It's scary how so many liberals don't seem to notice when it is Democrats who are limiting their freedoms. Their little collective minds just seem to accept it and in some twisted way actually motivate them to support it.
all money recovered frm RIAA/MPAA/BSA actions stay within that organization to pay for -- whatever. Mostly it pays the costs of the lawsuits, and to lobby congress for more bad laws.
While man's quest for perpetual motion seems to have halted (Get it, halted, oh I crack myself up), it seems the RIAA has successfully discovered the perfect formula for perpetual lawsuits.
Excellent response. You've really got me thinking. Three things in particular have my focus:
That comment about centralization where it does not need to be and how that could result in data lose when files are sent elsewhere off the file system.
The comment about how do you get the metadata in the first place. It does seem far fetched to assume that the user who cannot find their pictures within their present computer will be skilled/focused/organized/accurate enough to properly setup metadata for those pictures.
You hint at methods outside of the OS, like encoding the data in the file itself. I am going to google "EXIF metadata" after this post, but presently I think of things like XML and relation DBs. What exactly do you have in mind? Any links you could provide would be helpful.
There are an awful lot of/. posts about how WinFS is most likely vaporware (which it very well could be), to about how late WinFS is going to be (which is true), to some odd post about how using WinFS will require reformating your HD (which is unlikely, looking at past M$ options like the convert command to change file sytems and the fact that WinFS appears to sit on top of NTFS).
Anyway, my point is that while I see all the critical posts of WinFS, what I do not see are posts to build a metadata or relational/object based file system for Linux (dare I say LinFS or WINWinFS as in 'WINWinFS is not WinFS').
I guess I am tossing down the gaunlet down to the/. community and asking them to put their code were their blogs are. My motivation is many because I think this kind of file system on Linux a few years ahead of M$ would be awesome.
I can do QA testing and draft documentation on the project if you'd like. This could be a high profile example of where OSS can succeed (or god forbid fail). It is also a chance to test ourselves and see if we can met deadlines better then M$ or if we run into similar setbacks. It also is a cool way to learn about open source, relational datases, file systems, the linux kernel and countless other interesting core components of computing today. Think about it.
Funny, I thought PC users where rushing to buy the MAC mini because they were looking to play around with an Apple?
I had no idea size mattered.
Listen, I am getting the MAC mini to see how I like OS X. Presently, I toggle between Fedora and XP Professional depending on what I need to get done. Oh, how I long for the one OS that could do all things. The MAC mini lets me really stress test OS X out and if if works, I will make my next laptop an Apple.
I would prefer "Gooscape", "Firegle", "Goox", "Goopera" or even "Google Explorer" with a lil' green "Goo" button next to the address bar so much more than gBrowser.
Yeh, that would be supercool. The only way it could be more cool is if it came with a side of "mod points", +2 funny nontroll with style and class.
This message was sent using "gooscape", I mean FireFox, no I mean "gooscape".
You neclect to say that the mac mini is slow as hell, it's gfx is slow as hell. It only has 1 memory slot (and yes, people do upgrade memory).
It's a good starting point for people who are Windows/Linux users that would like to mess around with an Apple to see what OS X is about.
The MAC mini memory maxes out at 1 GB; my Linux file server running on an old DELL Optiplex GX1 is maxed out at 768 MB. My Windows XP laptop only has 256 MB.
The slow point of the Mac Mini is the HD, but with Firewire and USB 2, there are options.
It is designed to be a cheap entry level device, there are tradeoffs to keep the price down.
If you need more, the iMac G5 is also a pretty good deal for first time Apple users starting at $1,099.00 for "students" or friends of students.
Having learned Linux over the past few years and with OS X supporting many common UNIX commands along with having a killer GUI, I am very open to giving Apple a try.
I was listening to the interview and Martin, who did concede that Linux has a good TCO when run in a large enviornment with skilled administrators. He agreed that it works well for Google. So I suggest we learn from his comments make some money doing what we all love. I understand both Windows AD, Exchange, SQL 2000 and IIS really well, but I love to run Linux (RHEL, Fedora Core) with apache, mysql, sendmail, and samba. Seems that while Linux may not be worth while to the small business, why not establish a company that outsources the entire IT department to remote managed cluster of Linux servers, but keeps Windows on the desktop. Basically the company could have a few Windows geeks to run around and do onsight for the customer and image machines and get feedback for new services back to the Linux geeks working remotely and managing e-mail, web and file servers. It would keep costs low, while still letting the customer have the comfort of using Windows on the desktop. Could use GAIM, OpenOffice and other software on the Windows machines as well. It's just a thought for some of you to consider. I live in Austin, but we could run the server farm from anywhere. Thoughts, e-mail ericmjackson AT gmail DOT com or post online. To do this venture well, you cannot be basised either way, you have to understand both Windows and Linux have advantages in different areas for different roles.
That "builtin defrag" you are referring to is an intentionally crippled version of Diskeeper and it is incredibly slow.
Worse, I had it scheduled to run at 4 AM every Friday on Windows 2000 Professional back in the day. It only took one time when I happened to be working on the machine when it started... BOOM!; defrag started in the middle of a Netscape 6 installation and corrupted my registry. I had just enough time to see the icon appear in the task bar and think to myself... "Oh sh" and it was to late.
I use Windows, Linux and Mac for various things. I still cannot determine why fragmentation is so high under Windows and MS doesn't seem motivated to resolve it. I mean it is one of the biggest reasons users experience slow machines.
The problem is that scientific methods are mostly good at disproving things, not proving things that may or may not happen in the future.
So why not change the hypothesis a bit? Assume that the world tempurature is relatively stable and try disprove that assumption.
Listen, I am not saying Global Warming is not true, I am just saying that inorder to be able to say temperatures are rising you need to define what the normal tempurature sets should be.
The present situation is that people claim tempuratures are rising, but they have not defined
what how much they have risen or at what rate they ar rising. I seem to be one of a select few who sees the insanity of such an approach.
Finally, life experiences tell me that whenever people try to change nature, the enviornment reacts to counter that change and equalize it. So what is to say that radical climate shifts are inevitable? Is it not possible that instead while nature will change over time it will occur at a more modest rate and that this change is a natural occurance?
My question about who decides for us was an attempt to say that perhaps nobody has the right to decide for any other person.
For example, if you wish to cut back on CFCs or drive less in an attempt to reduce the possiblity of global warming isn't that just as much a right you have as it is for your neighbor to drive his SUV and run his air conditioner?
I fear that the largely unproven concept of global warming is an attempt to exert control over others. Whenever I hear people talk of global warming, I always hear them saying things like "People should not be allowed to use aerosal sprays" or "SUVs should be made illegal" or whatever.
I fear that many liberals are obsessed with control and power over others. Why not just do your thing and let others do theirs? Want me to buy into Global Warming, prove it is happening or disprove that the present climate is relatively stable. Prove Global Warming is a credible threat before you try to exert influence over my lifestyle. Sound fair?
I think SUN is back-asswards on this on. Rather then screaming in a blog that IBM needs to support Solaris, why doesn't SUN migrate their core tools and apps from Solaris (which is a dying OS) to Linux? If DB2 and WebSphere already run on Linux, and SUN ran linux, then all would be good in the world.
I think it is wrong to blame IBM for things they have done in the past, when they are presently one of the biggest contributors to Linux, in terms of code, money, testing, applications, legal funds, development platforms, etc. etc. etc.
Seriously, IBM has done so much for open source and Linux, what has SUN done?
How many OSes can IBM support? Is it fair to larger linux community if SUN drags resources away from form Linux to a dying Solaris?
Solaris is so 1990s, Linux is the future.
Liberals keep talking about this global warming concept but haven't been able to back in up with scientific proof. This is/., we should all understand the difference between science and political science. Al Gore gave a speech in NY on global warming on Jan. 16th, 2004, a day that set a record for being so cold (1F, 18C).
Listen, I am open minded (I love open source and open markets), if you want me to accept global warming, just prove it to me scientifically. What is the ideal temperature for the Earth? Then we can go from there and look for trends and test the hypothesis of global warming.
I live in Austin Texas, it was 62 degrees today; the average for the last 100 years this same day was... 62.
Should I assume 62 is the correct temperature for Jan. 24 in Austin or not? Would 60 be better? How about 58? If it is 61 or less next year should we setup and fund a UN committee to investigate global cooling?
Serously my only question is "Who gets to decide what the ideal temperature is?" Personally, I have always been found of 72.
By the way, what every happened to that whole liberal overpopulation hypothesis in the seventies? Is it possible global warming is just a modern revision of the whole "Listen to us, Mother Earth is dying because of evil corporations?" with a different name and different spin, but with just as little proof to support it?
Why aren't liberals complaining about how all the plants are screwing up gas levels in relation to the original atmosphere of Earth with all the Oxygen they make? Maybe we should get rid of cute little animals if they produce CO2.
I mean if liberals want to go back to some arbitrary point in time and set the environment to a static setting based that time, why not go back to the beginning of this planet's history? Crank up the temp, get rid of all those gases we depend on, loose the animals and plants and bacteria?
Seriously, my only question is who gets to decide?
Since this is/. I wonder if most people feel the way I do about the present vote counting method and recounting methods across most of the US.
Simply put I trust machines to count votes over people.
My reasoning is that a machine is unbiased and humans are biased. If a machine tosses out a ballot because it cannot determine the vote, statistically it will do so in an unbiased way that affects both candidates in porportion to the percentage of the votes they truly earned.
The nice thing about the 2004 Presidential election was that unlike in 2000, the winning candidate (whether you like Bush or not), won by more than the margin of error.
The same is not true in Washington and this concept of counting until you get the result you want is just out of control. You have Democrats saying let every vote be counted not once, not twice but three times, then when the result changes, they are now convinced thatevery vote was counted and there is no need for any additonal recounts. It just looks bad.
I think that this could be one of those win the Gov. battle situations by Democrats, only to loose a Senate seat by discontent voters.
As a libertarian, I think this could really hurt Democrats in WA longterm. I say this because many NJ voters like myself were upset with the Democratic Governor not stepping down in time to allow NJ residents to vote on a new governor this November and as a result it clearly translated into a large gain for Bush.
Bush lost by NJ by 16% in 2000 and only 9% in 2004. Considering the size of the gain in a state the President only visited once or twice, it clearly means local politics played a role with swing voters like myself. For the record, I voted libertarian in 1996 and 2000 and for Bush in 2004.
Legistatures and the public should push for machine recounts over hand recounts in my opinion to avoid selective recounting.
The total number of ballots fed into the machine should always match the total number of voters initially reported, that is not what happened in WA. If the numbers don't match there is a huge problem and if the numbers are off by enough to change the outcome, a runoff should be an option (An option setup in a pre-election law with clear guidelines so that the elected legislatures and people have control and not unelected judges with both open and hidden agendas).
Whenever there is a problem, people in those voting areas should vote to replace their canvasing board until they get a board that does the job correctly. Legislatures who ignore or do not take fair elections seriously shoud be pushed out by both Republicans and Democrats working together with an overwhelming majority (preferably in favor of small government libertarians who can setup fair elections within their first term). Voters have the biggest responsiblity here. To date voters have only themselves to blame.
Sorry to put this on the Demcorats who read this, but it is your local election officals who more often then not make the largest mistakes and it is largely Democratic Urban counties that repeatedly fail to resolve their voting problems.
Whether it is the butterfly ballot in FL or the "misplaced" ballots in King Country, your election officals are not doing their jobs and Democratic voters are not doing their jobs to replace them with capable people. Those people should be voted out of office as soon as possible or else things will never get better.
Futhermore, if the election falls within the margin of error, and citizens are not OK with this, then they need to push to have their state and local represntatives draft a law that allows for a runoff election as I meantion already. The manor of recounts and how they are conducted should be setup in advance so that there is no need for a judge making post election law that chanegs the rules in the middle of the race. The rules need to be setup clearly in advance to be fair.
Simply put you count the votes, if it is close you recount the
Wow, you are trying to spin the notion that Liberals invented free markets along with the Internet?
I wonder, how Liberals can be for a free/open market when:
1). They attempt to force Socialized healthcare on people who don't want it. Shouldn't Liberals trust that in time the open market to find a solution?
2). They Demand/Depend on Inefficient Government Programs that redistribute individual and corporate wealth. Shouldn't it be up to the people or investers who create wealth to determine how it is spent and invested?
3). Liberal candidates preach about the faith they have in our Failing State Run Public Schools and tell us about the Evils of Vouchers while they send their children to private schools. If given the choice between paying more taxes for "the children" or being taxed less, therefore being able to work less and thus commit more time to writing open source educational programs, I personally think the later would do more to help "the children".
If you support open source, then to avoid contradiction of thought, you should also support open markets for the very same reasons. In time open markets and open source produce the best results for the largest amount of people and provide the largest selection of options and choice. Your belief should be that the best goods and services will grow from such an enviornment.
Government restricts open markets and ideas by the creation of rules and regulations that rarely accomplish their intended goal. Government promises everything and delivers very little, sorta like a Washington based software company.
I am amazed that with the volume of people on Slashdot who claim to hate M$, these same people favor the Democratic party, which for all intensive purposes is the M$ of politics. Democrats like M$ promise us everything, with no intention or ability to deliver. Who do you trust more to solve the issue of SPAM, Democratic Politicians, M$ or the open source community? Democrats and M$ win whenever they can get more people to depend on them. Democrats spin negatives about their opponents to boost approval, just like M$ spins "problems with Linux" to boost sales. M$ contributes money to SCO to do their dirty work, the Kerry campaign uses moveon.org for the exact same kind of work.
I am not saying you have to vote for Bush this election. Republicans are not the only alternative, but I do personally believe they are significantly better than Democrats.
I am just saying you shouldn't buy Kerry's Vaporware, your best interests would be served by voting either independent or Green or Liberatarian (Which is my party of choice and my suggestion to you). Yes, if you live in a swing state, your vote going to Nader(I) or Badnarik(L) could result in Bush winning that state and most likely being re-elected, but you win in the sense that in 2008 the DNC is more likely to listen to you. Kerry is not the Left's candidate, he is Kennedy and Daschle's boy.
If you do go in and vote for Kerry, you're just adding to the infinite loop where Democrats run puppet candidates instead of men/women of true character.
Fact is a liberal pol-sci friend of mind, Matt in PA volunteered to work with the Kerry campaign and the DNC to invalidate over 20,000 signatures out of 40,000, just so they could push Nader of the ballot in PA. There is no way that half of the signatures were invalid.
There is something wrong about the Democrats snuffing out the voice of independents and 3rd party candidates to force a marshmallow of a candidate down our thoughts. I am a Libertarian and I am voting for Bush this time, but I would have voted for Lieberman (D-CT) if he was nominated.
The reason is simple, I believe the War or Terrorism is the most important issue in this election and I trust Bush to win it, while I don't trust Kerry. Lieberman would be strong in fighting the War on Terrorism and would have pushed back against the huge Congressional spending bills in a Republican Congress.
From where I am standing the DNC is more closed minded then the RNC right now. I watched how the Democrats blasted one of there own, when they resorted to calling Zell Miller a racist after he endorsed Bush. Moderates like Miller and Lieberman are the guys on the Democrat bench that could win national elections, but the Extreme-Left refuses to consider them and the result is going to be a huge Bush win. Mark my words, it isn't even going to be close.
The question big government liberals should ask themselves is "Would they prefer a moderate Democrat or a Republican?", the majority of Americans like myself will never vote for a big government candidate like Dean or a puppet/marshmallow like Kerry.
Slashdot Mirror
It's scary how so many liberals don't seem to notice when it is Democrats who are limiting their freedoms. Their little collective minds just seem to accept it and in some twisted way actually motivate them to support it.
Then give the dumb users limited permissions that prevent them from installing things or modifying system preferences?
This is a simple approach under Mac and Linux because of their underlying design. It is harder under Windows, but not impossible.
While man's quest for perpetual motion seems to have halted (Get it, halted, oh I crack myself up), it seems the RIAA has successfully discovered the perfect formula for perpetual lawsuits.
- That comment about centralization where it does not need to be and how that could result in data lose when files are sent elsewhere off the file system.
- The comment about how do you get the metadata in the first place. It does seem far fetched to assume that the user who cannot find their pictures within their present computer will be skilled/focused/organized/accurate enough to properly setup metadata for those pictures.
- You hint at methods outside of the OS, like encoding the data in the file itself. I am going to google "EXIF metadata" after this post, but presently I think of things like XML and relation DBs. What exactly do you have in mind? Any links you could provide would be helpful.
- EricThere are an awful lot of /. posts about how WinFS is most likely vaporware (which it very well could be), to about how late WinFS is going to be (which is true), to some odd post about how using WinFS will require reformating your HD (which is unlikely, looking at past M$ options like the convert command to change file sytems and the fact that WinFS appears to sit on top of NTFS).
/. community and asking them to put their code were their blogs are. My motivation is many because I think this kind of file system on Linux a few years ahead of M$ would be awesome.
Anyway, my point is that while I see all the critical posts of WinFS, what I do not see are posts to build a metadata or relational/object based file system for Linux (dare I say LinFS or WINWinFS as in 'WINWinFS is not WinFS').
I guess I am tossing down the gaunlet down to the
I can do QA testing and draft documentation on the project if you'd like. This could be a high profile example of where OSS can succeed (or god forbid fail). It is also a chance to test ourselves and see if we can met deadlines better then M$ or if we run into similar setbacks. It also is a cool way to learn about open source, relational datases, file systems, the linux kernel and countless other interesting core components of computing today. Think about it.
Funny, I thought PC users where rushing to buy the MAC mini because they were looking to play around with an Apple?
I had no idea size mattered.
Listen, I am getting the MAC mini to see how I like OS X. Presently, I toggle between Fedora and XP Professional depending on what I need to get done. Oh, how I long for the one OS that could do all things. The MAC mini lets me really stress test OS X out and if if works, I will make my next laptop an Apple.
Seriously, I have Diabetes - Type I, that is very insensitive of you clod.
I would prefer "Gooscape", "Firegle", "Goox", "Goopera" or even "Google Explorer" with a lil' green "Goo" button next to the address bar so much more than gBrowser.
Yeh, that would be supercool. The only way it could be more cool is if it came with a side of "mod points", +2 funny nontroll with style and class.
This message was sent using "gooscape", I mean FireFox, no I mean "gooscape".
All PCs have USB, but may not have firewire.
- It's a good starting point for people who are Windows/Linux users that would like to mess around with an Apple to see what OS X is about.
- The MAC mini memory maxes out at 1 GB; my Linux file server running on an old DELL Optiplex GX1 is maxed out at 768 MB. My Windows XP laptop only has 256 MB.
- The slow point of the Mac Mini is the HD, but with Firewire and USB 2, there are options.
- It is designed to be a cheap entry level device, there are tradeoffs to keep the price down.
- If you need more, the iMac G5 is also a pretty good deal for first time Apple users starting at $1,099.00 for "students" or friends of students.
Having learned Linux over the past few years and with OS X supporting many common UNIX commands along with having a killer GUI, I am very open to giving Apple a try.feel free to throw things my way, especially cash or mac minis. keep your free ipods though.
Dude, you can always ebay the ipods, as long as they aren't to damaged from being thrown around.
I was listening to the interview and Martin, who did concede that Linux has a good TCO when run in a large enviornment with skilled administrators. He agreed that it works well for Google. So I suggest we learn from his comments make some money doing what we all love. I understand both Windows AD, Exchange, SQL 2000 and IIS really well, but I love to run Linux (RHEL, Fedora Core) with apache, mysql, sendmail, and samba. Seems that while Linux may not be worth while to the small business, why not establish a company that outsources the entire IT department to remote managed cluster of Linux servers, but keeps Windows on the desktop. Basically the company could have a few Windows geeks to run around and do onsight for the customer and image machines and get feedback for new services back to the Linux geeks working remotely and managing e-mail, web and file servers. It would keep costs low, while still letting the customer have the comfort of using Windows on the desktop. Could use GAIM, OpenOffice and other software on the Windows machines as well. It's just a thought for some of you to consider. I live in Austin, but we could run the server farm from anywhere. Thoughts, e-mail ericmjackson AT gmail DOT com or post online. To do this venture well, you cannot be basised either way, you have to understand both Windows and Linux have advantages in different areas for different roles.
That "builtin defrag" you are referring to is an intentionally crippled version of Diskeeper and it is incredibly slow.
... BOOM!; defrag started in the middle of a Netscape 6 installation and corrupted my registry. I had just enough time to see the icon appear in the task bar and think to myself ... "Oh sh" and it was to late.
Worse, I had it scheduled to run at 4 AM every Friday on Windows 2000 Professional back in the day. It only took one time when I happened to be working on the machine when it started
I use Windows, Linux and Mac for various things. I still cannot determine why fragmentation is so high under Windows and MS doesn't seem motivated to resolve it. I mean it is one of the biggest reasons users experience slow machines.
Dude!
So why not change the hypothesis a bit? Assume that the world tempurature is relatively stable and try disprove that assumption.
Listen, I am not saying Global Warming is not true, I am just saying that inorder to be able to say temperatures are rising you need to define what the normal tempurature sets should be.
The present situation is that people claim tempuratures are rising, but they have not defined what how much they have risen or at what rate they ar rising. I seem to be one of a select few who sees the insanity of such an approach.
Finally, life experiences tell me that whenever people try to change nature, the enviornment reacts to counter that change and equalize it. So what is to say that radical climate shifts are inevitable? Is it not possible that instead while nature will change over time it will occur at a more modest rate and that this change is a natural occurance?
My question about who decides for us was an attempt to say that perhaps nobody has the right to decide for any other person.
For example, if you wish to cut back on CFCs or drive less in an attempt to reduce the possiblity of global warming isn't that just as much a right you have as it is for your neighbor to drive his SUV and run his air conditioner?
I fear that the largely unproven concept of global warming is an attempt to exert control over others. Whenever I hear people talk of global warming, I always hear them saying things like "People should not be allowed to use aerosal sprays" or "SUVs should be made illegal" or whatever.
I fear that many liberals are obsessed with control and power over others. Why not just do your thing and let others do theirs? Want me to buy into Global Warming, prove it is happening or disprove that the present climate is relatively stable. Prove Global Warming is a credible threat before you try to exert influence over my lifestyle. Sound fair?
I think SUN is back-asswards on this on. Rather then screaming in a blog that IBM needs to support Solaris, why doesn't SUN migrate their core tools and apps from Solaris (which is a dying OS) to Linux? If DB2 and WebSphere already run on Linux, and SUN ran linux, then all would be good in the world. I think it is wrong to blame IBM for things they have done in the past, when they are presently one of the biggest contributors to Linux, in terms of code, money, testing, applications, legal funds, development platforms, etc. etc. etc. Seriously, IBM has done so much for open source and Linux, what has SUN done? How many OSes can IBM support? Is it fair to larger linux community if SUN drags resources away from form Linux to a dying Solaris? Solaris is so 1990s, Linux is the future.
Liberals keep talking about this global warming concept but haven't been able to back in up with scientific proof. This is /., we should all understand the difference between science and political science. Al Gore gave a speech in NY on global warming on Jan. 16th, 2004, a day that set a record for being so cold (1F, 18C).
... 62.
Listen, I am open minded (I love open source and open markets), if you want me to accept global warming, just prove it to me scientifically. What is the ideal temperature for the Earth? Then we can go from there and look for trends and test the hypothesis of global warming.
I live in Austin Texas, it was 62 degrees today; the average for the last 100 years this same day was
Should I assume 62 is the correct temperature for Jan. 24 in Austin or not? Would 60 be better? How about 58? If it is 61 or less next year should we setup and fund a UN committee to investigate global cooling?
Serously my only question is "Who gets to decide what the ideal temperature is?" Personally, I have always been found of 72.
By the way, what every happened to that whole liberal overpopulation hypothesis in the seventies? Is it possible global warming is just a modern revision of the whole "Listen to us, Mother Earth is dying because of evil corporations?" with a different name and different spin, but with just as little proof to support it?
Why aren't liberals complaining about how all the plants are screwing up gas levels in relation to the original atmosphere of Earth with all the Oxygen they make? Maybe we should get rid of cute little animals if they produce CO2.
I mean if liberals want to go back to some arbitrary point in time and set the environment to a static setting based that time, why not go back to the beginning of this planet's history? Crank up the temp, get rid of all those gases we depend on, loose the animals and plants and bacteria?
Seriously, my only question is who gets to decide?
Since this is /. I wonder if most people feel the way I do about the present vote counting method and recounting methods across most of the US.
Simply put I trust machines to count votes over people.
My reasoning is that a machine is unbiased and humans are biased. If a machine tosses out a ballot because it cannot determine the vote, statistically it will do so in an unbiased way that affects both candidates in porportion to the percentage of the votes they truly earned.
The nice thing about the 2004 Presidential election was that unlike in 2000, the winning candidate (whether you like Bush or not), won by more than the margin of error.
The same is not true in Washington and this concept of counting until you get the result you want is just out of control. You have Democrats saying let every vote be counted not once, not twice but three times, then when the result changes, they are now convinced thatevery vote was counted and there is no need for any additonal recounts. It just looks bad.
I think that this could be one of those win the Gov. battle situations by Democrats, only to loose a Senate seat by discontent voters.
As a libertarian, I think this could really hurt Democrats in WA longterm. I say this because many NJ voters like myself were upset with the Democratic Governor not stepping down in time to allow NJ residents to vote on a new governor this November and as a result it clearly translated into a large gain for Bush.
Bush lost by NJ by 16% in 2000 and only 9% in 2004. Considering the size of the gain in a state the President only visited once or twice, it clearly means local politics played a role with swing voters like myself. For the record, I voted libertarian in 1996 and 2000 and for Bush in 2004.
Legistatures and the public should push for machine recounts over hand recounts in my opinion to avoid selective recounting.
The total number of ballots fed into the machine should always match the total number of voters initially reported, that is not what happened in WA. If the numbers don't match there is a huge problem and if the numbers are off by enough to change the outcome, a runoff should be an option (An option setup in a pre-election law with clear guidelines so that the elected legislatures and people have control and not unelected judges with both open and hidden agendas).
Whenever there is a problem, people in those voting areas should vote to replace their canvasing board until they get a board that does the job correctly. Legislatures who ignore or do not take fair elections seriously shoud be pushed out by both Republicans and Democrats working together with an overwhelming majority (preferably in favor of small government libertarians who can setup fair elections within their first term). Voters have the biggest responsiblity here. To date voters have only themselves to blame.
Sorry to put this on the Demcorats who read this, but it is your local election officals who more often then not make the largest mistakes and it is largely Democratic Urban counties that repeatedly fail to resolve their voting problems.
Whether it is the butterfly ballot in FL or the "misplaced" ballots in King Country, your election officals are not doing their jobs and Democratic voters are not doing their jobs to replace them with capable people. Those people should be voted out of office as soon as possible or else things will never get better.
Futhermore, if the election falls within the margin of error, and citizens are not OK with this, then they need to push to have their state and local represntatives draft a law that allows for a runoff election as I meantion already. The manor of recounts and how they are conducted should be setup in advance so that there is no need for a judge making post election law that chanegs the rules in the middle of the race. The rules need to be setup clearly in advance to be fair.
Simply put you count the votes, if it is close you recount the
Wow, you are trying to spin the notion that Liberals invented free markets along with the Internet?
I wonder, how Liberals can be for a free/open market when:
1). They attempt to force Socialized healthcare on people who don't want it. Shouldn't Liberals trust that in time the open market to find a solution?
2). They Demand/Depend on Inefficient Government Programs that redistribute individual and corporate wealth. Shouldn't it be up to the people or investers who create wealth to determine how it is spent and invested?
3). Liberal candidates preach about the faith they have in our Failing State Run Public Schools and tell us about the Evils of Vouchers while they send their children to private schools. If given the choice between paying more taxes for "the children" or being taxed less, therefore being able to work less and thus commit more time to writing open source educational programs, I personally think the later would do more to help "the children".
If you support open source, then to avoid contradiction of thought, you should also support open markets for the very same reasons. In time open markets and open source produce the best results for the largest amount of people and provide the largest selection of options and choice. Your belief should be that the best goods and services will grow from such an enviornment.
Government restricts open markets and ideas by the creation of rules and regulations that rarely accomplish their intended goal. Government promises everything and delivers very little, sorta like a Washington based software company.
I am amazed that with the volume of people on Slashdot who claim to hate M$, these same people favor the Democratic party, which for all intensive purposes is the M$ of politics. Democrats like M$ promise us everything, with no intention or ability to deliver. Who do you trust more to solve the issue of SPAM, Democratic Politicians, M$ or the open source community? Democrats and M$ win whenever they can get more people to depend on them. Democrats spin negatives about their opponents to boost approval, just like M$ spins "problems with Linux" to boost sales. M$ contributes money to SCO to do their dirty work, the Kerry campaign uses moveon.org for the exact same kind of work.
I am not saying you have to vote for Bush this election. Republicans are not the only alternative, but I do personally believe they are significantly better than Democrats.
I am just saying you shouldn't buy Kerry's Vaporware, your best interests would be served by voting either independent or Green or Liberatarian (Which is my party of choice and my suggestion to you). Yes, if you live in a swing state, your vote going to Nader(I) or Badnarik(L) could result in Bush winning that state and most likely being re-elected, but you win in the sense that in 2008 the DNC is more likely to listen to you. Kerry is not the Left's candidate, he is Kennedy and Daschle's boy.
If you do go in and vote for Kerry, you're just adding to the infinite loop where Democrats run puppet candidates instead of men/women of true character.
I hear Kerry has locked up 100% the Viet Cong vote according to a recent Ding Dang Dong poll.
Fact is a liberal pol-sci friend of mind, Matt in PA volunteered to work with the Kerry campaign and the DNC to invalidate over 20,000 signatures out of 40,000, just so they could push Nader of the ballot in PA. There is no way that half of the signatures were invalid. There is something wrong about the Democrats snuffing out the voice of independents and 3rd party candidates to force a marshmallow of a candidate down our thoughts. I am a Libertarian and I am voting for Bush this time, but I would have voted for Lieberman (D-CT) if he was nominated. The reason is simple, I believe the War or Terrorism is the most important issue in this election and I trust Bush to win it, while I don't trust Kerry. Lieberman would be strong in fighting the War on Terrorism and would have pushed back against the huge Congressional spending bills in a Republican Congress. From where I am standing the DNC is more closed minded then the RNC right now. I watched how the Democrats blasted one of there own, when they resorted to calling Zell Miller a racist after he endorsed Bush. Moderates like Miller and Lieberman are the guys on the Democrat bench that could win national elections, but the Extreme-Left refuses to consider them and the result is going to be a huge Bush win. Mark my words, it isn't even going to be close. The question big government liberals should ask themselves is "Would they prefer a moderate Democrat or a Republican?", the majority of Americans like myself will never vote for a big government candidate like Dean or a puppet/marshmallow like Kerry.