As a fellow Democrat who sincerely hates Bush and believes that Republican voters are deaf, blind, narrow, and ignorant, I should point out that your sig is incorrect and should be changed.
Republican voters do not have lower IQ's on average. I'll give them that. Nor are they less educated, as far as holding college degrees. The data in your sig is completely made up to insult Republicans. I've seen it elsewhere. And Bush's past test scores suggest that he is probably more intelligent than Kerry, and 98% of the population.
Did I mention that Republican voters are still deaf, blind, narrow, and ignorant as far as I'm concerned?
It's worth noting that even if those articles were right and Kerry won Ohio - he still lost the popular vote. And that's the vote that matters, right?
Just like it mattered last time eh? And counting the accidental Buchanon punches who changed their punch to Gore, since there was no candidate near Bush where the same mistake could have been made, Gore won Florida by a hefty margin in 2000.
By all accounts, the election was won fair and square. Making such unfounded claims is just reaching out in utter desperation for that last gasp of breath. How pathetic!
Is that the best you can come up with AC? The grandparent may as well have said 2+2=4 and you call it unfounded without giving any sort of counter argument.
How in the hell did one voting machine take over 32000 votes? Suppose they had a 16 hour window to vote, that would mean it averaged less than 2 seconds per vote.
Also, (short)32767+1=-32768. They shouldn't see it count backwards unless it displayed the absolute value in addition. Did the programmer for some silly reason anticipate negative values and stick an abs() in there? Or did they reinvent some wheels and write their own itoa()? No matter how it happened, wow, what amazing stupidity and/or malice.
BitTorrent is intended to optimize download performance and reduce ISP costs through P2P techniques, with clear efforts to prevent it from degrading into a piracy tool. If you close the download window, and the file becomes unavailable from your computer to others. If you take out the tracker managing downloads of illegal content, you stop the downloads. You take the.torrent files off the web servers, you make it so nobody can find the downloads. If a file loses popularity, as is the case when you have lots and lots of small files, like music, it'll eventually become unavailable as people close their trackers.
Unlike with traditional P2P, where your only route is to sue downloaders, copyright owners have several possible routes to police the network without suing the downloaders or the creator of BitTorrent. They can, if the law does its job, actually go straight to the source and sue the people providing the illegal downloads, just like you can with traditional client server protocols like ftp and http, while leaving legitimate users of the technology unaffected.
Better the danger you can identify than the one you can't.
I didn't see much danger in a president who would be so severely crippled from making partisan decisions by the house and the senate as Kerry would have been. No matter what his plans, the Republicans could stop him in his tracks if he went too far. Requiring the support of both major parties to pass any legistlation is a good way to weed out dangerous and discriminatory laws.
Two weeks before the election, and I saw Kerry continuing to change his mind on what he'd do about Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. He'd absolutely instate a draft. But he was opposed to the draft. He'd bring troops home immediately. But not until he'd secured the peace. He'd bribe France and Germany to participate in the effort. But he wouldn't resort to bribery to do it. I still don't understand what his final position was on Iran and North Korea.
I too saw a bit of dishonesty in the debates. A lot of mudslinging coming from both sides but it was obvious to everyone that Kerry didn't have a plan. He just saw what he didn't like and attacked it. One problem with plans is that you're expected to stick with them, when honestly it's hard to know today what the best action will be even 3 months from now.
I do know for a fact that nobody wanted a draft. The draft bill was proposed by a Democrat in January as an attack on the war. It was worded such that not even the representatives own family members would be able dodge it. There were no plans to actually vote on the bill. He intended to demonstrate that the war backers would send people they didn't know to fight in the war, but not their own friends and family, that the war backers thought of our soldiers as mere cannon fodder, and not real people.
America is now charged with focusing on the threats Iran and North Korea pose, both to ourselves, and to the rest of the world. Both of these countries already have nuclear capabilities, so military force isn't an easy option. Neither is appeasement.
Every country to develop nuclear capability has done it for their own protection. America was the first to build nukes, and the only country to ever use nukes. Then, America was the first to build bigger nukes. The power to blow up a city wasn't enough, now we can blow up most small countries with a single missile. They all understand the retaliation they would face by launching nuclear weapons. Nobody wins in this kind of war. Would any of them be developing nuclear weapons in the first place if not faced with the fear of invasion. Certainly our attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq have only fueled their desire for nukes. Neither country we've invaded has ever attacked us. What they desire is security, not mass destruction. Terrorists desire mass destruction, and by encouraging these countries to develop nuclear weapons with the increased threat of invasion we've made it easier than ever for terrorists to get a hold of these weapons.
He's made the wise decision that it's better to confront our threats remotely and pre-emptively
Remote pre-emptive strikes against civilian populations are what the terrorists do.
We've lost over 1,000 of our citizens in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last 18 months. We lost 3,000 of our citizens in 12 hours on 9/11/2001.
We've killed over 100 civilians for every soldier we lost. Does that mean Bush values the lives of our own people over the iraqis civilians (not talking about enemy soldiers) 100 to 1? He could have aimed for fewer total deaths, but then the war would have hit harder at home, hurting his chances for reelection. Americans don't bear the pain when a foreigner dies.
Besides, much, much more than 3000 americans die every day of non-terrorism related causes. Reduced medical care, prolonged fear caused by a focus on terrorism in the media, increased unemployment, the increasing gap between rich and poor, all cause deaths. Every decision our government makes, no matter how trivial, either sav
Maybe, but for what they're paying they could have gotten 1000 programmers and other staff of their own for that time period. Say, 5 per project, that's 200 projects under simultaneous development.
The entire rest of the world is looking at America and thinking "Wow, what a sad, sad bunch of blind ignorant fools." This election was supposed to be a slam dunk. I've seen clear signs of election fraud in Ohio. Diebold voting machines, only in urban precincts. The CEO of Diebold promising Ohio to Bush before the election. The Governor of Ohio promising Ohio to Bush before the election and having made several attempts to destroy democrat voter registrations. The same registration fraud happening in every other swing state under the supervision of the GOP funded Sproul and Associates. That's two illegitimate presidential elections unless we're found to be mistaken. We weren't mistaken last time, and yet Bush still became president. The American government no longer represents half of its citizens. And the other half is too blind, ignorant, and charged up over right wing terrorism propaganda to see it.
because he's much less dangerous than Kerry.
While I always hope for the best, I sincerely doubt that Bush's next 4 years will be anything less than dangerous. The Republicans now have an overwhelming majority in both the house and senate. Bills that screw over half the country will now have a much easier time getting through. Plus he'll be making some 1-2 supreme court appointments.
--A sitting president engaged in an unpopular war, with no clear extraction date --Job loss statistics pointing to millions of lost jobs --Massive healthcare cost inflation --A swing from huge budget surpluses to huge deficits
So, why did you vote for Bush? Better yet, did you rely on anything better than ad-hominim attacks like the ones you've given when deciding that Kerry would be more dangerous than Bush as president? Did you believe Bush's attacks on his track record in the debates to be a fair representation of the truth, without checking elsewhere? What made Kerry the worst choice?
Dear MPAA, and I once downloaded Star Trek: First Contact despite already having it on tape (still have the tape, good tape), and recently downloaded Fahrenheit 9/11 because it seems the producer wanted me to. My family probably owns about 30 DVD's and 50 tapes, all purchased, but I'm sure you don't care about those little details, just like the RIAA wouldn't care about our 40 or so purchased CD's. And I've been really bad about leeching. I know I should have done my part but my upload rate is capped very low.
Oh, I almost forgot. My local IP address is 192.168.0.100...
Those are much simpler machines. You can verify that at least there's no intentional bias. With Diebold's machines you can't even inspect the inner workings.
I have started thinking more about conservatives this past day, and I've realized something. I really should start acting more conservative. Conservation is a great thing. Starting with this:
I know that if I generally consume less food and other natural resources, and buy more high tech, I'll be helping punish the majority of Republicans. With food, for example, both demand and supply are extremely inelastic in the short run. Even a small decrease in demand will drive the price way down. Sure, my part would be astronomically insignificant, but I figure if enough people do this a lot of Republicans will be hurt. Some will be forced to move into urban areas and be exposed to (gasp) liberal ideas. Plus if nothing else, reduced consumption makes the world a better place. Maybe I'll set up a few web sites advertising this fact, without mentioning all that stuff about punishing Republicans.
That just means that different counties had different, unequal polling stations. Much moreso than is attributable to infeasibility. The number of voting machines made available is also an issue. To what should we attribute the plan to have such inequality? To stupidity? Or to strategy?
Your senator or representative refuses to represent you because you belong to a different party? There was a sneak Constitutional amendment and there are only 50 senators and 218 representatives now? A space-time vortex has eaten one side of the Capitol building?
Those guys vote together. If you don't have majority control in either the house or the senate, and you don't have the presidency, you can't force bipartisan compromise. When you have two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner, the sheep doesn't win 1/3 of the time, it'll lose every time. Requiring bills to pass through both houses of congress and the president was one of the major checks and balances in the constitution to prevent that sort of dilemma. But this election has eliminated that balance. Now a single party has the mandate. Whatever they say goes. In that respect, half the country has effectively no representation in our federal government.
There's a lot of anger out there. Republicans see that they won the popular vote, and Democrats see signs of widespread election fraud. I think Kerry believes that an early concession would prevent an already bad situation from escalating.
Half the country has just entirely lost its representation in the US government. The House, Senate, and Presidency all belong to the Republicans now because of this election, soon to likely include the Supreme Court, and there's good evidence that we won't be able to change that. This kind of shift in power is what led to the bloodiest war in US history. While I doubt we'll even come close, the next 4 years doesn't look good. Anger won't solve anything, even though justified. Prolonging the election dispute will only help that anger to grow.
If the vote turns out in Kerry's favor, then all will be well. If it doesn't, litigation is unlikely to change the outcome. And neither will protests. The best we can do is work to educate the other half of the country. And eat less. That'll teach them.
Pollsters generally understand this. Nearly random sampling is difficult and uneconomical. The results you normally see are not exact ratios of people polled, but are a prediction based on the polls that attempts to remove bias. Poll X people in a representative sampling of precincts, take a guess about the people who refused to take your poll, and scale according to turnout predictions. The final result amounts to an educated guess backed partly by statistics.
they could find all the evidence they need of record tampering... of votes being miscast... of these machines being totally unfit for the democratic process....
I think the totals will prove correct enough to give Bush the presidency. Unfortunately there's no law against forcing voters in opposition precincts to wait in longer lines than everyone else. I heard on CNN that many in Ohio waited over 9 hours to vote. We can claim election fraud but the law provides no remedy if our claims prove correct. All that matters is votes cast. So you're right of course.
and you would never see anything about it in the mainstream media....
Yeah. They're pretty well forced to be either nonpartisan or agree with the government. Plus it's not economical to piss off half your viewers. Glad we have the independent media.
You're just not a team player. My vote and the votes of my 80 million bestest friends in the world will make a difference. If we all had your attitude we'd lose for sure.
It you're in Florida, Ohio, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, or North Carolina, are registered to vote, and haven't voted, and the polls are still open, get your ass to the polls. They are very close.
It's a smart thing to say. Perhaps a little dishonest in that gives the impression that the speaker doesn't care who they vote for, when in actually the very purpose of the statement is to benefit a particular candidate.
I've caught shareware sites bundling my software with WhenU malware, without my permission, and without giving clear indications to users, causing problems for my customers and endangering my reputation.
I consider any program that sits in the background and pops up ads while the bundled application is not running to be unwanted malware.
Slashdot Mirror
Correction. Mistook that for a sig, on account of the dashes. But you still shouldn't go around posting such misinformation.
As a fellow Democrat who sincerely hates Bush and believes that Republican voters are deaf, blind, narrow, and ignorant, I should point out that your sig is incorrect and should be changed.
Republican voters do not have lower IQ's on average. I'll give them that. Nor are they less educated, as far as holding college degrees. The data in your sig is completely made up to insult Republicans. I've seen it elsewhere. And Bush's past test scores suggest that he is probably more intelligent than Kerry, and 98% of the population.
Did I mention that Republican voters are still deaf, blind, narrow, and ignorant as far as I'm concerned?
It's worth noting that even if those articles were right and Kerry won Ohio - he still lost the popular vote. And that's the vote that matters, right?
Just like it mattered last time eh? And counting the accidental Buchanon punches who changed their punch to Gore, since there was no candidate near Bush where the same mistake could have been made, Gore won Florida by a hefty margin in 2000.
By all accounts, the election was won fair and square. Making such unfounded claims is just reaching out in utter desperation for that last gasp of breath. How pathetic!
Is that the best you can come up with AC? The grandparent may as well have said 2+2=4 and you call it unfounded without giving any sort of counter argument.
This begs a much bigger question:
How in the hell did one voting machine take over 32000 votes? Suppose they had a 16 hour window to vote, that would mean it averaged less than 2 seconds per vote.
Also, (short)32767+1=-32768. They shouldn't see it count backwards unless it displayed the absolute value in addition. Did the programmer for some silly reason anticipate negative values and stick an abs() in there? Or did they reinvent some wheels and write their own itoa()? No matter how it happened, wow, what amazing stupidity and/or malice.
By design? Is there like an if(v<=3005) acceptVote()? How many of these machines served more than 3005 votes? And lastly, WTF???
BitTorrent is intended to optimize download performance and reduce ISP costs through P2P techniques, with clear efforts to prevent it from degrading into a piracy tool. If you close the download window, and the file becomes unavailable from your computer to others. If you take out the tracker managing downloads of illegal content, you stop the downloads. You take the .torrent files off the web servers, you make it so nobody can find the downloads. If a file loses popularity, as is the case when you have lots and lots of small files, like music, it'll eventually become unavailable as people close their trackers.
Unlike with traditional P2P, where your only route is to sue downloaders, copyright owners have several possible routes to police the network without suing the downloaders or the creator of BitTorrent. They can, if the law does its job, actually go straight to the source and sue the people providing the illegal downloads, just like you can with traditional client server protocols like ftp and http, while leaving legitimate users of the technology unaffected.
Better the danger you can identify than the one you can't.
I didn't see much danger in a president who would be so severely crippled from making partisan decisions by the house and the senate as Kerry would have been. No matter what his plans, the Republicans could stop him in his tracks if he went too far. Requiring the support of both major parties to pass any legistlation is a good way to weed out dangerous and discriminatory laws.
Two weeks before the election, and I saw Kerry continuing to change his mind on what he'd do about Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. He'd absolutely instate a draft. But he was opposed to the draft. He'd bring troops home immediately. But not until he'd secured the peace. He'd bribe France and Germany to participate in the effort. But he wouldn't resort to bribery to do it. I still don't understand what his final position was on Iran and North Korea.
I too saw a bit of dishonesty in the debates. A lot of mudslinging coming from both sides but it was obvious to everyone that Kerry didn't have a plan. He just saw what he didn't like and attacked it. One problem with plans is that you're expected to stick with them, when honestly it's hard to know today what the best action will be even 3 months from now.
I do know for a fact that nobody wanted a draft. The draft bill was proposed by a Democrat in January as an attack on the war. It was worded such that not even the representatives own family members would be able dodge it. There were no plans to actually vote on the bill. He intended to demonstrate that the war backers would send people they didn't know to fight in the war, but not their own friends and family, that the war backers thought of our soldiers as mere cannon fodder, and not real people.
America is now charged with focusing on the threats Iran and North Korea pose, both to ourselves, and to the rest of the world. Both of these countries already have nuclear capabilities, so military force isn't an easy option. Neither is appeasement.
Every country to develop nuclear capability has done it for their own protection. America was the first to build nukes, and the only country to ever use nukes. Then, America was the first to build bigger nukes. The power to blow up a city wasn't enough, now we can blow up most small countries with a single missile. They all understand the retaliation they would face by launching nuclear weapons. Nobody wins in this kind of war. Would any of them be developing nuclear weapons in the first place if not faced with the fear of invasion. Certainly our attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq have only fueled their desire for nukes. Neither country we've invaded has ever attacked us. What they desire is security, not mass destruction. Terrorists desire mass destruction, and by encouraging these countries to develop nuclear weapons with the increased threat of invasion we've made it easier than ever for terrorists to get a hold of these weapons.
He's made the wise decision that it's better to confront our threats remotely and pre-emptively
Remote pre-emptive strikes against civilian populations are what the terrorists do.
We've lost over 1,000 of our citizens in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last 18 months. We lost 3,000 of our citizens in 12 hours on 9/11/2001.
We've killed over 100 civilians for every soldier we lost. Does that mean Bush values the lives of our own people over the iraqis civilians (not talking about enemy soldiers) 100 to 1? He could have aimed for fewer total deaths, but then the war would have hit harder at home, hurting his chances for reelection. Americans don't bear the pain when a foreigner dies.
Besides, much, much more than 3000 americans die every day of non-terrorism related causes. Reduced medical care, prolonged fear caused by a focus on terrorism in the media, increased unemployment, the increasing gap between rich and poor, all cause deaths. Every decision our government makes, no matter how trivial, either sav
Maybe, but for what they're paying they could have gotten 1000 programmers and other staff of their own for that time period. Say, 5 per project, that's 200 projects under simultaneous development.
Wow. What a sad, sad bunch of whining losers.
The entire rest of the world is looking at America and thinking "Wow, what a sad, sad bunch of blind ignorant fools." This election was supposed to be a slam dunk. I've seen clear signs of election fraud in Ohio. Diebold voting machines, only in urban precincts. The CEO of Diebold promising Ohio to Bush before the election. The Governor of Ohio promising Ohio to Bush before the election and having made several attempts to destroy democrat voter registrations. The same registration fraud happening in every other swing state under the supervision of the GOP funded Sproul and Associates. That's two illegitimate presidential elections unless we're found to be mistaken. We weren't mistaken last time, and yet Bush still became president. The American government no longer represents half of its citizens. And the other half is too blind, ignorant, and charged up over right wing terrorism propaganda to see it.
because he's much less dangerous than Kerry.
While I always hope for the best, I sincerely doubt that Bush's next 4 years will be anything less than dangerous. The Republicans now have an overwhelming majority in both the house and senate. Bills that screw over half the country will now have a much easier time getting through. Plus he'll be making some 1-2 supreme court appointments.
--A sitting president engaged in an unpopular war, with no clear extraction date
--Job loss statistics pointing to millions of lost jobs
--Massive healthcare cost inflation
--A swing from huge budget surpluses to huge deficits
So, why did you vote for Bush? Better yet, did you rely on anything better than ad-hominim attacks like the ones you've given when deciding that Kerry would be more dangerous than Bush as president? Did you believe Bush's attacks on his track record in the debates to be a fair representation of the truth, without checking elsewhere? What made Kerry the worst choice?
Dear MPAA, and I once downloaded Star Trek: First Contact despite already having it on tape (still have the tape, good tape), and recently downloaded Fahrenheit 9/11 because it seems the producer wanted me to. My family probably owns about 30 DVD's and 50 tapes, all purchased, but I'm sure you don't care about those little details, just like the RIAA wouldn't care about our 40 or so purchased CD's. And I've been really bad about leeching. I know I should have done my part but my upload rate is capped very low.
Oh, I almost forgot. My local IP address is 192.168.0.100...
Those are much simpler machines. You can verify that at least there's no intentional bias. With Diebold's machines you can't even inspect the inner workings.
I have started thinking more about conservatives this past day, and I've realized something. I really should start acting more conservative. Conservation is a great thing. Starting with this:
I know that if I generally consume less food and other natural resources, and buy more high tech, I'll be helping punish the majority of Republicans. With food, for example, both demand and supply are extremely inelastic in the short run. Even a small decrease in demand will drive the price way down. Sure, my part would be astronomically insignificant, but I figure if enough people do this a lot of Republicans will be hurt. Some will be forced to move into urban areas and be exposed to (gasp) liberal ideas. Plus if nothing else, reduced consumption makes the world a better place. Maybe I'll set up a few web sites advertising this fact, without mentioning all that stuff about punishing Republicans.
That just means that different counties had different, unequal polling stations. Much moreso than is attributable to infeasibility. The number of voting machines made available is also an issue. To what should we attribute the plan to have such inequality? To stupidity? Or to strategy?
Typical. Insult the intelligence of those who disagree with you. Typical leftist elitist snobbery.
I think he was calling Republicans blind, and referencing a scene from South Park.
Your senator or representative refuses to represent you because you belong to a different party? There was a sneak Constitutional amendment and there are only 50 senators and 218 representatives now? A space-time vortex has eaten one side of the Capitol building?
Those guys vote together. If you don't have majority control in either the house or the senate, and you don't have the presidency, you can't force bipartisan compromise. When you have two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner, the sheep doesn't win 1/3 of the time, it'll lose every time. Requiring bills to pass through both houses of congress and the president was one of the major checks and balances in the constitution to prevent that sort of dilemma. But this election has eliminated that balance. Now a single party has the mandate. Whatever they say goes. In that respect, half the country has effectively no representation in our federal government.
There's a lot of anger out there. Republicans see that they won the popular vote, and Democrats see signs of widespread election fraud. I think Kerry believes that an early concession would prevent an already bad situation from escalating.
Half the country has just entirely lost its representation in the US government. The House, Senate, and Presidency all belong to the Republicans now because of this election, soon to likely include the Supreme Court, and there's good evidence that we won't be able to change that. This kind of shift in power is what led to the bloodiest war in US history. While I doubt we'll even come close, the next 4 years doesn't look good. Anger won't solve anything, even though justified. Prolonging the election dispute will only help that anger to grow.
If the vote turns out in Kerry's favor, then all will be well. If it doesn't, litigation is unlikely to change the outcome. And neither will protests. The best we can do is work to educate the other half of the country. And eat less. That'll teach them.
Don't forget #4: The equality of polling facilities is not ensured.
Pollsters generally understand this. Nearly random sampling is difficult and uneconomical. The results you normally see are not exact ratios of people polled, but are a prediction based on the polls that attempts to remove bias. Poll X people in a representative sampling of precincts, take a guess about the people who refused to take your poll, and scale according to turnout predictions. The final result amounts to an educated guess backed partly by statistics.
they could find all the evidence they need of record tampering... of votes being miscast... of these machines being totally unfit for the democratic process....
I think the totals will prove correct enough to give Bush the presidency. Unfortunately there's no law against forcing voters in opposition precincts to wait in longer lines than everyone else. I heard on CNN that many in Ohio waited over 9 hours to vote. We can claim election fraud but the law provides no remedy if our claims prove correct. All that matters is votes cast. So you're right of course.
and you would never see anything about it in the mainstream media....
Yeah. They're pretty well forced to be either nonpartisan or agree with the government. Plus it's not economical to piss off half your viewers. Glad we have the independent media.
Oh god damnit! I should have known hippies are unreliable when it comes to anything that can be construed as work.
You're just not a team player. My vote and the votes of my 80 million bestest friends in the world will make a difference. If we all had your attitude we'd lose for sure.
It you're in Florida, Ohio, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, or North Carolina, are registered to vote, and haven't voted, and the polls are still open, get your ass to the polls. They are very close.
It's a smart thing to say. Perhaps a little dishonest in that gives the impression that the speaker doesn't care who they vote for, when in actually the very purpose of the statement is to benefit a particular candidate.
I've caught shareware sites bundling my software with WhenU malware, without my permission, and without giving clear indications to users, causing problems for my customers and endangering my reputation.
I consider any program that sits in the background and pops up ads while the bundled application is not running to be unwanted malware.