Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Wouldn't help (Score 1) 538

That theory has been put forth, and probably has often been true, but it falls down when it comes to state offices -- where statewide, approval rating was in the toilet, yet the same people got re-elected.

There's also the problem of low turnout. In my SoCal town, the same guy has had a monopoly on the mayor's office for years, yet is widely hated. So how did he stay in office? In the last election while I lived there, less than 2% (yes, TWO percent) of registered voters actually voted. Or at least that was what was reported to the SoS office... there were irregularities sufficient that an investigation was scheduled, but nothing ever came of it.

I'm reminded of a tale from the 1972 Presidential election, from someone I knew who was doing a door-to-door survey: When asked their views, most people espoused typical conservative points. But the final survey question was: Who do you think would make a good president? And the most common answer, even from very conservative voters, was "Teddy Kennedy" (then the most liberal man in all of politics). The conclusion from the survey's data was that most voters didn't actually know what a given candidate stood for, but they sure as hell knew the names. (Mind you this was back when most of these voters would remember JFK firsthand.)

Here in Montana, if someone has an abysmal rating, they're likely to get voted out. One might offer a correlation with the much better educational level...

Comment: Re:Wouldn't help (Score 1) 538

More than an advantage; in California, it's a shoo-in.

At the last major election before I moved back out of CA -- I forget the year, mighta been 2010 -- public satisfaction with elected state officials was just 13%.

Yet *100%* of incumbants got re-elected. (I checked every race listed on the Secretary of State site. There were NO exceptions.)

If that ain't name-recognition at work, well, you tell me.

And yes, CA has more than its fair share of yellow-dog Democrats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The term originated in the late 19th century. These voters would allegedly "vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for any Republican".

Comment: Re:What an Embarrassingly Vapid Article (Score 1) 477

I've been heard to say that the first freedom is economic, because it allows you to exercise the second freedom, which is the ability to travel, and that all other freedoms ultimately derive from these.

A comment below by drinkypoo also gave me this thought: so many tech nerds are drooling over the social virtues of autonomous cars not so much for the technology and the proposed safety, but because when it comes to =other= people, they're control freaks. Much easier to control people (which is to say, make them unable to annoy said nerds) who can only travel as their car will, not as they wish.

Comment: Re:Take Me As I Am (Score 1) 394

by Reziac (#49398923) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Living Without Social Media In 2015?

Yep. "Owning your identity" is the best reason to have these accounts.... cuz if you don't, some squatter will. ...as I discovered when I went to make a Twitter account, ALL of my domain names (some a bit weird and highly unlikely to have got there by chance) were already squatted as Twitter accounts.

Comment: Re:Oh this is easy .... (Score 2) 394

by Reziac (#49398867) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Living Without Social Media In 2015?

...their advertisers drive themselves into a panic by vastly overestimating the worth of social media.

FTFY.

Seriously, I think we old codgers are right. It's not that social media is bad; it's that relying on it too much is bad. It's become a social crutch. It's replaced getting drunk with your friends, and is possibly more shallow.

I have the odd account or two, but if they all vanished tomorrow, the only thing I'd lose is an easy way of keeping track of distant friends and past acquaintances. I wouldn't lose anything personal or otherwise-useful.

Put your best foot forward. Or just call in and say you're sick.

Working...