Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Government It's funny. Laugh. Politics

If You Had To Vote Based On Candidates' Web Pages 112

Posted by timothy from the you'd-never-vote-at-all dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

If You Had To Vote Based On Candidates' Web Pages More

If You Had To Vote Based On Candidates' Web Pages

Comments Filter:

  • Cheap shot... (Score:5, Funny)

    by orkysoft ( 93727 ) <orkysoft.myrealbox@com> on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @02:19PM (#10645520) Journal
    Well, one of them tells me I'm not authorized to access it...
    • No no no, your sig should say...

      "In Soviet Russia, you don't find The Grail, The Grail finds you!"
      • 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... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Kris_J ( 10111 ) * on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @05:46PM (#10647877) Homepage Journal
      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.

      • 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 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by guyo26 ( 151472 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @02:20PM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CheshireCatCO ( 185193 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @02:33PM (#10645727) Homepage
      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 (Score:2, Interesting)

      by aberson ( 461047 )
      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-r
      • 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.

    • stupidest idea ever.

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

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @02:25PM (#10645624)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Do you think he invisioned the web back when he invented the Internet?

      • Vint Cerf says he did. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:16PM (#10646290) Homepage

        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].
        • That sort of knowledge is pretty useless.

          From both sides.
        • 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.

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

              • 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 w
        • 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.

          • 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.
            • 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.
    • "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...
    • ...

      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 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gmhowell ( 26755 )
    I tried to validate slashdot [w3.org] from that url, and got an error. So I'm not sure.
    • 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.
  • 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 o
    • 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 (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Zach Garner ( 74342 )
        | 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.
        • Good point... Part of his "Crusade"

        • 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

          • 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 agr

            • 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.
              • 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

                • First, that quote from Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland was taken way out of context.

                  Second, I was more thinking of Kerry (and his advisors) very literal and direct insults at the leader of our biggest ally in Iraq. That's right, I'm talking about the copious insults hurled at Iyad Allawi.

                  He comes and addresses Congress, thanking America for all of its efforts and sacrifices, and gives a positive assessment of Iraq's progress towards democracy. (Note: It is Allawi's job to do this kind of thing.)

                  But Ke
                  • Firstly, out of context or not, he is quite plainly not satisfied with how he was treated by this administration. Much like many others.

                    Regarding Allawi, it is alleged that his speech was written for him by this administration. And in that speech he failed to mention beheadings of innocent contractors, no-go zones where the military in control of the country WON'T go, an average of 80 insurgent attacks EVERY DAY, and that the Iraqi police force isn't as trained as they should be at this point in time. (O
        • 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.

          True, but there was a lot more evidence to indicate that there were no significant amount of WMDs in Iraq before the invasion. So, didn't they realize that they were going to look very foolish? Or did they expect everyone to accept the bait and switch to say we did it for humanitarian reasons, or to promote
    • 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 th

  • also (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Naikrovek ( 667 ) <jjohnson&psg,com> on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @02:37PM (#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.
    • 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'.
      • 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.

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

    by Anonymous Coward
    <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! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @02:41PM (#10645829) Journal
    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!

  • 403 Access Denied

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

  • 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]

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

  • seriously (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Glog ( 303500 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:30PM (#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!
    • 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?
    • 5. Who would Leiutenant Worf vote for?

      I guess you haven't read Klingons for Kerry. [wweek.com]

      75% of Klingons support Kerry
      25% of Klingons support Satan
      0% of Klingons support Bush

      Note that the person quoted as saying "A good war is based on honor, not deception, The first warrior, President Bush, deceived us all with this war." was one of the people^wklingons who plans on voting for Satan.

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

    by Morrisguy ( 731956 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:32PM (#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.
  • Badnarik: 13 Errors [w3.org]
    Bush: 303 Errors [w3.org]
    Kerry: 33 Errors [w3.org]
    Nader: Unable to validate [w3.org]

    It should be noted that Kerry's page is just a splash screen. If geeks voted based on errors, it would be Badnarik in a landslide!
  • Www.georgewbush.com kills my mozilla, dead, everytime. Building a website is apperantly "hard work".
  • .. I wouldn't vote for Bush, we can't see his website.
  • 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.

  • 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.
  • 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]
  • http://www.cpusa.org/ [cpusa.org]

    'Nuff Said ;-) .
  • Bush's site uses ASP. Kerry uses PHP. ASP evidence: http://www.dangrover.com/blog/data/upimages/busher rorsmall.jpg PHP: search through the source, you'll find a few .php links. http://php.weblogs.com/php_vs_asp

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close