Well, this shouldn't really surprise longtime slashdot readers. We have seen webserver-on-chip before, and talked a lot about VoIP. When they make VoIP phones, it provides an argument for regulating VoIP in the same manner as regular phones.
What I want to see are VoIP/domestic wireless/cell combo phones. The Motorola CN620 combines WiFi and GSM, but I'd like a phone that could connect to a landline base station too. (So you can use it around the house even if the VoIP and cell service are gone. Well, über-geeks will make their own alternative VoIP route to the landline if the TCP/IP connection drops out.)
Who says they won't? This time, maybe Florida will be able to get the felons off the rolls? Or as TFA says, purge them from the rolls, and when they show up to vote anyway let them cast a ballot and then remove it. Will they be counting and contesting untill the next election?
For your information, the U.S. has allready admitted to having large amounts of weapons of mass destruction, namely nuclear weapons, ready for use. The U.S. and Russia also keep reference samples of biological agents for use in counteracting biological weapons.
You may be interested to know that there are actually inspection/monitoring systems set up to monitor test ban treaties and such. So yes, the U.S. might be inspected, but I'm not sure it would be by the U.N. but rather by other states. The U.N. Headquarters is situated in the larges city in the U.S. The open nature of the U.S. society, and the seismiological and radiological monitoring stations around the world help to reveal any test of a nuclear weapon on the planet. If I recall correctly, there is allready in place an agreement not to use nuclear weapons in space. New nuclear powers and any alien governments haven't signed that treaty.
Not specifically related to WMD, is the Open Skies Treaty, which allows other countries to do reconnaissance flights over the U.S.
(The moderators said this was Interesting, so you get a matter-of-fact reply.)
Dude! I read that as "Hair on chest". Read slashdot while drowsy, be creeped out.
Seriously, though, tiny see-through hairs are natural, but not thick hair. If you're a seriously underweight girl, you risk getting more body hair growth to compensate for the loss of body heat.
I.E IF THE REST OF THE WORLD WOULD LIKE KERRY AS POTUS BECAUSE HE'LL BE A PUSHOVER REGARDING OUR FOREIGN POLICY, WE'D BE WELL ADVISED TO VOTE FOR BUSH!
It's not spite! It's a logical argument.
Yes, as I said it was. The "IF...." part of it is what makes it a valid point, in my opinion. Now the debate moves on to wether or not they want Kerry because he's weaker, which I guess some of them do, or for some other reason. (And wether or not Kerry will be a weaker president.)
Reading the subject of your post, I pondered about going for the "Oooh! I guess I touched a nerve!" response that morons give when they get hot reactions to their stupid statements. I won't, because I'm not sure what your response has to do with that first paragraph of mine.
I was musing about what might possibly be additional reasons for people's feelings; instead of just covering the same old ground.
I didn't get the talking points memo. Do you mean that I repeat talking points; or that I mentioned 9/11 and, allthough I didn't mention any talking points, that makes my post worse/"redundanter" than a talking point post?
shameful leveraging 9/11 for political gain
I know what you mean. I had hoped that there would be bi-partisan agreement about security policy, which there pretty much was over Afghanistan, but was not over Iraq. I see 9/11 "leveraging" coming from both sides, in varying degrees and shapes, with the Republicans focusing on America coming together being strong and defeating the enemy, and the Democrats focusing on how Bush is falling out with foreign leaders. Then you have the loons that blame 9/11 on Bush, or say that Kerry wants to destroy America. (Maybe the loons are right, but I wouldn't bank on it.)
president you got down there You're addressing the U.S. audience, but I think I have you beat for most northern latitude (~64 degrees).
(...of which most of that time he spent on holiday!) New math AND bunk sources.
insane occupation of Iraq.
The occupation isn't that insane as occupations go, but the run-up to it was an international asylum. With Bush and Chirac as the loons of the month. I'll admit that. Really subtle of them.
Mama Fox
Do you get Fox News Channel down there in Canada? Except for the Rathergate thing, I think most network news are fine, but I don't have Fox to compare to.
Its high time that the smarter more conscientious portion of America steps up and takes control of the bus.
Yes, because those who agree with you are so 1337.
The fact that the rest of the world wants a change in leaders here in the U.S. is reason enough to vote for G.W.Bush for four more years!
That's despotism sympathizer reasoning. Most of the rest of the world wanted Saddam to go. Should that be a reason to vote for him, provided the Iraqis had a real choice? Your first sentence made a lot more sense, while not all would agree with it.
On a personal note, a friend of mine caught me in basing an opinion on spite. That helped me think through it.
Did Kofi Annan's obviously politically motivated 2-years-too-late statement Was that timing not the result of being pressed on the issue by a reporter? The U.S. still cites the cease fire.
My point is, every Country is looking out for themselves and their citizens first, and the rest of the world comes second. Just as it should. I don't agree. In some issues, you should care for other people, even if they are in another country. Like giving humanitarian aid. In some cases it's a give-and-take situation were both parties get more from a deal than they would without.
Using the well what about them argument is just plain ridiculous So saying "Why don't we invade all the other dictatorships when we invaded Iraq?" is ridiculous to you? You must not have gotten the memo.
They should have included Jackson Kirk Grimes as a CowboyNeal option just to test that theory. And the pollsters would not be allowed to tell them anything more about the candidates than what the responders allready knew.
Is sex the only thing that can get you into trouble? ?;) No, I think being unfaithful to your spouse is not an impeachable crime. Party on! Forget about the next election. But prejury might get you into trouble.
GWB, Rudy Giuliani, and all those people are reminding us of something bad, the 9/11 attacks and the following wars. Many nations were forced to take a stand, and they don't like that. If Bush went away, maybe terrorism would go away as well? That's on a subconsious level.
On an intellectual level, there's the impression that the U.S. broke away from the U.N. The world would have wished for a unanimous Security Council resolution in the style of Operations Desert Shield&Storm, instead the U.S. is basing the legailty of the invation on cease fire violations by Saddam Hussein's regime. The U.S. is such a ferocious military power, that seeing it operate outside its old patterns scares other nations. And what kind of precedent does it establish? If you feel that a country presents a danger, you're allowed to attack it first. Pre-emption. What if China or Russia does that to a country that we like. (Ignoring all the WMD resolutions.) Plus, we have heard allmost nothing about the econimic interests France and Russia had in Iraq. And the food-for-oil corruption is a non-story. Although the situation on the ground in Iraq would be just as bad with a U.N. force, the situation in the rest of the world would be better if there was a clear Security Council mandate for the action.
And shouting "Terrorist" over and over isnt an issue, it isnt a platform No, but protecting your country from terrorism is a serious issue.
The word is "Successors", right? He wanted to preserve them for his successors.
There must be some kind of bi-partisan time-travel scheeme at work here. Or maybe that episode from Futurama with Nixon's head is becomming reality. That would be so cool! Go mechs!
From these figures, one can guess that the influence from lobbyists was much greater than from campaign contributions.
If that includes paid dinners etc., that could also have the appearance of corruption. Let's stifle the flow of money that could potentially be traded for political favours.
Perhaps they have to spend more on lobbying to get the same influence as the campaign contributions would have?
Not only will public interest groups be able to lobby almost as effectively as before, but they will also no longer have to compete with highly paid professional lobbying firms.
"Environmental" and other NGOs also employ paid lobbyists.
You propose a ( )technical (x)legal solution to lobbyist influence. I don't know wether or not it's worth it. I agree with campaign finance laws, because it reduces the appearance of corruption by special interest groups, industry, unions etc. But otlawing paid information/lobby/PR firms from operating will be even harder to uphold. (Not to mention that getting such laws passed would be difficult.) Should we outlaw firms from putting together talking points memos and packages that being used by volunteers? What are the standards delineating employees volunteering and employees, like a communications manager or press secretary, being de facto paid lobbyists?
Actually, this is one of the few matters in which politicians actually know more about the issue than the average voters do. But they also are legislating themselves on this issue.
I think the most important thing is that the politicians being lobbied should be aware of the games that are being played. They should know wether the lobbyists have divulged their agenda, their information sources, and wether or not all the people they pruport to represent actually support the lobbyists' position. Campaign finance laws takes some of the money out of the equation, so being lobbied by those who paid for your campaign is less of an issue, but not a non-issue.
I propose that we follow up on campaign finance laws before starting to legislate people's access to speak to their elected representatives.
Yes, but to get the money they'll have to fork out another $3000 to become a member of the exclusive donkey porn club that the scriptkiddie put his money into. Or they could take a shortcut and just send the National Guard to take over Lindon, Utah and Baton Rouge, Florida.
From: Lisa It's over. I'm going to stay with Darl.
The computer then reads out "End of message" while you're running out of the car, going "WTF?!?!!1"
BTW: I think there might be a need to disable the screen while there's only one person in the car and it's moving. Reading a computer screen down on the consolle while steering the car would lead to accidents, I think. Even when projecting the screen on the windshield, it should show as little distracting information as possible.
And without Moore, maybe there might be more room for some REAL stories about Bush's shortcommings and failures?
The climate policies (a bi-partisan screw-up), how the Bush admin and the French and Germans used the media to negotiate over Iraq, the steel tarrifs (now given up).
Watching people fall for propaganda tickles my elitist zones, but what the U.S. voters do affects me as well, even over here in Europe. How about reforming the election process? No, no debate about that, although I think the Republicans would fight that. As long as the Democrats Against Normal Bush get somebody else in the Whitehouse, they'll be happy.
I tell you: Michael Moore is like Bill Gates and Darl McBride rolled into one.
Well, maybe because they believe in a deck-of-cards theory. If you take away all the little deceptions, the "message" suffers. Mistakes I can understand. Also bias and commentary. Some people choose to disregard a message based on who is saying it or who is backing it. I choose to disregard messages that are sold by lies. (Well, Obi-Wan lied to Luke from a certain point of view.)
Read the sources. This time he gives sources, and I suggest you actually look into them. In the past, he has included in his references sources that actually refute his claims. I'm unsure of how prevalent that is in this instance, but some people are complaining allready. His attempt to back up Bowling for Columbine, Wacko Attacko's, did not have much substance, for example.
If you really take an interest, you can read The Dave Kopel article and compare it with what Moore says.
Lying without uttering a false sentence? What I'd like to have somebody do, preferably one from each "side", is go through F911 and find out wether Moore actually makes any false statement. No doubt he's lying with film and doing some Soviet Russia document revision, but saying something like "In his first eight months in office before September 11, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time.", that can't be a direct lie because the paper actually wrote that. Wether he actually WAS on vacation 42% of the time makes no difference to a rigid parsing of that statement.
And Farenhype911 just looks like talking heads to me. The Mike Wilson movie looks funnier.
Well, they should try to stay more internally consistent, and not make up new science to solve a problem all out of nothing. But yes, maybe they should take Star Trek into the future with new discoveries and more advanced tech. What would it take to put in a wow-factor, with new technology that is unheard of not only in everyday life, but little known in mainstream skiffy today? The thing about Trek is that the technology you see there is put there as a Swiss army knife to give the writers the highest degree of freedom possible. Want to not waste time on travel? Transporter. Not waste time on setting up communications? Communicator. A story about the old West or today? Timetravel and holodeck. Then there's the unlimited supply of new races and the reset button, but that's not a technology issue.
I like the replicators. I like the replicators. That's something that's just about as far away from achievable as the transporter is. But it could introduce new issues of copyright violation:-)
Sersiously, I don't think the lack of flashy gadgets is Trek's biggest problem. It's how the technology is used to tell a story about the human condition, how we embrace technology and deal with each other.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, this shouldn't really surprise longtime slashdot readers. We have seen webserver-on-chip before, and talked a lot about VoIP.
When they make VoIP phones, it provides an argument for regulating VoIP in the same manner as regular phones.
What I want to see are VoIP/domestic wireless/cell combo phones. The Motorola CN620 combines WiFi and GSM, but I'd like a phone that could connect to a landline base station too. (So you can use it around the house even if the VoIP and cell service are gone. Well, über-geeks will make their own alternative VoIP route to the landline if the TCP/IP connection drops out.)
Who says they won't? This time, maybe Florida will be able to get the felons off the rolls? Or as TFA says, purge them from the rolls, and when they show up to vote anyway let them cast a ballot and then remove it. Will they be counting and contesting untill the next election?
For your information, the U.S. has allready admitted to having large amounts of weapons of mass destruction, namely nuclear weapons, ready for use. The U.S. and Russia also keep reference samples of biological agents for use in counteracting biological weapons.
You may be interested to know that there are actually inspection/monitoring systems set up to monitor test ban treaties and such. So yes, the U.S. might be inspected, but I'm not sure it would be by the U.N. but rather by other states.
The U.N. Headquarters is situated in the larges city in the U.S. The open nature of the U.S. society, and the seismiological and radiological monitoring stations around the world help to reveal any test of a nuclear weapon on the planet. If I recall correctly, there is allready in place an agreement not to use nuclear weapons in space. New nuclear powers and any alien governments haven't signed that treaty.
Not specifically related to WMD, is the Open Skies Treaty, which allows other countries to do reconnaissance flights over the U.S.
(The moderators said this was Interesting, so you get a matter-of-fact reply.)
Yeah, but then they'll probably have to post it as a front-page article. Non-news on slashdot. This must be the first time that's happened.
This is what I'm talking 'bout: close-ups05 That kind of fine hair is fine.
5) Hair - too perfect.
6) Skin on chest
Dude! I read that as "Hair on chest".
Read slashdot while drowsy, be creeped out.
Seriously, though, tiny see-through hairs are natural, but not thick hair. If you're a seriously underweight girl, you risk getting more body hair growth to compensate for the loss of body heat.
I.E IF THE REST OF THE WORLD WOULD LIKE KERRY AS POTUS BECAUSE HE'LL BE A PUSHOVER REGARDING OUR FOREIGN POLICY, WE'D BE WELL ADVISED TO VOTE FOR BUSH!
It's not spite! It's a logical argument.
Yes, as I said it was. The "IF...." part of it is what makes it a valid point, in my opinion. Now the debate moves on to wether or not they want Kerry because he's weaker, which I guess some of them do, or for some other reason. (And wether or not Kerry will be a weaker president.)
Reading the subject of your post, I pondered about going for the "Oooh! I guess I touched a nerve!" response that morons give when they get hot reactions to their stupid statements. I won't, because I'm not sure what your response has to do with that first paragraph of mine.
I was musing about what might possibly be additional reasons for people's feelings; instead of just covering the same old ground.
I didn't get the talking points memo. Do you mean that I repeat talking points; or that I mentioned 9/11 and, allthough I didn't mention any talking points, that makes my post worse/"redundanter" than a talking point post?
shameful leveraging 9/11 for political gain
I know what you mean. I had hoped that there would be bi-partisan agreement about security policy, which there pretty much was over Afghanistan, but was not over Iraq.
I see 9/11 "leveraging" coming from both sides, in varying degrees and shapes, with the Republicans focusing on America coming together being strong and defeating the enemy, and the Democrats focusing on how Bush is falling out with foreign leaders. Then you have the loons that blame 9/11 on Bush, or say that Kerry wants to destroy America. (Maybe the loons are right, but I wouldn't bank on it.)
president you got down there
You're addressing the U.S. audience, but I think I have you beat for most northern latitude (~64 degrees).
(...of which most of that time he spent on holiday!)
New math AND bunk sources.
insane occupation of Iraq.
The occupation isn't that insane as occupations go, but the run-up to it was an international asylum. With Bush and Chirac as the loons of the month. I'll admit that. Really subtle of them.
Mama Fox
Do you get Fox News Channel down there in Canada? Except for the Rathergate thing, I think most network news are fine, but I don't have Fox to compare to.
Its high time that the smarter more conscientious portion of America steps up and takes control of the bus.
Yes, because those who agree with you are so 1337.
The fact that the rest of the world wants a change in leaders here in the U.S. is reason enough to vote for G.W.Bush for four more years!
That's despotism sympathizer reasoning. Most of the rest of the world wanted Saddam to go. Should that be a reason to vote for him, provided the Iraqis had a real choice?
Your first sentence made a lot more sense, while not all would agree with it.
On a personal note, a friend of mine caught me in basing an opinion on spite. That helped me think through it.
Did Kofi Annan's obviously politically motivated 2-years-too-late statement
Was that timing not the result of being pressed on the issue by a reporter?
The U.S. still cites the cease fire.
My point is, every Country is looking out for themselves and their citizens first, and the rest of the world comes second. Just as it should.
I don't agree. In some issues, you should care for other people, even if they are in another country. Like giving humanitarian aid. In some cases it's a give-and-take situation were both parties get more from a deal than they would without.
Using the well what about them argument is just plain ridiculous
So saying "Why don't we invade all the other dictatorships when we invaded Iraq?" is ridiculous to you? You must not have gotten the memo.
I'll be sure to tell my Nigerian roommate.
They don't 'want Kerry'
The[y] don't want Bush.
They should have included Jackson Kirk Grimes as a CowboyNeal option just to test that theory. And the pollsters would not be allowed to tell them anything more about the candidates than what the responders allready knew.
Vote for Clinton in 2008
The same poll also showed the rest of the world also wanted a weaker United States.
Where did you find this?
Why is this IMO stupid article being posted on Slashdot anyway?
To justify the new politics section?
It is news, after all.
They should have polled me, I'm Norwegian.
Is sex the only thing that can get you into trouble? ? ;)
No, I think being unfaithful to your spouse is not an impeachable crime. Party on! Forget about the next election.
But prejury might get you into trouble.
GWB, Rudy Giuliani, and all those people are reminding us of something bad, the 9/11 attacks and the following wars. Many nations were forced to take a stand, and they don't like that. If Bush went away, maybe terrorism would go away as well?
That's on a subconsious level.
On an intellectual level, there's the impression that the U.S. broke away from the U.N. The world would have wished for a unanimous Security Council resolution in the style of Operations Desert Shield&Storm, instead the U.S. is basing the legailty of the invation on cease fire violations by Saddam Hussein's regime. The U.S. is such a ferocious military power, that seeing it operate outside its old patterns scares other nations. And what kind of precedent does it establish? If you feel that a country presents a danger, you're allowed to attack it first. Pre-emption. What if China or Russia does that to a country that we like. (Ignoring all the WMD resolutions.)
Plus, we have heard allmost nothing about the econimic interests France and Russia had in Iraq. And the food-for-oil corruption is a non-story.
Although the situation on the ground in Iraq would be just as bad with a U.N. force, the situation in the rest of the world would be better if there was a clear Security Council mandate for the action.
And shouting "Terrorist" over and over isnt an issue, it isnt a platform
No, but protecting your country from terrorism is a serious issue.
The word is "Successors", right? He wanted to preserve them for his successors.
There must be some kind of bi-partisan time-travel scheeme at work here. Or maybe that episode from Futurama with Nixon's head is becomming reality. That would be so cool! Go mechs!
From these figures, one can guess that the influence from lobbyists was much greater than from campaign contributions.
If that includes paid dinners etc., that could also have the appearance of corruption. Let's stifle the flow of money that could potentially be traded for political favours.
Perhaps they have to spend more on lobbying to get the same influence as the campaign contributions would have?
Not only will public interest groups be able to lobby almost as effectively as before, but they will also no longer have to compete with highly paid professional lobbying firms.
"Environmental" and other NGOs also employ paid lobbyists.
You propose a
( )technical
(x)legal
solution to lobbyist influence. I don't know wether or not it's worth it.
I agree with campaign finance laws, because it reduces the appearance of corruption by special interest groups, industry, unions etc. But otlawing paid information/lobby/PR firms from operating will be even harder to uphold. (Not to mention that getting such laws passed would be difficult.) Should we outlaw firms from putting together talking points memos and packages that being used by volunteers? What are the standards delineating employees volunteering and employees, like a communications manager or press secretary, being de facto paid lobbyists?
Actually, this is one of the few matters in which politicians actually know more about the issue than the average voters do. But they also are legislating themselves on this issue.
I think the most important thing is that the politicians being lobbied should be aware of the games that are being played. They should know wether the lobbyists have divulged their agenda, their information sources, and wether or not all the people they pruport to represent actually support the lobbyists' position.
Campaign finance laws takes some of the money out of the equation, so being lobbied by those who paid for your campaign is less of an issue, but not a non-issue.
I propose that we follow up on campaign finance laws before starting to legislate people's access to speak to their elected representatives.
? -> CBS -> Whitehouse -> the media
Yes, but to get the money they'll have to fork out another $3000 to become a member of the exclusive donkey porn club that the scriptkiddie put his money into.
Or they could take a shortcut and just send the National Guard to take over Lindon, Utah and Baton Rouge, Florida.
I see much more potential for social hacking from digrunteled acquaintances. Imagine getting an email like this one and having it read out by the car:
The computer then reads out "End of message" while you're running out of the car, going "WTF?!?!!1"
BTW: I think there might be a need to disable the screen while there's only one person in the car and it's moving. Reading a computer screen down on the consolle while steering the car would lead to accidents, I think. Even when projecting the screen on the windshield, it should show as little distracting information as possible.
And without Moore, maybe there might be more room for some REAL stories about Bush's shortcommings and failures?
The climate policies (a bi-partisan screw-up), how the Bush admin and the French and Germans used the media to negotiate over Iraq, the steel tarrifs (now given up).
Watching people fall for propaganda tickles my elitist zones, but what the U.S. voters do affects me as well, even over here in Europe. How about reforming the election process? No, no debate about that, although I think the Republicans would fight that. As long as the Democrats Against Normal Bush get somebody else in the Whitehouse, they'll be happy.
I tell you: Michael Moore is like Bill Gates and Darl McBride rolled into one.
Well, maybe because they believe in a deck-of-cards theory. If you take away all the little deceptions, the "message" suffers.
Mistakes I can understand. Also bias and commentary.
Some people choose to disregard a message based on who is saying it or who is backing it. I choose to disregard messages that are sold by lies. (Well, Obi-Wan lied to Luke from a certain point of view.)
Read the sources.
This time he gives sources, and I suggest you actually look into them. In the past, he has included in his references sources that actually refute his claims.
I'm unsure of how prevalent that is in this instance, but some people are complaining allready.
His attempt to back up Bowling for Columbine, Wacko Attacko's, did not have much substance, for example.
If you really take an interest, you can read The Dave Kopel article and compare it with what Moore says.
Lying without uttering a false sentence?
What I'd like to have somebody do, preferably one from each "side", is go through F911 and find out wether Moore actually makes any false statement. No doubt he's lying with film and doing some Soviet Russia document revision, but saying something like "In his first eight months in office before September 11, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time.", that can't be a direct lie because the paper actually wrote that. Wether he actually WAS on vacation 42% of the time makes no difference to a rigid parsing of that statement.
And Farenhype911 just looks like talking heads to me. The Mike Wilson movie looks funnier.
And click (Flash)
BTW: Isn't it rather US-centric to have the star sprangeled banner as a logo for the politics section? (Yes, I know you're in the U.S.)
Well, they should try to stay more internally consistent, and not make up new science to solve a problem all out of nothing.
:-)
But yes, maybe they should take Star Trek into the future with new discoveries and more advanced tech. What would it take to put in a wow-factor, with new technology that is unheard of not only in everyday life, but little known in mainstream skiffy today?
The thing about Trek is that the technology you see there is put there as a Swiss army knife to give the writers the highest degree of freedom possible. Want to not waste time on travel? Transporter. Not waste time on setting up communications? Communicator. A story about the old West or today? Timetravel and holodeck.
Then there's the unlimited supply of new races and the reset button, but that's not a technology issue.
I like the replicators. I like the replicators.
That's something that's just about as far away from achievable as the transporter is. But it could introduce new issues of copyright violation
Sersiously, I don't think the lack of flashy gadgets is Trek's biggest problem. It's how the technology is used to tell a story about the human condition, how we embrace technology and deal with each other.