this year? Why is the President's opinion on Row v. Wade a hot button topic, but the President is powerless to make a law around the ruling? Do these people realize that the President has no power to overturn Supreme Court decisions? Does the media remind them about checks and balances so they might consider asking questions about topics he has power over? No, they'd rather ask them about who was doing what 30 years ago in the middle of a war people agree was wrong to start in the first place.
America: The Book was one of the best purchases I've recently made. You will read 'reviews' about how it's a pile of liberal rag. Obviously these 'reviewers' haven't read a word of it because, while making a distinction between parties and poking fun at them both, overall it does something no news outlets are doing. It's criticizing the system as a whole while holding an amazingly centrist position when compared to 'legitimate' publications. And the media is given status is noted as the Fourth Estate, and then completely torn down... no holds barred. The preface (more of a rant) for Chapter 7 is the furthest left the entire book goes.
A free an independent press is essential to the health of a functioning democracy. It serves to inform the voting public on matters relevant to its well-being. Why they've stopped doing that is a mystery. I mean 300 camera crews outside a courthouse to see what Kobe Bryant is wearing when the judge sets his hearing date, while false information used to send our country to go to war goes unchecked? What the fuck happened? These spineless cowards in the press have finally gone too far. They have violated a trust. "Was the President successful in convincing the country?" Who gives a shit? Why not tell us if what he said was t
Yeah, coz alpha was a viable platform until the P4 was released....
The CPU frequency wars didn't kill DEC, but the price of commodity intel hardware helped a lot. To this day DEC systems can still deliver some of the best preformance in relation to the clock speed. Most of the later generations had a bus that could run up to 1/3 of the CPU frequency. This is a feat that stock intel hardware still cant match. By the time intel releases its next generation of P4s (or P5s depending on the marketing team) it probably still won't match that. DEC architecture in general was years ahead of most other workstations/servers. A couple years ago I managed to pick one up from from a used computer store for $300 and fell in love with it. It's only 500MHz, but it will still run circles around any P2, P3, and first generation P4s. The only downside is the cost of upgrades, especially memory or cache.
Hmmm...I thought that historically sanctions (the effective strong arm of diplomacy) were in general considered quite effective. They were certainly effective when just the threat of sanctions were used against the Bush steel policies.
Um... that shows that they are effective against a democracy, which I don't think anyone questions. Sanctions are utterly ineffective against a totalitarian government, because by definition the desires of the government do not reflect the needs of the governed. Sanctions against totalitarian governments harm the populace, while the government is supported by smuggler.
No weapons were found in Iraq and it wasn't posing a threat to any other nations. Sanctions seemed to work there. They did hurt the population though, but then again at least we weren't dropping bombs on them, firing into crowds, or torturing them in prison either. Democracy we deliver.
A great many people still despise japan. They were much worse then the Nazi's in many ways, they killed far more innocent people and behaved much much worse to everybody they conquered. They also never apologized and didn't really care that they are some of the greatest villians in modern history.
So how much longer should we hate the descendants of the perpetrators; 5, 6, or 7 generations? Also, I didn't hear anything about the U.S. apologizing for the nukes, or large scale bombings of population centers in Japan or Europe. Apology is one of those things people do after the fact because it's cheaper than buying their way out. It's otherwise meaningless.
I'm looking for people who specializes in math and sociology that could possibly to put together a formula that demonstrates how a corporation's evilness is directly proportional to its size and/or income.
And I bet that walmart is doing this out of their genuine concern for the people instead of edging out the competition. Anyone want to bet that if they get their way that the prices won't drop? I took a sociology class back in college that was all about walmart, its impact on society and the workforce, its business practices/ethics, and its ability to sway politics/governments/personal opinion. All I have to say about it is that even the most tinfoil anointed slashdotter doesn't know the half of it.
I'm not too happy about the idea of a super grid that the article left me with. As demonstrated by the Northeastern blackout and the California energy crisis in the recent past, deregulation coupled with the fact that energy is now traded like a commodity raises some serious concerns. The infrastructure, as it exists today, has demonstrated that is not designed to handle the tolerances imposed by deregulation and large energy concerns. Vital sysetms, such as high power transmission lines, should not be regularly running anywhere near 100% capacity because it leaves no room for error. We can build a perfect machine, but it would still be operated by humans under the control of corporations. As anyone in an IT related field can tell you, there are bound to be many poor decisions made when you have people who specalize in business and management contoling technology that they have little or no understanding of. The last thing anyone needs is a cascade failure when one set of lines goes down or one circuit breaker trips as a result of over use and/or abuse.
So now we have even more national security data that we can't monitor in real time. What good is all this info supposed to be if we can't use it to stop a problem before it happens? Technology is great at recording, storing, and retrieving information, but I don't see a database server walking down to the beach to make an arrest. Are the politicians considering an increase in the Coast Guard, Port Authority, and other applicable agencies? If not, all this new technology won't do much good.
With enough publicity the average Joe User will learn safe IMing habits...
The average Joe won't learn safe computing habits until Dell, Gateway, HP, and Compaq start issuing keyboards and mice complete with 10,000 volt negative reinforcement "bad user, no treat" features. People with no computer knowledge are the last to admit their ignorance caused their problems.
You must have missed the part where I said it was an old P3 that sits in a closet and is used as a router/firewall/file server. Hell, the only reason there's a monitor and keyboard attached is because they're spares and have nowhere else to go but the closet. I also needed a server so I could SSH into my samba shares. I had the need, the hardware, the linux experience, and a lack of cash, so I think this was the best solution. Also, seeing how this is a basement closet, heat isn't exactly one of my concerns. I have to tape over the air vents because even in the dead of summer, it's too damn cold with the A/C on.
So your kernel is way out of date, and you've probably got a ton of remote exploits!
Mmm, love that Open Source Quality.
Who cares about uptimes? Unless your box happens to be a database server or something, which I highly doubt.
Bad troll. *smack* You don't have to go to runlevel 6 just to patch some softwre. My Linux box is an older P3 that I use as a NAT, firewall, router, VPN end point, and file server. I guess you haevn't touched Linux much and are a Windows script kiddie since you seem to be under the impression that all patches and upgrades require a full reboot. Yea, it's running 2.4 kernel but I have no need to waste my time by upgrading to a kernel that won't give me any features that are worth the effort. This is a box that sits in a closet 99.99% of the time.
i'm no world class guru and i find myself on year 2 of a stable XP install with no firewalls or virus scanners, other than being NATted and knowing where not to step on the web.
Yeah, definately not a guru.
I hate to tell you this, but the problem with x86 has always been Windows. The BSOD was not built in at chip level. I'm writing this on a Linux box that hasn't been rebooted since March.
Slashdot Mirror
Liberate is a highly subjective word. I don't think the Iraqis would consider us liberators since they are dying under the heel of a foreign invader. Would you rather die under Saddams invasion forces, or under your government? Democracy cannot be delivered down the barrel of a gun; it must evolve naturally to be successful. Over the last 50 years the US has removed leaders in the middle east, installed evil regimes as our puppets, and propped up other evil ones as long as they officially support us. It was inevitable that one day all of our interference would blow up in our collective faces.
What bothers me is that 3 of my good friends from high school have died in Iraq; and two of them in unarmored Hummers and one by a thumbnail sized piece of metal that went through the door and just happened to hit a major artery in his leg. Less than a quarter inch piece of steel could have prevented two deaths. Most the people who serve in the military are either there to protect their country, get funding for an education, or both. How is it that we have the most technologically advanced military in history yet don't provide everything possible to protect the people on the ground? We respect them enough to ban images of returning caskets and try to sweep their existence under the rug, but not enough to equip them in the first place. To bad there isn't a way to die for your country without also dying for your government.
Yes, Saddam was not a good man, but I don't remember the President basing his argument on that in his now infamous state of the union address. Imagine if he stood in front of the nation and said that there are no links between Saddam and Bin Laden and Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction and posed no threat to us, but we need to go to war because he is a bad man. I also do not recall that being part of Powell's address to the UN. The excuses for war have evolved slowly over time and represent the frog in the frying pan scenario. By slowly changing your excuses over time you allow the public to change their view and justify the war without pissing off a lot of people. It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I guess that our leaders are so strong that they just don't ever do anything wrong; that they are physically incapable of it.
Look at a map of Europe. There are many countries each with their own heritage and idea of society, yet they have thus far been able to operate as part of the EU. Despite the standard squabbling, they must be able to pay attention to the political and social climates of other countries. It's they way they have to operate in order for cooperation. America doesn't really need to cooperate nearly as well since we can just throw our weight around and impose our will on others. I mean, what fun is power if you can't abuse it from time to time?
And they should respect their occupiers because the minority of US the population voted for its leader? A president who lost the popular vote, deregulation and vastly increased influence of internationl corporate activities, and the gutting of the constitution with the patriot act are not acceptable ways for a respectable democracy operate. How can we be expected to serve as a model of democracy when we can't even practice it? The Democratic and Republican parties combined do represent a dictatorship. They have more political viewpoints in common than in difference. It's like in Soviet Russia when they held elections. You could choose either hard line communist A or hard line communist B. In America you can choose rich, elitist, college frat boy A or rich, elitist, college frat boy B. As long as the preception of freedom exists, the population will remain docile, and the illusion of freedom can continue to reign in place of actual freedom.
So you are saying that Blair, Americas lap dog, has just as much influence as the President of the US? Americans usually choose to be ignorant of the ways of foreigners, which is why Bush makes a great representation of the average person. We live in our own sphere and refuse to believe that outsiders can influence us. People from other nations tend to be a lot more aware of the world community, especially America.
/. poll? "If you couldn't vote for Kerry or Bush, who would you choose?"
Are we to believe that people in the Bush campaign aren't rich enough to foot the bill for the last week of a site that's been up in one form or another since 1999? While anyone can find a mirror or archive, it's the thought that counts. It's just another example of how, generally speaking, Bush doesn't care about the worlds population unles it suits his agenda. He doesn't read papers or watch the news because he doesn't like what they say. When the world community disagrees with he, he just ignores them and does it his own way, mocking the other countires the whole time, until he shows back up on their doorstep, hat in hand, pleading for help. It sounds like this man lives in his own world.
You know what I would love to see as the next
I bet most Americans couldn't even name any of the policies of the Libertarian or Green partys, the 2 largest 3rd party candidates. I find it hard to believe that so many people believe all they hype by the media and fail to realize that the Dems and Repubs are unable to represent the majority of the country. Is America so diverse that only two colors can fill in the map of our demographic? Imagine if all the disillusioned voters and non-voters banded together and voted for Nader, the person with the strongest standing on the presidental ballot with a major part of his campaign being to abolish the winner take all electoral system. Even if you don't agree with his policy to pardon all non-violent drug offenders, or make drugs a health and social issue nstead of continuing the failing criminal model, or even if you think his semi-isolationist internationl stance is crap, he and other 3rd party candidates are the only way electoral reform has a shot in hell of happening. The two major parties agree to refuse sharing their power, while America eats its own shit, continuing to believe that the lesser of two evils is an acceptabe mentality in a democracy.
Ummm... How about Americana travelling abroad voting by absentee ballot? Oh, that's right, Americans don't travel abroad any more because we spend half our time saying "I don't know why people voted for him, I didn't, but yea, he's an idiot." It really sucks that when leaving the borders of the U.S. you spend half the time apologizing for a leader that has no respect for the consequences of his (in)actions.
America is like that meathead at the bar. He's the biggest guy in the room, but is nice until he starts drinking. In Bush's case, it's drunk with power. And Saddam is the squirly guy at the end of the bar that America swears is looking at him crosseyed, so he starts talking shit. Americas friends, the Europeans, grab him by the arm and tell him he's drunk, acting like an ass, and embarassing all of them by not acting very civil. So what's America do? He gives his freinds a good, hard shove and yells at teh top of his voice that eh doesn't need to listen to anyone because he can kick everyone's ass in the whole room.
His friends walk out the door and leave him to trash the bar and kick that one dudes ass at the end of the bar. The next moringing when hes a bit more sober he realizes that now he needs his buddys to drop some bail money to get him out of trouble and is suprised that they won't pick up the phone.
Congratulations GW, you've turned America into that spoiled, meathead, fratboy, asshole that everyone loves to hate.
Personally, I think he blocked his website for the international community in some half-assed attempt to prevent outside news sources from tearing his propaganda to shreds. I'm actually happy that I live in a red state. That means I don't have to vote for a tool like Kerry just to block Bush. Now I can actually vote for the best person instead of the lesser of two evils. And if anyone else here thinks that the lesser of two evils is a sham of a democracy, you can find out almost anything about the many people running for president, and other offices here. For a good laugh, read throught the NPAT of the guy running on the platform of the United Fascist Union.
I wonder how the broadcast flag, Microsoft, HD-TV, and DRM are going to play out.
It's public awareness. Is there some sort of law that says common publications have to report technological problems to the public 4-5 years after the nerds, geeks, dweebs, and dorks came to a consensus?
Privitizing also reduces what transparency there is left. It's also another degree away from electoral oversight, as far as control is concerned. We don't get to vote corporate leaders in. Why not trim spending where it counts instead of these half-ased attempts? Does Halliburton really need all this money? We know the military can do a lot of it for much less. For all the bitching that goes on about 'big governemnt' at least its bottom line is self-perpetuation instead of profit, like corporations. Which of these would paying for severe illnesses adversely affect more: the pencil pushing government officals, or potential executive bonuses at one of the major insurance providers?
Everyone still treats socialism as a dirty word, but form where I'm sitting corporations are using advertising and politicians in the design and construction of their own planned economy. If only the consumers were a bit more predictable and calculable they might succeed.
Unfortunately, I think soon as Jon Stewart starts presenting himself as too serious, then he will not be able to get the guests he does, nor be able to act the way he does on show from too much outside pressure.
Face it, TDS has a comparatively well educated, young demographic. Jon is building himself quite a reputation with that demographic. I think he could get away with a second, more legitimate, news show airing right afterwards. With a large and under-represented demographic like his, not appearing on the show could be political suicide. Imagine if Kerry came back on the Monday before the election and let Jon rip him up a bit. Then imagine if Kerry dropped some of the party spin bullshit and said Look... I don't like it, but that's how the system works and if you want change then you have to do it within the bounds of systems' own rules. When you saw me in the debates I couldn't say everything on my mind because that would have scared the old people, and since the young adults watching this program vote in such low numbers, I have to kiss elderly ass to stand a fair chance.
Nobody has any idea how many people are going to vote for the first time this year. Last month I got registered. I actually went downtown and talked the people there. While I was at the desk making idle chit-chat the lady told me that there would be a longer than usual delay in mailing the registration card because of all the new voters this year. She said so far it was over 150,000 (that was the beginning of September). Not bad for a county with only 863,251 people. It's not enough to swing the states electoral vote, but it's a message for the future if I ever saw one. All these polls you see in the paper or on TV have no way to know anything. They don't consider first time voters... at all. I also hope during this Election Day that the networks learn from their mistakes and keep their estimates to themselves. CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX News do not tell us who won the elections because they report whom the official polls say won. They don't need to masterbate peoples sense of instant gratification by estimating the results before people go to bed. This isn't football, we don't need an instant replay, and we don't need John Madden style commentary. This is the person who will be ruling over us for the next 4 years so we can afford to take our time.
The one thing I noticed in that clip was that the guys at crossfire we trying to use Jon's interview with Kerry to show that even he couldn't ask tough questions. I will say that I was very disappointed with that episode. I don't know if he choked or what, but it was like watching a Barbra Walters interview. But the comparison between The Daily Show and other outlets is like apples and oranges. I can't believe that news shows criticize Stewart for not asking hard questions when most of their material is based on sophomoric jokes about bodily functions. Why should his show be held to the level of good journalistic ethos, when the journalists themselves can't even reach that goal? Yes, he dropped the ball big time when it came to his interview with Kerry, but that doesn't make his argument about the news media any less valid.
One thing brought up occasionally on Jon's show is the political duopoly that permeates our culture. It doesn't take a genius to discover that America's electoral system is mathematically capable of supporting no more than a two party majority for an extended period of time.* Regardless of your opinion of the Florida debacle last election, it served to backlight many of the shortcomings of a system which hasn't been modified since its inception. Every aspect of our culture and government has evolved in the nearly 200 years since the ratification, except the electoral process. It was designed for a time when few people were formally educated and even fewer were literate, yet it continues to operate under that original premise. For all the differences between the two parties, the historical record shows one topic where they have made an unspoken pact: don't mess with the system. It's been a two party majority forever, and it will stay that way as long as they have a say. Why were the electoral problems on everyone's lips for months afterwards, but no one gives a damn this year? Why is the President's opinion on Row v. Wade a hot button topic, but the President is powerless to make a law around the ruling? Do these people realize that the President has no power to overturn Supreme Court decisions? Does the media remind them about checks and balances so they might consider asking questions about topics he has power over? No, they'd rather ask them about who was doing what 30 years ago in the middle of a war people agree was wrong to start in the first place.
America: The Book was one of the best purchases I've recently made. You will read 'reviews' about how it's a pile of liberal rag. Obviously these 'reviewers' haven't read a word of it because, while making a distinction between parties and poking fun at them both, overall it does something no news outlets are doing. It's criticizing the system as a whole while holding an amazingly centrist position when compared to 'legitimate' publications. And the media is given status is noted as the Fourth Estate, and then completely torn down... no holds barred. The preface (more of a rant) for Chapter 7 is the furthest left the entire book goes.
A free an independent press is essential to the health of a functioning democracy. It serves to inform the voting public on matters relevant to its well-being. Why they've stopped doing that is a mystery. I mean 300 camera crews outside a courthouse to see what Kobe Bryant is wearing when the judge sets his hearing date, while false information used to send our country to go to war goes unchecked? What the fuck happened? These spineless cowards in the press have finally gone too far. They have violated a trust. "Was the President successful in convincing the country?" Who gives a shit? Why not tell us if what he said was t
Yeah, coz alpha was a viable platform until the P4 was released....
The CPU frequency wars didn't kill DEC, but the price of commodity intel hardware helped a lot. To this day DEC systems can still deliver some of the best preformance in relation to the clock speed. Most of the later generations had a bus that could run up to 1/3 of the CPU frequency. This is a feat that stock intel hardware still cant match. By the time intel releases its next generation of P4s (or P5s depending on the marketing team) it probably still won't match that. DEC architecture in general was years ahead of most other workstations/servers. A couple years ago I managed to pick one up from from a used computer store for $300 and fell in love with it. It's only 500MHz, but it will still run circles around any P2, P3, and first generation P4s. The only downside is the cost of upgrades, especially memory or cache.
I'm looking for people who specializes in math and sociology that could possibly to put together a formula that demonstrates how a corporation's evilness is directly proportional to its size and/or income.
And I bet that walmart is doing this out of their genuine concern for the people instead of edging out the competition. Anyone want to bet that if they get their way that the prices won't drop? I took a sociology class back in college that was all about walmart, its impact on society and the workforce, its business practices/ethics, and its ability to sway politics/governments/personal opinion. All I have to say about it is that even the most tinfoil anointed slashdotter doesn't know the half of it.
I'm not too happy about the idea of a super grid that the article left me with. As demonstrated by the Northeastern blackout and the California energy crisis in the recent past, deregulation coupled with the fact that energy is now traded like a commodity raises some serious concerns. The infrastructure, as it exists today, has demonstrated that is not designed to handle the tolerances imposed by deregulation and large energy concerns. Vital sysetms, such as high power transmission lines, should not be regularly running anywhere near 100% capacity because it leaves no room for error. We can build a perfect machine, but it would still be operated by humans under the control of corporations. As anyone in an IT related field can tell you, there are bound to be many poor decisions made when you have people who specalize in business and management contoling technology that they have little or no understanding of. The last thing anyone needs is a cascade failure when one set of lines goes down or one circuit breaker trips as a result of over use and/or abuse.
Brought to you by the same people that guaranteed WMDs in Iraq and Osama captured within a year, and a link betwen them.
Netscape 0.9x thru 3.04 and 3.04 Gold thru Current
For the Mac nuts out there. Be gentle, it an Earthlink account.
Yes, because if there is one thing the government is good at, it would be respecting peoples privacy and safeguarding personal information.
So now we have even more national security data that we can't monitor in real time. What good is all this info supposed to be if we can't use it to stop a problem before it happens? Technology is great at recording, storing, and retrieving information, but I don't see a database server walking down to the beach to make an arrest. Are the politicians considering an increase in the Coast Guard, Port Authority, and other applicable agencies? If not, all this new technology won't do much good.
With enough publicity the average Joe User will learn safe IMing habits...
The average Joe won't learn safe computing habits until Dell, Gateway, HP, and Compaq start issuing keyboards and mice complete with 10,000 volt negative reinforcement "bad user, no treat" features. People with no computer knowledge are the last to admit their ignorance caused their problems.
It is precisely that line of thinking that kept Ross Perot from winning.
Ross Perot is what kept Ross Perot from winning.
You must have missed the part where I said it was an old P3 that sits in a closet and is used as a router/firewall/file server. Hell, the only reason there's a monitor and keyboard attached is because they're spares and have nowhere else to go but the closet. I also needed a server so I could SSH into my samba shares. I had the need, the hardware, the linux experience, and a lack of cash, so I think this was the best solution. Also, seeing how this is a basement closet, heat isn't exactly one of my concerns. I have to tape over the air vents because even in the dead of summer, it's too damn cold with the A/C on.
I hate to tell you this, but the problem with x86 has always been Windows. The BSOD was not built in at chip level. I'm writing this on a Linux box that hasn't been rebooted since March.