Cell Phones and Broadband 'Net Win in S. Korea 177
McLuhanesque writes "The Globe and Mail has an interesting column on how text messaging and the use of effective broadband internet content helped propel an obscure lawyer, Mr. Roh Moo-hyun, from a perpetual also-ran to become South Korea's new president. 'With the world's highest penetration of high-speed and mobile Internet services, South Korea is at the cutting edge of technology that is transforming the political system, making it more open and democratic. It could be a preview of the shape of Western democracy,' the article says."
Re:lawyers for president.. hrmm (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Language is still a barrier (Score:4, Funny)
do you even know korean ?? (Score:1, Informative)
by letter! It is written in grouped syllables;
if you had any familiarity at all with Korean,
you'd know this!?
Korean has the worst mess in all Unicode, I'd say.
(a) The individual letters are in Unicode, and the
jambo syllables are *also* in Unicode
(b) And of course they have the Chinese (kanja)
I'm not knocking the Korean alphabet; they are
justifiably proud of it, and it is beautiful.
But it is not as easy to deal with on a computer!
What is a Unicode code point ?
(a) each leter, counting doubled consonants
as doubled code points
(b) each letter, except doubled consonant
letters are a single code point
(c) each jambo syllable
#c makes glyph work & editors *much* easier,
but makes letter-based analysis much more painful
Re:do you even know korean ?? (Score:1)
(poor as it is) is most of the Koreans who know a smattering of Kanji are older and becoming scarce. Most of the younger crowd know a great deal less kanji than their parents. I visited the country three times (briefly) and noticed no kanji in publications, just the occasional sign. I did not, however, specifically look for examples, so beware this was merely my impression. One of my History professors was from Korea and he seemed to know a great deal of Kanji, but he was a professor of Chinese history.
Re:do you even know korean ?? (Score:1)
Therefore, you end up with a very large char table and there is a lot of waste there, since many combinations, although feasible, are not used in any writing or speaking. They only exist because it is possible for them to exist. And there are Chinese ideograms (hanja), which are used interchangeably with Korean and are part of the language as well. You will see hanja used in contexts where ambiguity is undesired, such as corporate documents, etc, because a korean word may have different meanings. An ideogram, well, tends to be way more specific.
If you want hanja in your documents, you usually type the sound of that hanja in plain Korean, type a special key that fires up a dictionary of ideograms that match that sound. One does not have to type every ideogram separately. In a dicitionary fashion, long words with more than one hanja ideogram can be stored.
Still, due to the way Korean was implemented it is not trivially suited for letter-by-letter processing. You cant do a substr() and expect to get a single letter back (letter=vowel or consonant). If letter processing is needed, you'll need some function that decodes the 2-byte Unicode char and returns an array of letters, for example. I guess that when storage and processing power were scarce, such shortcuts were needed.
Real life usage, however, shows that letter by letter is rarely (if ever) needed. Google does fine with 2-byte chars. MS Word does fine with them. Heck, even my cellphone worked fine and smoothly. You will need letter-by-letter processing when handling DNA sequences, for example. Daily use does not require it.
For the record, typing in Korean is extremely fast. Vowels to one side of the keyboard, consonants to the other. Typing Korean in cellphone is even faster, because there is that T9-like helper technology for typing. I find it faster than using T9 for Portuguese or English.
Japanese is different. In a purely syllabic system, there is a key combo to switch keyboards for both hiragana and katakana and each key is mapped to a syllable. I just wonder where the numbers go, since both keyboards use all keys (except keypad) for characters, plus some combinations with ctrl and shift.
Try Chinese, then. Processing is fairly simple, since a 2-byte char is a single letter. There is no letter compounding as Korean. But writing in Chinese is awkward. You may type it phonetically (yes, there are some special ideograms used to represent sounds) and use a special key to fire up a dictionary of matching ideograms. You may write each ideogram by compounding the characters from their basic roots, but you'll need to have a standard way to decompose characters into these roots. Note that these roots are not phonetic but they are based on meaning. It's a very abstract system. Kinda beautiful I guess, but shifts most complexity towards the users. There are a number of other Chinese IMEs, but I couldnt figure out how they work. Question for Chinese speakers: is there a Chinese language typewriter? How does it work?
Well. The point is that with enough processing power and well designed code, language complexities can be removed or diminished. The problem is more of the quality of implementation done to support these languages rather than a specific language deficiency of computer use. The idea that we must adapt ourselves to the computers is just plain dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Language is still a barrier (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Language is still a barrier (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Language is still a barrier (Score:4, Informative)
For the unitiated, Korean writing is (mostly) phonetic. A vowel is matched with a consonant to form a phoneme, and these sounds are arranged to form words in a very sensible manner.
Characters are usually pronounced exactly as they are written - the only exception my round eye has seen so far is that syllables that begin with vowels are instead preceded by the symbol that would otherwise be spoken as "ioong": O.
Although the language is read left-to-right, consonant or vowel sounds are sometimes written one on top of the other instead of side-by-each for aesthetic reasons. "Lee" would be initial vowel + | ("ee") for O|. "Boo" is simply B (|_|) and "oo" (T) linked together:
|_|
T
It's a dead easy alphabet to learn, and anyone with an hour and a pencil can learn to read (and more importantly, write) Korean phonetically.
blah, blah, blah...
Re:Language is still a barrier (Score:1)
"Boo" is simply B (|_|) and "oo" (T) linked together:
|_|
T
Great info, but two small things- Characters aren't necessarily consonant-vowel pairings,
but consonant-vowel-consonent and consonant-vowel-consonant-consonant matchings as well.
ex)
O l = 'lee' or 'yi'
O l
L = 'leen' or 'yin'
O |-
2 D = 'almb' or 'ahlm' (meaning 'meaning')
Of course, the 2 is more 'angly', and the D is actually a box, but you get the idea..
Oh, and 'boo' would be
|=| or
T
|_|
|_|
___
|
Re:Language is still a barrier (Score:2)
more like 600 keypresses a minute (Score:1)
But there's more than one keyboard layout, (like with QWERTY vs. Dvorak), and users of the sebulsik keyboard layout (as opposed to the doobulsik) are known to achieve speeds of over 1000 keypresses a minute.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:more like 600 keypresses a minute (Score:1)
For a picture, look here: http://www.fivedeck.com/kboard.html [fivedeck.com]
If you look carefully you'll notice that all consonants (squares, circles, shape-like things) are on the left and all vowels (stick-like things) are on the right, which means your left hand (the weaker hand, usually) will have a hard time pressing the much more frequent consonants, and be easily stressed out. Not good.
The sebulsik was the lifework of a Korean occulist, who put his life into making Korean typewriters and keyboards, despite all difficulties.
Picture here: http://sebul.org/ [sebul.org] Click on the diagram and you'll get another picture.
Syllable initial consonants are on the right side, vowels are on the left side and parts of the top row, and syllable final consonants are on the far left.
The most frequent letters are mapped to the most easily accesible keys, and the mapping is nicely balanced: You don't have to stress your left hand anymore, and you use your index fingers a lot more than your little fingers. Nice. : )
that's sebulsik (Score:1)
Harder to acquire the knack at first, but it pays off.
more on sebulsik (Score:1)
Syllable initial "double consonant letters" are entered by typing the same key twice. The "o" to the lower right corner and the "oo" to the upper right are to be used in compound vowels. (As part of sounds like "wa" or "wen".)
Due to the tri-segmented-layout (that's what sebulsik means, literally. Three Segment Type. Guess what doobulsik means.), typing in sebulsik Korean is very rhthmic. Left mid right, left right, left mid right, space, and so on.
IMHO Koreans should all use sebulsik and be proud of it's typing layout as well as it's writing system.. : )
Actually (Score:1)
Lets say, somebody wants to send a text message saying "I love you"...
With Chinese/HanJa/Kanji characters, that can be said with only two characters. Even one could suffice.
In english? Thats 10 characters you need to enter.
Lets say you want to say, "Lets go meet at the beach"
Again, in Chinese/HanJa/Kanji, that can be accomplished with 2 or 3 characters. In english? 25 characters.
This is one of the main reasons why the "clunky" interface is acceptable in asian countries, but not in the US.
Besides, I've actually typed on a Chinese/HanJa/Kanji keyboard before, its actually not too bad. There is usually a setting for romanized, where you type phonetically, and it comes up with a list of characters that make that sound. The better programs will even examine multiple words/syllabals, and figure out the correct word based on context, etc. Its not like you have a keyboard with 50,000 keys on it.
Back in the good old days (Score:1)
Re:Back in the good old days (Score:1)
But, jeeeeeez, that thing should come with a tylenol dispenser built into it. I get a migraine just thinking about using that thing....
Technology is good... (Score:5, Funny)
Why don't we do it here in the USA? (Score:1)
A politician getting elected without corporate
political bribe money. Using the internet, and
democratic grass root principles... wow..
maybe that will make him more accountable to
the voters unlike the USA, where they are only
accountable to the special interests who write
the donation checks.
Why don't we try to get some of our own elected
here, in the USA too..?
Maybe slashdot would be a good place to start this from..
Then we would have a fighting chance to stop all
this bought & paid for legislation like the DMCA..etc..etc.
Maybe we should hurry before the establishment buys a law forbidding this! (which I am sure they will try..)
Phones for nukes? (Score:1, Funny)
Maybe GWB should bribe the North Koreans with cell phones if they'll quit doing nuclear weapon shiznit. I'll start by donating my Nokia piece of crap!
look at the difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Now look where North Korea is... trying to build nukes and pissing off everyone in the world except bin Laden and Hussein.
You tell me which is the better system.
Re:look at the difference (Score:1)
Re:look at the difference (Score:3, Informative)
Not that Honda/Toyota/other established brands are by any means necessarily the best, just that brand recognition can factor into a buyer's decision, and there's no reason to poo-poo that.
Re:look at the difference (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:look at the difference (Score:1)
The US is increasing its stockpile of nukes? Got a source for this? Because nukes aren't much use against terrorists.
Re:look at the difference (Score:2)
We are indeed reducing some of our stockpile for our bigger nukes, that's correct, but we are also developing and producing lots and lots of smaller tactical nukes, so in the end, the answer is no. The total number of nukes is indeed "probably" rising. I say "probably", because our current number of smaller nukes seems to be around 1,100, our ability to make smaller and smaller nukes is improving, and since Bush wants more and more of them -- our overall number of nukes is "probably" rising.
Re:look at the difference (Score:1)
I hate to be a typical liberal with the "nothing's as simple as that" message, but I can't help it.
My take on this current "crisis" is that North Korea's been building nukes (or trying to build nukes, depending on whether you buy CIA's report) largely for defensive purposes. Let's indulge the following for a minute.
The joint Team Spirit exercise [globalsecurity.org] by South Korean and US forces between 1976 and 1993 was halted in 1994 in an effort to dissuade North Korea from continuing its nuclear development. During these 17 years, however, North Korea had to *annually* find itself in the cross-hair of the most advanced military weapons in the world. Though no real aggression was done, you have to wonder what psychological damage these "excercises" wreaked on North Korean sense of its security. Given the receding Chinese military support for its security, North Korea understandably (albeit dangerously) wants some form of military safeguard against the perceived threat from the US and South Korea. The 37,000 US troops stationed in Seoul doesn't help the situation from their perspective, I'm sure.
I'm not defending either Kim Jong-Il's ill treatment of his critics or his dogmatic insistence on sticking to failed policies of communism. I merely want to point out the complexity of the current situation. As long as North Korea perceives the US as a potential aggressor (which the US's past actions somewhat justify) it cannot help but divert a large portion of its limited resources into maintaining its armed forces while simultaneously persuing the only guarantee against the *perceived* American nuclear threat, i.e. its own nuclear program. Given its already meager resources, there's no way they can have a productive economy of any kind under these circumstances...
South Korea's prosperity came at the heavy price of decades of US-friendly military dictatorship, and I'm much more prone to credit South Korea's "fortune" in allying itself with the US, its economy, and its powerful military forces than South Korea's commitment to capitalism and foreign trade. Of course, South Koreans worked hard to get where they are. I'm not denying that. At the same time, one cannot overlook the geo-political fortune that their alliance with the US and the Western world has afforded them. In the same vein, neither can we overlook the geo-political misfortune that got North Korean into this paranoid *Cold-War* arms race with which few other countries are still engaged. If they didn't see the need to maintain one-million-strong army and their nuclear program(s), North Koreans might have some resources left over to feed their people and develop their economy. In fact, that's exactly what they appear to want out of the US at the moment. And they have also been on the track to some semblance of economic recovery through their "special economic zones" initiative in Shinuiju and Kaesong.
Yeah, I'm rambling now... But I worry that a rather simplistic "good vs. evil" global paradigm that seems to dominate much of the current American foreign policy might create more problems than solve them.
Re:look at the difference (Score:2)
1)Bill Clinton's (he's the man!) revelation of the strikes that would've followed failure of the Agreed Framework accords is one of the reasons they are being so agressive right now.
2)N. Korea would sell a nuke to feed itsself for the winter, and is irrational enough to use one on their peninsula.
3)they are extremely paranoid and prone to a realpolitik analysis of the security dilemma.
4)Good or Evil be damned, there is still not a permanent peace treaty from the Korean War, that's why there's the DMZ.
5)S. Korea stands to lose the most from another war, Seoul is Very close to the DMZ.
Add it all up, there is alot of potential for a realist approach to N. Korea. Unfortunately, they hold some really nasty cards, and the political will to cause damage to their neighbor, and by extension the global economy and us. They take the only advantage they can, one that this country feared for 40 years of cold war. N. Korea is a starving country, their population is dying of hunger and cold, admittedly by their own hand. They have little left to lose, and even less fear of losing it.
Re:look at the difference (Score:1)
Re:look at the difference (Score:2)
No. Korea's advantage is that they can manufacture products cheaper than anyone else... When it comes to quality, they are behind (I know a KIA employees that won't drive their own cars).
In many places, the American mindset is to buy the cheapest items, no matter how bad the quality. I don't believe that situation will last much longer as worse and worse items are manufactured, and many factors make returns more difficult.
South Korea is doing very well, but so has every other country when there was a huge influx of money... History has shown that it will be short-lived. It's only a matter of time before their economy flattens out, and what happens at that time will determine the long-term status of the country.
Re:look at the difference (Score:1)
Friends of mine in the US Govt would laugh about how the Korean students would spend most of their year in front of the embassy.. half the year throwing rocks and the second half of the year applying for student visas.
Re:look at the difference (Score:1)
Re:look at the difference (Score:1)
Re:look at the difference (Score:1)
Also, the system really doesn't even work as a few years ago all the banks got in way over their head and the IMF (funded by your tax dollars) bailed them out with trillions of dollars.
This is the shining example for Western Democracy? Without the other governments stepping in they would have gone into chaos. Not to mention the fact that if it wasn't for us North Korea would run right over them.
I don't think I would call that being built through capitalism and foreign trade - at least not in the pure sense of capitalism. What ever happened to the governments practicing laissez faire?
conspiracy? (Score:1)
hehehe (Score:2, Funny)
Now why .... (Score:5, Funny)
he didn't invent it, he just funded it (Score:2)
Re:Maybe you should get your facts straight (Score:2, Insightful)
Quote "BLITZER: I want to get to some of the substance of domestic and international issues in a minute, but let's just wrap up a little bit of the politics right now. Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process? Clearly, Blitzer is asking Gore to offer an explanation of how he differs as a politician from other politicians in general, and his rival at the time, Bill Bradley, in particular. Here is Gore's entire response to Blitzer's question: GORE: Well, I will be offering - I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be. But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. During a quarter century of public service, including most of it long before I came into my current job, I have worked to try to improve the quality of life in our country and in our world. And what I've seen during that experience is an emerging future that's very exciting, about which I'm very optimistic, and toward which I want to lead."
There that settles that. He said he took the initiative in creating the internet. If you want to interpt that as inventing then yes he said he invented it. If you want to take it like exaggeration then yes you are right he just funded it.
Re:Maybe you should get your facts straight (Score:2)
He was also instrumental in supporting the academic internet during his years in Congress when all other people in Congress didn't have a clue about these things.
I know first hand about this because I was in IT at the time -- yes, I'm old -- and worked in a community college where we were debating whether or not we should halt the rollout of our TCP/IP network and switch to OSI because we were a two-year college and more tilted to serving business and not research and maybe the upcoming information super highway thing would be better than hooking to the then non-commerical Internet.
Now, as it turns out, the separate networks never materialized, OSI fizzled, and the non-commerical Internet became the Internet we know today and serious research institutions are going off on their own with Internet 2.
So, he's a tithead, but he *was* the leader in congress in understand the benefits of an internet (of some sort) and that commercialization of the internet is what was a large factor for the economic boom of the 90s.
Remember, no one outside of academia heard of the Internet before like 1992. The first mass media cartoon regarding the internet was in the new yorker in 1993 (the "no one knows your a dog on the net [unc.edu]" one) which we all, at the time, were amazed (and scared) that mass media noticed the Internet.
p.s. I find it interesting, however, that conservatives are so quick to jump on someone's bad choice of words when their own people who can't choose good words in speeches are somehow to be given understanding, ala Bush and former VP Dan Quayle (and visa-versa of course).
Some more on this at snopes.com [snopes.com]
Re:he didn't invent it, he just funded it (Score:2)
so he just (Score:2)
Actually (Score:1)
Re:Actually (Score:2)
in non-soviet koria... (Score:1, Funny)
Quick Somebody tell Al Gore!!! (Score:1)
As I recall he invented cell phone messaging!
Really, though this is a good story in some way, but the spam aspect does worry me. I hate spam in my email even if it's for a good cause. On the other hand it does sound like a good person won the race.
-- James Dornan
SPAM not mentioned in article (Score:1)
How many times... (Score:2, Informative)
1. South Korea is a small country with the vast majority of it's population in a high density urban area (Seoul).
2. And probably more importantly, South Korea has just recently become industrialized, therefore the communications infrastructure is quite modern compared to other Western, developed countries.
Do we really need to hear about this on a weekly basis? I guess the slashdot editors don't read their own site.
Re:How many times... (Score:1)
Re:How many times... (Score:1)
Not true. Seoul is dense but so is Pusan, Kwangju etc. Lots of dense cities but many folks in small towns/farms.
2. And probably more importantly, South Korea has just recently become industrialized, therefore the communications infrastructure is quite modern compared to other Western, developed countries.
South Korea has been building infrastructure since the Korean War. The wired communications system is built like most of Asia - very haphazardly over many years. The wireless infrastructure started out behind the U.S. but SK has passed the U.S. by in wireless communications - as have many other countries. This is mostly due to the Japanese/Korean style of cooperation between govt. agencies and private corporations.
Re:How many times... (Score:1)
Look here [citypopulation.de]
See Seoul at number 3, and pusan and 78?
cell phones (Score:1)
Re:cell phones (Score:1)
Finland is not densely populated, but they have excellent cell-coverage an broadband too.
3 years ago I was on holiday in Maitius (that's an island in the Indian Ocean, near South Africa), and there's fill coverage for GSM too.
The Philippines are maybe number one in sending SMS over GSM-phones.
It's really only the USA, which is behind in adoption of GSM-phones and maybe broadband Internet.
ms
Re:cell phones (Score:2)
Re:cell phones (Score:2)
The reason its cheap to set up cells is simple population density. Also makes it cheap to run Broadband to every house in the country. AFAIK, South Korea put down fiber optic (I think 6 or 10 fibers) alongside every single power line over the last 10 years (new and retrofit). The power company then leases out those lines in a relatively non-discriminatory manner. Makes for a very cost effective high speed network.
EnkiduEOT
actually (Score:1)
2 points:
1.) My definition of flat is not literal. I mean flat as in compared to over here, where we have several 14,000 ft mountains nearby, with glaciors year round. Did I mention the tallest mountain in S. Korea is Hallasan [korea.com]? Its only 5850 ft high, and not even on the peninsula. I don't care how many rolling hills you have, that is still "flat" in my book. The coast range here is like 2 to 4 thousand feet high, and I don't consider that mountainous. The rockies, thats mountainous.
2.) When I said the country was mostly flat, I was also referring to where the majority of the population was.
Re:actually (Score:2)
You seem to be confused as to the relation between altitude and gradient. If you have a steep slope that goes up and down over 10 miles (In Korea), it's going to be alot shorter in overall height than one that goes up and down over 200 miles (the Rockies). That still doesn't mean that the first mountain is less steep (and rough) than the second. And plus, how many cities in the U.S. have 14,000 foot peaks "nearby" (less than 2 hours drive).
Didn't you have to go through tunnels in Seoul (There's quite a few). Did you go to Namsan Tower? How much did you drive in Seoul? How about this quote from a 5th grade study outline "A physical relief map will reveal that the north and east parts of Korea are very mountainous while the south and west have more fields. It is said that you can see a mountain from everywhere in Korea. Have students speculate on the amount of land that would be available for agriculture in such a mountainous country. (Only about one fourth of the land comprising the Republic of Korea is arable)." (source [gov.sk.ca]. Or how about this page [seoulnow.net]. Don't you think they would know?
Look, obviously, you have experienced Korea (and you have my sympathies if you chose to drive). What I'm saying is that the perceptions which remain from your experience are flawed. Are you saying that all these sources have a distorted view of the terrain of Korea and your view is correct? Ask your guide in Korea. Ask anyone who has done more than "visit" Korea. Trust me: No one (especially not a cable or antenna engineer) is going to call much of South Korea "flat". Not even Seoul or Busan.
EnkiduEOT
namsan (Score:1)
From the top of Namsan you can see almost the entire city. Same can be said when I was at the viewing deck of the 63 tower.
I suppose you are right tho. I'm remembering driving down the olympic highway, and there being a steep cliff on one side of the highway. I guess I spent too much time in the subway to realize the hills. All the smog must have hidden the hills. Kinda like in LA. During heavy smog days, (which is like 70% of the time), you can't see the San Gabriel mountains even if you were practically at its base.....
I know what you mean about the driving. Only reason I was driving was because my cousin thought it would be "funny". (And I thought LA traffic was bad)... I suppose I was too busy trying to control my natural tendency for road rage, to take in the landscape
I think I'll be going there this spring anyways, so I'll pay closer attention this time
PS: When I flew to cheju with my uncle I could've sworn korea was flatter then it was. I guess I just had a crappy view out the window.
Re:namsan (Score:1)
And yes, the smog is pretty bad. In fact, I think the air is better in the subways than above ground in Seoul.
Cheers. EnkiduEOT
also (Score:1)
Seoul is in the "flat" part on the top of the country, and Pusan, in the "flat" part on the bottom. When I drove from Seoul to Pusan, I remember the toll highway being flat, so I"m guessing it cut through the mountain in a diagonal fashion. I remember there being two tunnels as well. We then drove west and then north. That could also help explain why from my memory I saw the country being more flat then it is. Others are listed in my other post.
OMG... and I thought the spam problem was bad... (Score:2)
but we get to get mail from would-be-presidents-of-whatever.
Think about, if this does catch on, then on top of whatever spam we usually get, we will get political email/popups/popunders/im's etc...
Well if love of money is the root of all evil..... (Score:1)
OMG! (Score:4, Interesting)
What if you're just a simple decent qualified person who wants to run for Selectman/Mayor/Rep/Senator/Governor/President? I went to the Senate's web site [senate.gov], for instance (and many others using google) trying to find out HOW TO RUN! This information is just not on the internet (at least not for my state.)
Just yesterday I thought it would be sweet if there was a web site people could go to to see how to run for political leadership in their state. At least paperwork and deadlines would be greate, but procedures, rules, and regulations in addition, would be excellent!
Seriously, at least 100 million people in the USA are qualified to run for those positions I mentioned (at least by the age rule set in the constitution.)
I want to see competition, I want to see REAL people running! What would REALLY be sweet would be a law by the Senators to make States maintain a web site like I described and one that would also show WHO is running and what they DO and what they have DONE. This would be so sweet. And each candidate would have his own web site hosted (or just linked.) FAIRNESS IN EVERY WAY!
Nobody votes because theres a bunch of bums we don't know anything about who have a gazillion of ties and responsibilities, once in office, to the people who got them there!!!
This would be a pretty cheap way for equal spending that everybody keeps pushing for, good for communicating at least with voters that have access to the internet (the majority.)
Re:OMG! (Score:1)
Generally the secretary of state also has a list of candidates, including those from the smallest parties, and non-partisan candidates, sometimes they even link to the candidate's home page. Most state representatives or city officers have even lower age requirements (if any at all), it would depend on your state's constitution. As a young person who wants to affect policy, your best bet would probably be to get on an elected official's staff. These are the tireless employees who read the bills, might write the actual bill the senator sponsors, and generally act as the eyes and ears of the elected official. You will want to be squeaky clean and prepared for anything in your past that could even imply that you are not perfectly upstanding to be made public, if you start to pick up steam.
Re:OMG! (Score:1)
You can find all the information you want on the web--just not on the government sites right now. The best records I've seen are at opensecrets.org. You might also want to look at the webpages of individual politicians. They will usually tell you how they voted on recent issues.
Re you're comment on voter turn--out, I've always favored a tax on people who don't vote.
thanks, but (Score:1)
i will never vote for someone who needs a `dummys guide to democracy` to work out how to get into office! If you were really interested, you`d already know, or you'd find out for yourself.
Re:thanks, but (Score:1)
Huh? The original said "Wouldn't it be great to have the information online", to which you replied that those who wanted the information would "find out for yourself". How? Telepathetic prediction?
Having the information online is another way of disseminating the information to people who are looking to "find out". It's a hell of a lot better than a barrier to entry obscure system that encourages in-breeding and barriers to entry (which is how most of those systems work).
Re:OMG! (Score:2)
And before you go off half-cocked trying to run for President or something, aim a little lower and more realistically. Run for your town's board of freeholders or something.
You have to work your way up the ladder -- not because The Man is trying to hold you down, but because that's the only way to build up enough experience to be competent in higher office. When was the last time we had a President that had not previously been either a Governor or a Congressman?
Re:OMG! (Score:2)
You must live in the wrong state. When I ran for the US House last year (decided on very short notice), Google pointed me to the Louisiana Department of State [state.la.us], I found out there what was needed ($600 payed to the Department of State), filled out the paperwork, mailed in the money order, and that was that. The rest was figured out from the numerous and frequent mailings I ended up getting (and still get) from the state and the Federal Election Commission.
And it's not like Louisiana is world renown for its internet presence and connectivity or anything.
"What if you're just a simple decent qualified person who wants to run for Selectman/Mayor/Rep/Senator/Governor/President? I went to the Senate's web site [senate.gov], for instance (and many others using google) trying to find out HOW TO RUN!"
Of course they won't. If you bothered to peruse the US Constitution a little, you'd realize that it is not the federal government's place to tell the states how exactly their elections should be run. Different states have different requirements (beyond the lone federal requirement of "You must be over 30") and different qualifications.
"Just yesterday I thought it would be sweet if there was a web site people could go to to see how to run for political leadership in their state."
Find your state's Department of State. That's usually the best place to start.
"States maintain a web site like I described and one that would also show WHO is running"
Like this? [state.la.us]
"and what they DO and what they have DONE"
You have two options. One is to go to the congresscritter's website in question and look at the legislation they sponsor and/or co-sponsor, and to THOMAS [loc.gov] to see how they voted on legislation.
The other is to go to non-partisan information sources like Project Vote Smart [vote-smart.org], who attempt to make the information more digestable.
"And each candidate would have his own web site hosted (or just linked.) FAIRNESS IN EVERY WAY!"
Fair to everybody except for the taxpayers. As a former independent candidate and as a taxpayer, I do not want tax dollars going to pay for private political campaigns. Candidates (especially for federal office) get enough free attention from the press as it is that it really isn't needed.
"Nobody votes because theres a bunch of bums we don't know anything"
Because the information isn't there to know, or because they don't bother trying to find out?
"This would be a pretty cheap way for equal spending that everybody keeps pushing for,"
First off, it would be even cheaper if the taxpayers didn't have to pay any of it.
Secondly, the problem isn't "equal spending," the problem is things like "truth in advertising" and "honesty about campaign fundraising and spending." And if you need a law to require candidates to register this information with, say, the FEC, it's already too late. If you need to twist their arms to get them to share this information, they shouldn't be in office to begin with.
Future for the billion strong (digital) democracy (Score:2, Insightful)
you might as well take this article, multiply all numbers in it by 100, change Roh Moo-hyun to Ram Mohan Roy and you'll have a new article for the future...
Not the only amazing thing... (Score:4, Interesting)
Amazing...
This is pretty cool (Score:1)
Maybe all representatives could have an account set up to where people can donate over the internet. Then the government could ban soft money donations altogether. But there would be so much opposition to it from corporate interests it would be shot down day one. But I can hope...
Wait a minute (Score:1)
Re:Not Dollar But Won (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:2, Informative)
Your missing the message (Score:1)
No, wait scratch that the articles author is on drugs or something. Maybe that's supposed to be in korean currency or something.
Haunting (Score:1)
"The Internet has become the most popular way of organizing street rallies, political and otherwise -- including that of the estimated seven million South Koreans who swarmed into the streets after the stunning success of their national soccer team in last summer's World Cup."
reminds me of the lo-rez fanclub funeral that was triggered from the fan site
"Not all South Koreans are happy about the dramatic rise of the Internet. Critics say that the on-line games create "zombie" teenagers who do not know how to interact with the real world."
reminds me fo the gomi who game all of the time and cheat their way through school. They also help to build walled city.
"About 25 million of South Korea's 48 million people are regular Internet surfers. All across Seoul, high-rise towers and corporate headquarters are emblazoned with their Web-site addresses in huge letters or neon signs. About 30 million South Koreans have cellphones, and 10 million of these cellphones have Internet connections -- again, a world-leading number."
Reminds me of Gibsons landscapes : the sprawl, Night City.
Superstar politics = less corruption (Score:4, Interesting)
I've noticed that those famous and/or powerful people who are not corrupt are invariably those elected by rapid popular vote, namely superstars of pop, sports, and so on.
A long, slow election process just gives all parties time to negotiate with interest groups. Slow elections generate corrupt politicians, and the semi-permanent election process we see in certain countries just creates completely corrupt political parties.
Electing politicians like this is going to annoy the established political parties. It's also going to raise a generation of politicians who have popular support but no real political network. But it's hard to see what the impact of this will be.
Re:Superstar politics = less corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that it breaks everything else too. With instant voting, the US would have nuked Kabul hours after September 11th... totally missing those responsible and slaughtering millions of (relative) innocents. Latency in the system is there for a reason.
I've noticed that those famous and/or powerful people who are not corrupt are invariably those elected by rapid popular vote, namely superstars of pop, sports, and so on.
There is one lesson that Tony Blair and New Labour learned too late: it is easy to be incorruptible when you have no real power. That's why, in Opposition, they could be "whiter than white", but as soon as they were in power, the scandals came rolling in. If the celebrities you mentioned had any real influence beyond entertainment, they would be at least as corruptible as anyone else.
Hint: any celebrity that has endorsed any product has a price.
A long, slow election process just gives all parties time to negotiate with interest groups. Slow elections generate corrupt politicians, and the semi-permanent election process we see in certain countries just creates completely corrupt political parties.
The weaker the government, the better it is for everyone. There's only really a problem if government is both strong and corrupt.
Electing politicians like this is going to annoy the established political parties. It's also going to raise a generation of politicians who have popular support but no real political network. But it's hard to see what the impact of this will be.
Populism requires short-term thinking, and is invariably a disaster in the long run. Argentina's economy lies in ruins because of the populist decisions made by Peron (don't blame the IMF, they wouldn't have even gotten involved if Peron hadn't started Argentina's economy on the downward spiral, altho' they certainly haven't made anything better).
Re:Superstar politics = less corruption (Score:2)
b, New Labour is relatively clean, despite being the most powerful UK government since Thatcher's Tories. Of course there are scandals, but they are mostly banal. In some respects, it's a superstar government since they came to power from outside the London political scene (being an essentially Scottish party). Having no power does not make a party clean, as the UK Conservatives have shown.
c, Peron was not a populist, but an extreme example of government by political machine. He ruined the economy for standard reasons: using the country's economy to pander to friendly interest groups.
Powerful governments are not necessarily corrupt. There seem to be two factors: how long the government has been part of the mainstream political system, and thus open for "sale", and how long they can expect to stay in power, and thus able to exploit their position for gain.
Superstar governments have neither of these: quickly elected and quickly dismissed. It remains to be shown that this "populism" is actually bad in any way.
Re:We wanted war. (Score:2)
No-one said it was possible to reform a political system overnight, especially when corruption is so completely part of global politics. Saying that a popular reaction to Sept.11th shows that fast-cycle democracy is no good is meaningless, since it is clear that the entire current terrorism cycle was entirely caused by cronyist oil politics in the first place.
well, duh. (Score:1, Funny)
Critics say that the on-line games create "zombie" teenagers who do not know how to interact with the real world.
[snip]
well, duh.
The only people that know how to relate to the real world are critics.. obviously.
Please some insight from Koreans... (Score:2)
Why would N. Korea reveal that it has nuclear weapons in direct violation of a fuel and food treaty when its citizens are starving?
I have a few theories, but none of them make any sense. I have no idea why this is occurring. Are these viable answers?
1. Becasue Bush called them the "axis of evil."
2. They want to influence the S. Korean elections against the US for removal of US occupation (so they can attack? Or unite without the US?).
3. They revealed their nuke program because of Saddam (a fellow dictator) so that the US would have to fight a 2 front war... the old "enemy of my enemy is my friend routine." Which obviously idn't work out the way they planned.
4. Their motivations and thought processes are so "not Westerner" that I as a westerner just can't get it and it is all too complicated to say anyway.
5. This has all happened before, maybe not in this scale, and it is a big bluff to hold a regime together.
6. The regime is dying fast, and it needs an enemy to hold it together, so it mentions it has nukes to the US to threaten them, and then starts the war machine to unite N. Koreans.
Once again, please forgive the offtopic, but our current situation is intimately tied in with this election, and I need a Korean point of view to really make any sense of it. I think I speak for more than a few Westerners when we say we don't have any idea how things operate over there. Please enlighten us.
where is max? (Score:2)
I suppose it might be more like voting with your cell phone, but still, there seem to be some similarities. Well, in my head, at least...
Never happen for political reasons (Score:1)
Campaign spam? (Score:2)
Raised $1-billion? (Score:2)
groups, Mr. Roh raised the equivalent of about $1-billion from more
than 180,000 individual donors
A billion dollars is way to much. Since the article is from a Canadian paper, presumably it's in Canadian dollars, equivalent to about $630M US. For the last US presidential election, Bush raised about $90M US and Gore a little less than $50M US. Korea is a much smaller country and a candidate like Roh who uses the net for most voter contact doesn't need as much money as one who buys TV ads. What's more, the average contribution per donor comes out to $5500 CA or $3500 US, which is more than 10 times the average contribution in the US.
I suspect the reporter slipped a digit or two.
Re:wow (Score:1)
Re:My experiences in Korea (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:My experiences in Korea (Score:1)
It would be apparent to anyone in Korea that you can't speak Korean, what with your grammar and all. Properly spoken: jega hangookmal mot'heyo.
Hyundai actually means "Modern Era" in Korean.
I'm not sure what you have against fermented food...kimchee certainly tastes better than the grease and salt of "American" fast food. At least Asian food doesn't slather things with lard, butter, and salt.
Re:My experiences in Korea (Score:1, Funny)
Re:My experiences in Korea (Score:1)
Dog meat is actually not that bad, I've heard.
Ah, these stupid dog jokes... (Score:1)
Now, since pigs are becoming a relatively common pet in California, I find those Friday's pork chops especially disgusting. You're eating my best friend! Yuck!
Re:My experiences in Korea (Score:1)
Re:My experiences in Korea (Score:1)
For anyone interested, I was in South Korea both in 2001 and 2002. I found Seoul to be remarkably clean--much more so than Taiwan. Out of Japan, China, Taiwan, and South Korea, the latter felt the MOST like the US to me.
I didn't notice any funky smells.
I didn't have a problem with Kimchee.
I didn't bang any 16-year-olds.
But then, I'm not a troll.
What I found most interesting was the way that South Koreans, for the most part, don't seem very worried about North Korea. I asked some people what they thought about the recent warning shots that the South had had to lob towards a Northern ship, and they said something to the effect of, "Oh, it happens all the time--nothing to get too worried about." They find it interesting that the US is so concerned about North Korea, in fact. Of course, this was a couple months ago.
I mainly hung out with late-twenty-somethings, the sort that were more likely to vote for the President of Hyundai (yes, he ran for presidency). Nowhere did I ever feel unwelcome by the Korean people--as an American, I was well-received.
I will be visiting more often in the future. Well, as long as war doesn't break out over there, 'natch.