Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

If You Had To Vote Based On Candidates' Web Pages

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the you'd-never-vote-at-all dept.

The Internet 112

Kookus writes "Which party has the best team of web deployers/developers? Neither main page passes w3c's html validator, but Kerry's has much fewer "errors". These pages do not seem to do well on Bobby either... Both seem to be using Akamai's HTTP Acceleration/Mirror service which appears to be running linux, Granted that it is hard to please everyone; which team is doing the best job?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cheap shot... (5, Funny)

orkysoft (93727) | more than 9 years ago | (#10645520)

Well, one of them tells me I'm not authorized to access it...

Re:Cheap shot... (1)

Hassman (320786) | more than 9 years ago | (#10645999)

No no no, your sig should say...

"In Soviet Russia, you don't find The Grail, The Grail finds you!"

Re:Cheap shot... (1)

orkysoft (93727) | more than 9 years ago | (#10647164)

Well, I figured out that interpreting this important clue as to the real location of the Grail would be better left as an exercise for the reader... in Japan!

Re:Cheap shot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10647399)

Sorry about the nick, but no time (thinks, of course I have time, but I'm too lazy.)

The W site [georgewbush.com] is configured not to work for those without a US proxy.

Re:Cheap shot... (3, Insightful)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 9 years ago | (#10647877)

It's not a cheap shot. Bush' website is blocking visitors deemed to be outside of the US. So...

If I were chosing a US president based on their web pages Bush wouldn't even be on the ballot.

Re:Cheap shot... (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648617)

Well from what I understand the U.S democrazy offer just 2 choices. That's republican / democrats and that's about 1 more than Iraq. Every year the ballot results reads the following. I am not making this stuff up.

1.) Republican or Democrat

2.) Ralph Nader

3.) Mickey Mouse

4.) Howard Stern

wow, that's dumb (3, Interesting)

guyo26 (151472) | more than 9 years ago | (#10645526)

stupidest idea ever. Granted, it's news for nerds, but if you're so undecided still that you pick based on which website looks better, then please surrender your franchise immediately

Re:wow, that's dumb (4, Insightful)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 9 years ago | (#10645727)

True, it's pretty silly. (And pretty clearly a joke, given the icons posted with the story.) But is it worse than picking a candidate based on who is more attractive or taller? Given that people seem to use things like looks or who they're most like to have a beer with, I'm not sure the web page validity is necessarily a significantly dumber criterion. They all leave me weeping for my country.

Re:wow, that's dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10645862)

Nobody consciously chooses a candidate based on their height or hair, just like no one consciously chooses CEOs that way. Physical appearance has a subconscious effect on how individuals are perceived. Weep away, but you're most likely no different.

Re:wow, that's dumb (1)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646153)

While it's true people don't often explicitly vote for someone because he's more handsome, it doesn't seem like it's that far below the surface in their thinking. Several times I've heard people say, "I think so-and-so just looks like a nicer person," and other things to that effect.

Re:wow, that's dumb (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646235)

Autistic people and hackers are different- we judge people based on what they do, not what they say or how they look.

Re:wow, that's dumb (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648344)

*nitpick*

Not necessarily autistic people. Rather, people with a more childlike view of the world. Depending on the depth and severity of the autism, an autistic person may have a more immature view of the world than a non-autistic person. Certainly, most peopl diagnosed with autism exhibit this immaturity.

(I have to nitpick when I see things like this; I'm one of the lucky, "high-functioning," autistics.)

Re:wow, that's dumb (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648477)

So am I- and I wouldn't call my view child-like at all, just different. In a way, it's MORE mature than the average adult judging people on appearance as if they never got out of high school (I hated that part of high school). But then again, that's why I included hackers as well- the Hacker's Ethic states that such judgements are bogus criteria. Could also include St. James the Epistle Writer I guess- he's the one who started that whole bit about works being more important than faith, about what you do being more important than what you appear to do.

Re:wow, that's dumb (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648642)

In a way, it's MORE mature...

Agreed completely, if you replace "mature" with "logical. For you and I, maturity implies logic, at least in the context of this discussion. However, if you think about it, children tend to be much more logical about things than "mature" people. After a few inquiries, they can frequently cut through the red tape of politics, prejudices and social-interaction nuances that tie the actions of their parents.

Re:wow, that's dumb (1)

Kookus (653170) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646225)

It is a joke, but it doesn't ask which candidate you're going to vote for ;) It asks which candidate has the best web developers. Personally I'm a democrat, but I like Bush' layout more. It also depends on if you are a standards stickler. In my place of work I don't get a choice of coding my pages for IE or Netscape only... It has to work with everything (within reason). Also I don't get to skip out on accessibility issues since some of my clientelle actually do have dissabilities. In the end my vote is on Kerry's developers... Subtract a few spaces from tags n stuff and his page is the cleanest.

Re:wow, that's dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10645878)

Relax. I don't think this is meant in any seriousness.

Re:wow, that's dumb (2, Interesting)

aberson (461047) | more than 9 years ago | (#10645902)

for political candidates it makes little sense, but I used this method for picking a dentist when I moved to a new area:

1. went to my dental insurance website and found dentists sorted by distance from my home address
2. googled each name until I found the first one with his own website (i.e. not just listed on some "dentists of NJ" website)

The method actually worked very well - the first place with a website turned out to be a dental office that was new, clean, and technologically advanced. USB based x-rays that show up immediately after they are taken, computer based patient management system in the room so the guy can bring up my previous exams and x-rays, etc.

of course, I had nothing else to compare, so website was basically one step above just randomly picking a guy. Vote for president should take a little more thought.

Re:wow, that's dumb (1)

insensitive claude (645770) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648510)

Sounds like it worked out well for you, but it could also mean that dentist needs more patients. Of course, if the practice is new, then it's not a problem.

I went through my list once, looking for names that said "not currently accepting new patients", and called those offices until I found one that was.

Not terribly scientific, but better than judging by last names.

Dumb...and dumber (1)

Safety Cap (253500) | more than 9 years ago | (#10649928)

stupidest idea ever.

Considering the site you saw this on doesn't even validate [w3.org] , itself...

If this had been in the last election (4, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#10645624)

...then it'd have had to be Al Gore [archive.org] .

Not because his website is particularly great, but because, if you View Source, you get...

Thanks for checking out our source code! I plan to use this space to post
special messages to those who are helping to improve our web site -- by making
our site the best it can be. The fact that you are peeking behind the
scenes at our site means you can make an important difference to this Internet
effort. I'm grateful for your help and support in this campaign. Now let's
keep working to build the 21st Century of our dreams!

Al Gore
Because, as we all know, Al used to hand write his HTML... ;-)

Re:If this had been in the last election (1)

I_Love_Pocky! (751171) | more than 9 years ago | (#10645847)

Do you think he invisioned the web back when he invented the Internet?

Vint Cerf says he did. (4, Informative)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646290)


I can't find the email message now because I'm supposed to be working, but Vint [wikipedia.org] Cerf [ibiblio.org] told me that, before Al Gore, the ARPANET was a private utility. Al Gore decided it should be a public service, and provided considerable support from the U.S. Congress to turn the ARPANET into the Internet.

Many people did the work. Many people should have some of the credit. But, according to Vint Cerf, Al Gore was the first public official to decide that there should be a public utility called the Internet.

It shocks me how little people know about the activities of their government. It shocks me that, after all this time, people are still believing the disinformation written by Republican marketing writers.

Don't believe the sound bites, read books. No one who read the more than 35 books about the Bush administration [futurepower.org] would vote for George W. Bush, that is clear.

Even those who read magazines would know more than most U.S. citizens. For example:

100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration [thenation.com] .

Re:Vint Cerf says he did. (1)

ealar dlanvuli (523604) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646546)

That sort of knowledge is pretty useless.

From both sides.

Re:Vint Cerf says he did. (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646567)

If Gore really believes that the Internet is a public utility, then he should be going out of his way to file amicus briefs against VeriSign every time he gets the chance.

"publically available utility" (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 9 years ago | (#10647429)


Okay, I meant "publically available utility".

Re:Vint Cerf says he did. (1)

Karma Farmer (595141) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646635)

It's also worth remembering that back in the late 80's you could talk about "the internets" without being laughed out of the room. Al Gore really does bear some responsibility for making one of "the internets" into "The Internet" as we know it today.

Re:Vint Cerf says he did. (1)

xoboots (683791) | more than 9 years ago | (#10647744)

Do you really want to try to get associated with that misinformation? Be wise and don't believe everything you are told. The laugh about Gore was that he claimed to have invented the internet. Nothing can be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that DARPA was supporting the development of the internet long before Al Gore came on the scene and that public and private pipelines were available for years before Al said "peep". The internet also went global long before most people realize. No, Cerf was definately one of the inventors and Gore may have decided to jump on the bandwagon at one point and put whatever political support behind it that he could, but with or without him, the internet would exist pretty much exactly as it does today. One other thing that is very troubling about giving credit to Gore: it makes it sound like the internet is an American "utility". The initial technology was born in the USA, granted, but it took the world to build the thing out and develop it to its current state. To call it public is also a misnomer (and "publically available" is probably worse) since nearly everywhere the internet is carried over private lines by private enterprises.

The internet really is "about" politics and trying to make it so is kind of, well, disturbing.

Re:Vint Cerf says he did. (1)

spreer (15939) | more than 9 years ago | (#10647953)

Except he never used the word "invented". Look it up.

Re:Vint Cerf says he did. (1)

xoboots (683791) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648117)

You are absolutely correct. He said (in an interview with Wolf Blitzer):

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Now lets not get too bogged down in semantics; I still believe that whatever credit Gore is deserving there is a long, long, long list of people who are more deserving of the credit that Gore would ascribe to himself.

Vint Cerf said that Al Gore deserves unique credit (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 9 years ago | (#10651631)


You said, "... there is a long, long, long list of people who are more deserving of the credit that Gore would ascribe to himself."

Vint Cerf said that Al Gore deserves unique credit. Back in those days, which are very difficult to remember now, you had to buy your floppy disks from a special company, and they really were floppy.

Back then it was the raw, early, ugly days of computing. (Just like it is now, with one big monopolist and proprietary file formats, and quirky, partly finished software that wastes your time, like Windows XP SP2.)

Back then, there was no one who had power in the U.S. Congress besides Gore understood anything technical. It's difficult to remember that now. Back then, people just did not relate to computing issues. If you knew something about computing, you were considered socially eccentric.

Back then, the ARPANET was thriving, but it was used by people who considered themselves privileged, and were privileged, and definitely did not want to share their privileges.

Back then, DARPA, the U.S. government's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency would give ARPANET access to institutions and companies that were part of the effort to find new and better ways to kill people and destroy their property. Back then, it was perceived that there were enemies everywhere and it was important to protect ourselves by waging all war all the time. (Just like now.) It was called the "Cold" War. The U.S. government killed people, but the killing had to be a secret from the average citizen.

Back then there was an extremely acrimonious discussion about a new-fangled idea, the .COM top level domain. The privileged did not want their utility to be corrupted by crass commercialism. Back then, it was difficult to get spam. The ARPANET was an organization of gentlemen, who would never cause problems for each other *cough* Mitnick.

Back then, there were not enough viruses for everyone; we had to share. Back then systems were mostly not vulnerable, viruses were spread through the honor system. Okay, that is a joke. It took Microsoft to invent sloppily coded operating systems that would assure the widespread availability of viruses. Unfortunately, that is not a joke.

Back then, there was a new-fangled gadget, the Hayes 2400 Baud modem, which few could afford. There were fears that such high-speed use would cause problems for the telephone system.

Al Gore had technical knowledge. Al Gore had power in government because he was a senator and a famous senator's son. He put the full weight of government behind the idea that just anyone could have access.

--
Bush borrows [brillig.com] money to kill Iraqis [iraqbodycount.net] . 140 billion borrowed [costofwar.com] . With interest, you pay 200 billion. When Saudis attack, invade Iraq?

Re:Vint Cerf says he did. (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 9 years ago | (#10650846)

but Vint Cerf told me that, before Al Gore, the ARPANET was a private utility.

Could you please show us a quote please? Because I distinctly remember using ARPANET in the pre-Gore days. It was created by a PUBLIC government agency and I was using it at a PUBLIC university. There were some private companies using it, but to consider it a "private utility" is laughable.

It was a private facility of public institutions. (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 9 years ago | (#10651452)


Did you ever try to get personal Internet access back in the ARPANET days? You could not. It was a private facility of large public institutions and big companies like Textronix.

Sure, you could shell into your company or government or educational account from home. But if you were just an average person, you could not get an account.

Re:It was a private facility of public institution (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 9 years ago | (#10655772)

You claimed ARPANET was a "private utility". This is incorrect. It was always public. Anyone who could afford the *hardware* could join in. It wasn't Al Gore who gave the internet to the masses, but cheaper hardware. Once the hardware got cheap enough ISPs started popping up everywhere.

I am not dissing Gore's involvement in promoting the internet, but I'm not going to give him more credit than he deserves.

Re:If this had been in the last election (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 9 years ago | (#10647328)

"Because, as we all know, Al used to hand write his HTML"

Yes, but with vi or emacs? Don't tell me he used ed...

Re:If this had been in the last election (1)

erpbridge (64037) | more than 9 years ago | (#10649754)

What about "hand write" don't you get...

my question: Ball point or gel pens?

Re:If this had been in the last election (1)

Net_Wakker (576655) | more than 9 years ago | (#10652812)

His indexfinger and a claytablet.

Judging by the verbosity of comments and indenting (1)

temojen (678985) | more than 9 years ago | (#10650983)

...

Someone (or more likely several people) did hand write his html. The indenting is structured and logical, and there are little notes to eachother here and there.

not slashdot (2, Insightful)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 9 years ago | (#10645696)

I tried to validate slashdot [w3.org] from that url, and got an error. So I'm not sure.

Re:not slashdot (1)

orangesquid (79734) | more than 9 years ago | (#10645809)

The /. admins admit they can't bring their HTML up-to-date and up-to-spec because (a) they are busy with more important things, (b) some older browsers (And they get a fair # of hits from them) dont parse some "Correct" code---in fact, certain styles of coding have been left intact on /. for years so some older browsers will display the page more correctly.

Or something like that. Can't find a link to it now, but I know i've seen this info on the site somewhere.

Re:not slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10646624)

certain styles of coding have been left intact on /. for years so some older browsers will display the page more correctly.

You mean... like that certain style of coding so that (a) the sections on the left overlaps the story listing, and (b) the page becomes impossibly wide ? Funny definition of "correctly"

Re:not slashdot (1)

orangesquid (79734) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646793)

Some versions of netscape pop up javascript errors, and a few versions won't show things correctly. But, most older versions of IE and netscape do render the page in a mostly usable form with a decent appearance. If you can provide examples, though, I'll be happy to check them out (and probably the /. guys might even try to get their page to be usable and more presentable for that browser+version).

Re:not slashdot (1)

almightyjustin (518967) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648646)

You mean... like that certain style of coding so that (a) the sections on the left overlaps the story listing, and (b) the page becomes impossibly wide ? Funny definition of "correctly"

That's actually a Gecko bug, not Slashdot's fault, see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21752 7 (which can't be directly linked from Slashdot).

oh wow (1)

Naikrovek (667) | more than 9 years ago | (#10645708)

can't we find something more *political* to talk about? nobody who cares about politics cares about candidate website standards conformity.

if what the current administration is doing doesn't stop, it will put an end to this nation as we know it within our lifetime. what they are doing is making decisions that line their own pockets without concern for the voters or the country. greed is destructive.

did you know, for example that the current administration has previously sought legal means to postpone or cancel and election that they have no jurisdiction over? did you know that there are legal documents drafted by john ashcroft & co. that give legal justification to the torture that went on at abu ghraib (sp?) prison? then, when ordered by congress to turn over the documents, mister ashcroft refused? that's contempt of congress, folks.

i could go on - can we please talk about something more relevant that fucking standards compliance on politics.slashdot.org?

Re:oh wow (1)

Edax Rarem (187218) | more than 9 years ago | (#10645856)

How is this?
"For a political candidate to jump to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief," Bush said.

This is the guy who went to war because a certain country had WMDs, and now we know they don't and didn't.

What a freaking hippocrite.

Re:oh wow (2, Insightful)

Zach Garner (74342) | more than 9 years ago | (#10645934)

| This is the guy who went to war because a certain
| country had WMDs, and now we know they don't and
| didn't.

You need to realize that Bush didn't go to war because of WMDs. He had his own personal reasons for the war. The WMD issue was just their idea at the best way to justify the war to the US population.

Re:oh wow (1)

Edax Rarem (187218) | more than 9 years ago | (#10645967)

Good point... Part of his "Crusade"

Re:oh wow (1)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 9 years ago | (#10650330)

Bush supported the Iraq war for pretty much the same reasons John Kerry supported the Iraq war.
"I have no doubt, I've never had any doubt -- and I've said this publicly -- about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein? How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis?"


-- John Kerry, November 16, 2001, two months after the 9/11 attacks

Re:oh wow (1)

Edax Rarem (187218) | more than 9 years ago | (#10656243)

From CNN today:
Kerry also used a Bush campaign line, telling the crowd that the president had jumped to conclusions about Saddam Hussein's connection to the September 11, 2001, attacks and about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.


"I'm going to apply the Bush standard to this: Yesterday ... George Bush said and I quote him: 'A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief when it comes to your security.' Well Mr. President, I agree with you."


Kerry may have supported this War, but it is W and his cronies that have seriously screwed things up over there. To be honest, at the time, I also supported the war, but that was when I believed the lies of this pathetic administration.

How can Bush supporters continue to believe the constant stream of spin and lies?
Are they just blind and refuse to accept the reality that W has really made things a lot worse since he has been in office?

Re:oh wow (1)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 9 years ago | (#10656612)

John Kerry has not given me the impression that he'd run the war any better, plus he's gone and insulted our current allies in Iraq, and promised (and eventually backed down on) the ridiculous notion that he could get France and Germany to help. Not to mention that you can't successfully fight a war and keep calling it a "mistake" and a "distraction".

If John Kerry wins the election, and were to take the Iraq sitution seriously, he'd be giving the exact same optimistic account that Bush is. He'd have to.

Re:oh wow (1)

Edax Rarem (187218) | more than 9 years ago | (#10657048)

Insult is a term used by W to spin what Kerry said. Kerry said we are paying for 90% of this war (money and casualties).
I know... "What about Poland?!"
Bush (approximately): 'He says we didn't have allies? What does he say to Tony Blair? What does he say to Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland?'


President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland: 'They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride.'


So, I ask you this? What is more insulting? Being lied to about why you are being asked to go to WAR or being told the truth about who is bearing the brunt of this war?

The war was a mistake, but regardless it must now be faught and WON by America.
Here is a nice site on who is actually there [globalsecurity.org] about 23,900 troops from EVERY other country TOTAL.
Leaving massive piles of explosives and nuclear materials unguarded, and toturing prisoners is not the way to win the war.

It is a fact that the rest of the world would rather have Kerry instead of W as our POTUS. So don't you think that the rest of the world would be more willing to work with someone they prefer instead of someone who has lied to them and then told them they can't share in any of the profitable oil contracts after the invasion.

W has screwed our foriegn policy into a place where it will be hard for anyone to get us out of, I believe Kerry has a far greater chance of salvaging some of these relations that most. W has no chance at all.

Re:oh wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10646074)

Technically correct, but a question for you.

If your best information indicated that a enemy has WMD and has been attempting to send terrorist, possibly armed, into your country, and you were smart enough to know that you can't stop all of the terrorist that are attempting to infiltrate. Therefore you have to assume that there are terrorist in your country, possibly with WMD's and they are just waiting for instructions to use them.

So your options are ignore the potential threat and hope your wrong and it goes away, Or attack and attempt to bring the war to them before it cost too much of your civilian countrymen their lives.

Which choice do you make? (Given that who knew what when will be debateable, so is therefore moot in the context of this hypothetical. Also remembering that it is the best information available that indicate the conclusions not some strange internet rumor ;)).

Bush made the wrong decision in hindsight, but most people do. I think he's been at best a mediocre president whose only legacy may be sept. 11. However I also feel Kerry has no true grasp of the concepts or anything more than wishful thinking and empty promises. Bush may promise things you don't like or want but he at least attempts to keep them and stick to them baring new information.

Re:oh wow (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646342)

you were smart enough to know that you can't stop all of the terrorist that are attempting to infiltrate.

Even I, a lowly computer hacker, can design a system using modern armements that can stop human beings from crossing an arbitrary border- and in fact, stop all of them. What is so hard about this? Unless, of course, you're stupid enough to attempt to discriminate- let friends pass and others perish- that's much harder. But considering that the Bush Administration has insured that we have no other friends, why not button up our borders instead of taking jaunts halfway across the world while leaving the homeland undefended?

Re:oh wow (1)

Edax Rarem (187218) | more than 9 years ago | (#10656518)

You see, this statement:
If your best information indicated that a enemy has WMD...
Is just not true.
The POTUS used tailored information, not the best information. He only wanted to hear that they had WMD so that is the only information that made its way to his tiny little redneck wanna-be brain.
There were many in the CIA and other agencies (like the WEAPONS INSPECTORS, that were there)that informed him that there were no WMDs.
This may have not been a hard fact at the time, but W didn't even give them the chance before he launched his attack.
We know the facts now, and ..your best information... was just plian wrong.
Face it, we were lied to, so the POTUS could make his buddies at Halliburton even filthier in richness.

Regarding this:
I think he's been at best a mediocre president
and
Bush may promise things you don't like or want but he at least attempts to keep them and stick to them baring new information.


Please read these: here [americanpr...action.org]

Tell me, there is new information coming in all the time and this guy has stuck to his guns, even though that path has been wrong all along. [not enough troops, and the ones that were there weren't properly equipped, and they still arent] Where has it gotten us? 1100+ Americans dead, 7000+ wounded, hundreds of tons of missing explosives that he was warned about and decided not to guard, 10s of thousands ot innocent Iraqis dead, massive job losses, health care increases, poverty stricken increases, environmental failures.. the list goes on.
Here are some more [americanprogress.org]

How can you say he is mediocre? There has never been a more pathetic display of what to do as POTUS in the entire history of there being a POTUS.
You are severely deluding yourself.
As far as Kerry is concerned, I guarantee he has a better grasp of things than W does. My dog has a better grasp than W. Kerry is intelligent and brave and has led men into real combat. Can W claim any of this? Can Cheney? Oh, they could, but like usual, they would be lying.

How can you claim empty promises when he hasn't had a chance to excute?
I am disgusted by the belief that W has been anything but a complete failure as POTUS, just like everything else in his life. He was handed a great job and he flushed it and everything surrounding it right down the sh1tter. Even when the entire world was for the USA after 9/11, he has managed to squander any good feeling towards us throughout the entire planet.
The republican and conservative world needs to face reality and give up on their Unholy Messiah.

Re:oh wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10648541)

"A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander-in-chief."

Re:oh wow (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646311)

nobody who cares about politics cares about candidate website standards conformity.

I care- standards conformity in the website leads to other forms of standards conformity that you may care more about. Like the Just War Standard, Verion 0.1b, which was written by Augustine of Hippo in City of God in 400 A.D. which states that a just war should never be conducted outside of your own territory. You should not take revenge in your enemy's territory, and you shouldn't fight your wars on the territory of third parties. Hmm- I guess this means that the Bush Administration doesn't care about that standard either.

With respect to Comic Book Guy (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10645730)

Most asinine post ever

Says Slashdot.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10645750)

Neither main page passes w3c's html validator,

neither does slashdot, home of the world's ugliest HTML.

also (5, Insightful)

Naikrovek (667) | more than 9 years ago | (#10645782)

lets talk about how compliant slashdot is before we talk about other sites' compliance, please.

you know, the whole "police yourself before you police others" thing that we hear so much these days.

Re:also (1)

burns210 (572621) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646262)

amazing UID, very nice..

'police yourself before you police others'.... Not to start something(ok, maybe to start a LITTLE something) but that is anti-common cliche if ever there was one. Quite the opposite is happening in the US these days, unless you count something like 'police ourselves as if you yourself were the others... all the while also trying to policing others'.

Re:also (1)

Naikrovek (667) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646340)

yes quite the opposite is happening, that's for sure.

i meant it like this - i've heard many folks say that we should police ourselves before we police others, referencing the crap that's going on in iraq.

that's what i meant - many folks feel this is the important thing to do - police GWB out of office. and that's what i meant.

btw, uid 666 does not exist - if it wasn't purposefully avoided, i would have gotten it. at least i think 666 was blacklisted... i dunno.

Re:also (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648490)

666 is Anonymous Coward.

I can't prove it any more, though. This method [slashdot.org] used to work, but doesn't, and this method [slashdot.org] is taking to long.

Bush's site DOES pass the validator (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10645799)

<HTML><HEAD>
<TITLE>Access Denied</TITLE>
</HEAD><BODY>
<H1>Access Denied</H1>

You don't have permission to access "http&#58;&#47;&#47;www&#46;georgewbush&#46;com&#4 7;" on this server.<P>
</BODY>
</HTML>

Unity achieved! (2, Funny)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#10645829)

Politics (Michael): Two Bush cousins put up a pro-Kerry site!

Politics (Pudge): Oh, yeah? Well, Kerry repeatedly got Red Sox scores wrong!

Politics (Timothy): But they both --- serve their campaign sites on Linux!

Audience: Hugs all around! And if we cared about HTML standards compliance, we wouldn't be reading Slashdot!

Bush website has only one error (1)

epsalon (518482) | more than 9 years ago | (#10645851)

403 Access Denied

(and the error page does not have a correct DTD)

Pentagon strike september 11 what really happened? (0, Offtopic)

Stegano (815698) | more than 9 years ago | (#10645854)

Wasn't it a public knowledge that Pentagon was struck by a American Airlines 757 plane, but this is not what really happenend http://www.sodaro.com/Plone/ps/

Re:Pentagon strike september 11 what really happen (1)

Bombcar (16057) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646015)

Yawn. Here's the rebuttal [snopes.com] .

Bleh.

Hulk for president web site is best! (1)

Hulkster (722642) | more than 9 years ago | (#10645987)

1. The Hulk for President [komar.org] page W3C validates [w3.org]

2. The halloween webcam - vote for Hulk [komar.org] page W3C validates [w3.org] (except for the (intentional) marque tag, which most browsers handle, although Internet Exploder handles the behavior='slide' better than Firefox)

3. Hulk's web site has "survived" being FARK'ed, Slashdotted, Ernie's House of WhoopAss, etc. ... and also provides hourly updated web stats [komar.org]

4. Hulk's web site was "attacked" by a "Kerry-Bot" that tried to stuff the ballot [komar.org] but those votes were chucked and IP was banned.

5. Hulk's site is running Linux/Apache/Perl per the FAQ [komar.org] (obligatory suckup to the /. crowd ;-)

6. Hulk's site allow you to vote before the election (and vote often!) ... and shows you the results real-time - they currently are:
HULK: 9,386 BUSH: 9,151 KERRY: 8,623

7. Hulk's site done by ONE Puny Human in his spare time ... and is just a lot more fun!

Bush is definitely the winner on this one (1)

HungWeiLo (250320) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646172)

With all the replication logic that must be implemented to serve the website's contents to all the Internets, Bush's site is clearly technologically superior to Kerry's. This is why they must limit access only to the US [slashdot.org]

Re:Bush is definitely the winner on this one (1)

Sepper (524857) | more than 9 years ago | (#10647830)

This is why they must limit access only to the US

Offer void where IP starts with 132...

I could see the site, and i'm out of the US... granted just north of the border, but still

Dubya's site blocking non-us browsers. (1)

minkwe (222331) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646271)

Tried www.georgewbush.com from europe says:

Access Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://www.georgewbush.com/" on this server.

I guess they are not interested in the votes of Americans living abroad.

Re:Dubya's site blocking non-us browsers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10647301)

American overseas voters have already voted absentee a long time ago. Anyone foolish enough to send in their ballot now wouldn't get their vote counted unless they send it FedEx.

W's just worried about DDoS or something which might lose him his job ;)

Re:Dubya's site blocking non-us browsers. (1)

NaDrew (561847) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648894)

I guess they are not interested in the votes of Americans living abroad.
Hell, they're not interested in the votes of Americans living in the U.S. [dailyvanguard.com] , either.

Third parties? (1)

LGagnon (762015) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646466)

What about the third parties? It's only fair to give them a chance to compete with the big guys.

seriously (3, Insightful)

Glog (303500) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646477)

Can you people come up with any dumber reasons who to vote for? Here is a selection of other things you might consider when voting:

1. What did each candidate have for breakfast?
2. Do they snore?
3. Who does your dog bark at more?
4. Do you get better tv reception when Bush is on or Kerry?
5. Who would Leiutenant Worf vote for?

Give me a break already!

Re:seriously (1)

daveo0331 (469843) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646878)

People come up with dumber reasons all the time. At least you can read the website and find out where they stand on the issues.

6. Who has the better looking television ads?
7. Which one is taller?
8. Who are your parents voting for?
9. Whose niece/nephew got arrested for drug possession?
10. Who did Fau^H^Hox News tell you to vote for?

Re:seriously (1)

NaDrew (561847) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648916)

11. Which has the hotter daughter(s)?

Though if that was a criterion, Clinton would never [hogwild.net] have been elected.

Re: hotter daughters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10656270)

Dubya is TEH SUXX0R as President, but damn he did a good job impregnating Laura. Pron of the twins tag-teaming trannie Anne Coulter -- that would be HOT.

The results when I ran these through the validator (5, Informative)

Morrisguy (731956) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646494)

Bush(www.georgewbush.com [georgewbush.com] ): 303 errors.

Kerry(www.johnkerry.com [johnkerry.com] ): 2 errors.

Nader(www.votenader.org [votenader.org] ): unable to validate.

Badnarik(badnarik.org [badnarik.org] ): 13 errors.

Cobb(www.votecobb.org [votecobb.org] ): 217 errors.

Re:The results when I ran these through the valida (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646538)

Drat you! you beat me by a minute!!! Anyway, I got a much different number of errors for Kerry than you did.

Re:The results when I ran these through the valida (1)

Morrisguy (731956) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646600)

Most likely because you pointed the validator to the actual splash page adress, rather than the simple www.johnkerry.com address that redirects you to the splash page.

Re:The results when I ran these through the valida (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646705)

True. I think it is valid to use the first page the visitor sees though. The reality of it is a simple redirect page shouldn't have any errors, and a simple "splash" page shouldn't have 33.

Update on Kerry's site error count (1)

Morrisguy (731956) | more than 9 years ago | (#10647006)

a simple "splash" page shouldn't have 33.

Indeed. BTW, his actual index page at www.johnkerry.com/index.html [johnkerry.com] brings back 46 errors on the HTML validator.

Update on the Kerry HTML error count (1)

Morrisguy (731956) | more than 9 years ago | (#10647037)

The reality of it is a simple redirect page shouldn't have any errors, and a simple "splash" page shouldn't have 33.

And for those wondering, his actual index page at www.johnkerry.com/index.html [johnkerry.com] brings back 46 errors when fed through the HTML validator.

Re:The results when I ran these through the valida (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 9 years ago | (#10649148)

Yeah, but if he were the New York Times, tomorrow's headline would be "Bush's Campaign Website contains 150 times as many errors as Kerry's"

CBS would have scooped the story, but they were following up on some kind of banking deal from Nigeria.

Re:The results when I ran these through the valida (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10650310)

Very funny.

Re:The results when I ran these through the valida (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10650159)

Unable to validate. That's great.

Bush (-1, Troll)

charlie763 (529636) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646517)

I'd vote for bush because he's such an http://goatse.cx/ [goatse.cx] of a guy!

George Bush killed my web browser (1)

ArmorFiend (151674) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646751)

Www.georgewbush.com kills my mozilla, dead, everytime. Building a website is apperantly "hard work".

Here in Europe.. (1)

torpor (458) | more than 9 years ago | (#10646948)

.. I wouldn't vote for Bush, we can't see his website.

Based on the websites (1)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 9 years ago | (#10647161)

I could make just as an informed decision as someone who just watched the local evening news.

That is to say a uninformed decision.

Anyone who votes based just on what they find on the websites is an idiot. It's like taking a rapist's word for it that he won't do it again.

The submitter's 'Neither' is telling. Does he know that there are other parties?

Yeah, It's Funny. Laugh.

I would, but I'm sick to my stomach of this fucking election, the 'major' candidates, the rhetoric, and lies.

ha ha.

and you don't post my story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10647586)

Days ago I posted what I thought would've been an interesting story to Slashdot readers since it involved them. The idea was sparked last month while reading a Slashdot exclusive interview (can you guess which one?). Actually to be specific, it was inspired while reading the reader's comments. But to my dismay, the story wasn't posted (timothy was the one accepting stories at the time).

I run into this type of problem a lot on Slashdot. Sometimes I post comments, with what I feel are interesting thoughts, and they never get modded up. I attribute this to the fact that I prefer to be an Anonymous Coward, and I'm not part of the social circle so I am ignored. But I suppose it's possible my comments just suck.

Hours ago I reposted the original story, but completely reworded, and posted as Anonymous Coward rather than the previous name. After seeing this story, "If You Had To Vote Based On Candidates' Web Pages", I don't even care to wait and see if this new reworded one is posted.

I will reply to this comment with the story I submitted so you the reader can decide whether or not it is more interesting than which campaign has the best web team.

Measuring The Accuracy of The US Voting System (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10647605)

While everyone is scrambling to prevent another Florida incident, these people are questioning the results [emediawire.com] even if we get it perfect. They want to measure the accuracy [heartvote.org] of the voting system itself by comparing it to a virtual election using approval voting [approvalvoting.org] .

Re:Measuring The Accuracy of The US Voting System (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10647670)

As a quick followup I want to point out that this latest wording of the story is completely deceptive. "They" is really "me"! The original was in first person, but I realized that people buy into the image thing more than I thought.

It reminds me of those websites that use wording like, "We are a top design firm in the industry and our staff are ready to give your company the web presence it needs to compete in the market." When it turns out that it's really just a 15 year old geek in his mom's basement.

Re:Measuring The Accuracy of The US Voting System (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10649956)

Your project sound interesting, but I'd suggest logging in and putting a link to it in you sig. Stories never get posted when they're interesting.

Re:Measuring The Accuracy of The US Voting System (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653517)

Wow! The only response and it's from another, "Anonymous Coward". That is so amazing. Slashdot is rigged. Maybe we should create a direct competitor to Slashdot that solves all of these problems and blow it out of the water.

What about other candidates' sites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10647773)

Don't forget David Cobb [votecobb.org] of the Green Party or the Libertarian [badnarik.org] entry among others.

Better than the alternative... (1)

CptnSbaitso (800632) | more than 9 years ago | (#10648575)

I suppose this is a better option than deciding not to vote for someone because they don't know their baseball facts [slashdot.org] . Even I know that the Sox won with a triple blurns in the bottom of the 7th Blurn.

who else!? (1)

Striker770S (825292) | more than 9 years ago | (#10649261)

the libertarian web site beats the two major party sites which actually has to watch what they say. Badnarik even says that he strongly supports the second amendment; we all know george 'double-yah' bush would love to say something like that, but knows he will get his ass chewed for that. And thats why Badnarik is cool... http://www.lp.org/ [lp.org]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?