A tradition almost as old as newspapers putting content they think their readers will like 'below the fold' on the front page is the one where people complain that THEIR stories aren't getting coverage and someone else's stories are.
Now, I'm not going to argue that the coverage of Rich White Girl getting kidnapped over a bunch of other non-RWGs is a shame. But writing articles about million-dollar homes or the new Clie isn't bad journalism, or bad coverage, or whatever else you want to call it. It's called 'paying the bills' and 'not writing articles that only nerds want to read.' The paper I work for puts its fair share of Geek News on the front page of its Business section, and while I'd love to see more articles about things in my field, I realize that my interests are very specialized. That's why I read Fark and Slashdot and Kuro5hin and Ars and C|Net, etc etc.
"How many times does this cliche need to be repeated until you get in into your thick, geek skull?"
He even admits it's a cliche. How.. amusing.
Voting 3rd (or 4th, or 5th) party is making a statement. That's all well and good, but you're not making an impact on who WINS the election. So, in the sense that by voting, you're helping decide the winner of the election, you're throwing your vote away.
You have a choice - make a statement, or contribute to one of the eventual winners or the other. I'm opting for the latter, but to pretend you can do both is a little silly.
You say that "..if enough people do as you should, vote their feelings, then perhaps enough people will vote for that candidate.." A sufficient number of people won't do that, so your point is moot.
We have a two-party system for presidential races, and while it's certainly possible for an enterprising pro wrestler to win himself a govenorship, winning a majority of votes in a majority of states is totally impossible at this time, especially for the pigeonholed 'other' candidates.
A vote for Nader or Browne or Buchanan is like not voting - none of the above gents will be elected in the fall, so your vote doesn't count for anything other than a moral victory.
And as anyone who played Illuminati can tell you, Moral Victories Don't Count.
I used to (a few years ago) work for one of those 10-10 numbers. It was boring, if well-paying work, and sadly, we would constantly get calls from extremely irate people who were 'slammed' over to our service. We were always perplexed (we ran support, marketing/customer recruiting was handled by another company), and would pass the problems along to my boss. Eventually, the word leaked down as to the problem - the outside contractors hired by the company had been forwarding along people's information as transfer requests, rather than the 'no' they had responded with. Not realizing it, the technical folks switched them over to our service, and BAM, the customer calls up all bitter 'cause he got switched.
Interestingly, if you look at FCC suits in the past, every single major carrier, and most of the minor ones, have been fined for slamming. It's the sad truth that it happens every day, and it's easily preventable with a lock on the line.
You know, that has to be the most poorly formatted website I've ever seen. And probably the most partisian, as well.
Is there some sort of law that says that the only well-done partisian website can be www.gwbush.com? He's certainly the most original.
Re:Someone beat this guy with a clue stick
on
Lawsuits Suck
·
· Score: 1
While we're on the subject of clue-stick beatings, consider that your third-party vote has ZERO impact on the political process. There is exactly zippy chance that your candidate would win, thus, your vote goes into a black hole of 'votes that don't help decide the outcome'.
A person who doesn't vote is only voting for whoever wins, goes the old saying. By the same token, whoever votes for Ralph Nader is simply abstaining from participation in the political process, at least from a macro perspective.
You are, of course, free to vote for whomever you want. Just know that you're just as bad as the folks who don't vote.
Journalists are supposed to be unbiased, and provide fair analysis of events. If you want to give your opinion, that's what the editorial section is for.
Journalistic integrity. It's kinda important.
On the other hand,/. folx aren't journalists, so they can be biased all they want, and this site probably wouldn't be worth reading without their opinions.
Slashdot Mirror
A tradition almost as old as newspapers putting content they think their readers will like 'below the fold' on the front page is the one where people complain that THEIR stories aren't getting coverage and someone else's stories are.
:)
Now, I'm not going to argue that the coverage of Rich White Girl getting kidnapped over a bunch of other non-RWGs is a shame. But writing articles about million-dollar homes or the new Clie isn't bad journalism, or bad coverage, or whatever else you want to call it. It's called 'paying the bills' and 'not writing articles that only nerds want to read.' The paper I work for puts its fair share of Geek News on the front page of its Business section, and while I'd love to see more articles about things in my field, I realize that my interests are very specialized. That's why I read Fark and Slashdot and Kuro5hin and Ars and C|Net, etc etc.
Notably, IANAWriter
He has a laptop and a dell computer, so that means he MUST be in touch with technology issues! What wonderful logic you utilize, sir.
</sarcasm>
And here all this time, I expected the Bush network admin to be above knocking down straw men. Whoops.
"How many times does this cliche need to be repeated until you get in into your thick, geek skull?"
He even admits it's a cliche. How.. amusing.
Voting 3rd (or 4th, or 5th) party is making a statement. That's all well and good, but you're not making an impact on who WINS the election. So, in the sense that by voting, you're helping decide the winner of the election, you're throwing your vote away.
You have a choice - make a statement, or contribute to one of the eventual winners or the other. I'm opting for the latter, but to pretend you can do both is a little silly.
Welcome to Logical Flawville, population: you.
You say that "..if enough people do as you should, vote their feelings, then perhaps enough people will vote for that candidate.." A sufficient number of people won't do that, so your point is moot.
XOXOX
Klaw
Wake up and smell the electoral college coffee.
We have a two-party system for presidential races, and while it's certainly possible for an enterprising pro wrestler to win himself a govenorship, winning a majority of votes in a majority of states is totally impossible at this time, especially for the pigeonholed 'other' candidates.
A vote for Nader or Browne or Buchanan is like not voting - none of the above gents will be elected in the fall, so your vote doesn't count for anything other than a moral victory.
And as anyone who played Illuminati can tell you, Moral Victories Don't Count.
I used to (a few years ago) work for one of those 10-10 numbers. It was boring, if well-paying work, and sadly, we would constantly get calls from extremely irate people who were 'slammed' over to our service. We were always perplexed (we ran support, marketing/customer recruiting was handled by another company), and would pass the problems along to my boss. Eventually, the word leaked down as to the problem - the outside contractors hired by the company had been forwarding along people's information as transfer requests, rather than the 'no' they had responded with. Not realizing it, the technical folks switched them over to our service, and BAM, the customer calls up all bitter 'cause he got switched.
Interestingly, if you look at FCC suits in the past, every single major carrier, and most of the minor ones, have been fined for slamming. It's the sad truth that it happens every day, and it's easily preventable with a lock on the line.
So no, you're not alone.
You know, that has to be the most poorly formatted website I've ever seen. And probably the most partisian, as well.
Is there some sort of law that says that the only well-done partisian website can be www.gwbush.com? He's certainly the most original.
While we're on the subject of clue-stick beatings, consider that your third-party vote has ZERO impact on the political process. There is exactly zippy chance that your candidate would win, thus, your vote goes into a black hole of 'votes that don't help decide the outcome'.
A person who doesn't vote is only voting for whoever wins, goes the old saying. By the same token, whoever votes for Ralph Nader is simply abstaining from participation in the political process, at least from a macro perspective.
You are, of course, free to vote for whomever you want. Just know that you're just as bad as the folks who don't vote.
Oh, come off it.
/. folx aren't journalists, so they can be biased all they want, and this site probably wouldn't be worth reading without their opinions.
Journalists are supposed to be unbiased, and provide fair analysis of events. If you want to give your opinion, that's what the editorial section is for.
Journalistic integrity. It's kinda important.
On the other hand,
klaw
We use Bell Atlantic Data Services to admin our network connection - everything from the firewall outwards is their responsibility.
Recently, our connection died, and we called to find out what the deal was.
They replied it was a power outage. We got a good chuckle, and started cursing at them for not using UPS or somesuchsimilar. Grr.