cancel2 2022
Canceled
Did you also miss where I said that on the late 90s I attended a lecture by him? He stated categorically that it was totally his own initiative and CERN was just where he happened to be working at the time.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY WORLDWIDE (and yes you CAN thank Al Gore!)
- Thread starter Centerleftfl
- Start date
Did you also miss where I said that on the late 90s I attended a lecture by him? He stated categorically that it was totally his own initiative and CERN was just where he happened to be working at the time.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I changed my response to a more sarcastic one. Had Mr. Lee been working in the private sector in Silicon Valley at the time I'm sure someone would have stolen his intellectual property and took credit for it.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Another point I made which you missed. He said at that lecture I attended that he could have been a billionaire but decided to give his intellectual property away instead.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yes probably true, after all Edison shafted Tesla and Alexander Graham Bell stole a working design for a telephone and patented it first.
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Actually ARPANET came directly from the military and that's where its source of funding came from as well. Because of the requirement in military networks to be highly resilient and redundant, due to enemy attack, it required a routing protocol that was highly adaptive. This became TCP/IP which is a datagram packet switched protocol allowing data packets to take different routes through the network and to arrive out of sequence.
Last edited:
Centerleftfl
Verified User
Yes to all the above!
Gore at his core was a GEEK (or nerd, I still don't know the difference). He dug down into his areas of interest, learned a whole bunch of shit about each and eventually 'owned' it in the Senate. Gore was the 'INTERNET' expert. I just remember hearing stories of him taking groups of Senators, especially the older ones, and giving them 'lessons' on what it was and how it was going to work and it's value and how the Senate had to get behind it. Yada, yada, yada. Later he did demonstrations, I assume, something they must have been rigged up for such presentations? He championed it. It was his 'baby'. He pushed for funding, schooled others on it and was instrumental in getting it OFF the ground with getting it the right GOVERNMENT resources.
Had the GOVERNMENT not put it's "full faith and credit" behind the INTERNET it would still be being used in the esoteric in the halls of academia, science and the military.
Now of course it is being used to make fun and malign GORE. That's one for the IRONY file.
Centerleftfl
Verified User
Ah yes, typed like an arrogant know it all (I'll assume, white male). A dose of superiority mixed with vitriol. No wonder you like Trump!!
Here's my 'smartass' respone to his first post. His is above. Equivalency? I think not.
No I didn't. But I'll match my 'general' knowledge on a whole host of subjects with you ANY day of the week and twice on SUN.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
What the fuck, what does being a white male have to do with you being a moron? Are you black, an albino, green with purple spots?
Last edited:
Centerleftfl
Verified User
And yet you use the silly bastardization of his quote. No doubt perpetuated in the 'bowels' of the winger-world's corner of the NET--before the WINGERS were allowed out.
Here's the exact quote. (I did NOT remember it was in a response to Bill Bradley. (I like both of these guys!) Either I knew and forgot it or never knew. That happens after a certain age. To borrow from computer parlance. TITO. Trivia in, Trivia out).
When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part): “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.”
Last edited:
This nation (and the world) would have been so much better off if the five conservatives on the Supreme Court had allowed Gore's 2000 election victory to stand. Two of the biggest issues of the modern era are information technology and environmental change, and their the two topics Gore geeked out on enough to develop near-expert levels of knowledge. If you wanted a symbol of what has gone wrong in modern American politics, you could do worse than the fact that a huge and successful knock against Gore was the lie that he said he had "invented" the Internet. That cynical, dishonest propaganda effectively turned what should have been a huge point in favor of his candidacy into an albatross around his neck. And half the American public was stupid enough to fall for it.
cawacko
Well-known member
Except that Gore didn’t win. He lost the Florida vote. You were to young to vote at this time correct?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Like most East Coast hothoused Millennials she only sees what she wants to see. She is an Asian version of Darla.
He did in the sense that if the Florida recount had been allowed to go forward, state-wide and in accordance with the "intent of the voter" standard required by Florida law (which the best evidence says would have happened if the five conservatives on the court hadn't invented new law to keep it from happening, since that's the kind of recount that the judge in charge of administering it has said he was leaning towards), Gore would have had more votes, winning Florida and thereby the presidency. You were too ignorant to realize that at the time, correct?
cawacko
Well-known member
The USA Today published an article at the time that said Bush would have won the official recount. And 50 million people (or whatever the number was) didn’t vote for Bush because Gore supposedly invented the internet.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Bush was a mediocre president but Al Gordo would have been a bloody disaster. Not surprised that you are so enamoured by him though.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Most people in 2000 had little or no knowledge of the internet.
Yes, there were some low-end McPapers that pushed the idea Bush would have won, since that's what the readers of low-end McPapers wanted to believe. Most of those were written in April 2001, before the evidence was in. A proper analysis wasn't possible until November of 2001, when the consortium media recount was completed. Unfortunately, at that point the nation was in the midst of 9/11 fever, and so papers dutifully buried the lede -- failing to highlight the fact that the recount had showed that a state-wide "intent of the voter" count would have made Gore president.
Basically, the media consortium recount showed that if a recount of only certain counties had gone forward, or if only "undervotes" were counted (partially punched chads), Bush would have won. However, there were eight scenarios for recounts where Gore would have won. That included a recount of ALL the counties, if both overvotes and undervotes had been counted, wherever the intent of the voter could be discerned. And interviews with Terry Lewis, the judge charged with supervising the recount (and thus deciding which kind of count would be used) have shown he favored the latter kind --state-wide with an "intent of the voter" standard-- so that's what we likely would have gotten if not for the Supreme Court conservatives' interference.
So, again, the best available evidence is that if the five traitors on the court hadn't stepped in, Gore would have been president.
If you're curious, overvotes are cases where the machines registered two votes in the same race. In most cases, the intent of the voter couldn't be discerned, and in the recount they'd have to be thrown out (e.g., someone voted for both Gore an Buchanan in the infamous "butterfly ballot"). However, in some cases, it was easy to see what was intended. For example, someone punched Gore's slot, then also wrote in Gore -- the machine registered that as voting for both Gore and a write-in candidate, and tossed it, but a human counter could plainly see that the intention was to vote Gore.
Also, if you're skeptical that Judge Lewis would have ordered a recount that would include overvotes and cover all counties, if not for the US Supreme Court calling the election prematurely for Bush, there are two pieces of evidence. First, his later statements to that effect:
"Logically, if you can look at a ballot and see, this is a vote for Bush, or this is a vote for Gore, then you would have to count it. … Logically, why wouldn’t you count it?"
Second, there's contemporaneous documentary evidence he was leaning that way. Read Michael Isikoff's Newsweek reporting on the subject. He documented contemporary faxes from Lewis that make it clear his subsequent claims that he was leaning towards that standard are consistent with what his actual thinking at the time was, based on how he was having the canvassing boards collect information. Specifically, he faxed canvassing boards with messages like:
'If you would, segregate “overvotes” as you describe + indicate in your final report how many where you determined the clear intent of the voter. I will rule on the issue for all counties. Thanks.'
There was a hearing scheduled for the day after that, for Lewis to rule on the issue, but the five Supreme Court conservatives stepped in, in time to prevent that from happening. If it had gone forward, and Lewis had ruled the way he has indicated he likely would have, Gore would have won by a margin of between 42 and 171 votes.
Bush was one of the worst presidents in American history. Pretty much every measure of national well-being took a decided turn for the worse on his watch: unemployment up, poverty up, incomes down, stock values down, budget deficits up, and so on. That's in addition to presiding over the worst security failure in our nation's history, utterly destroying the US's approval ratings around the world, and leading us into a disastrous multi-trillion-dollar war based on a pack of untruths about supposed WMD stockpiles. His was also an unusually corrupt administration.
Gore's preferred policies were similar to Clinton's, and his overall personality, leadership style, and strategy for governing are similar to Clinton's, and so it's reasonable to expect similar results. As you are presumably aware, the Clinton years were basically the mirror image of Bush's time in office, in that pretty much every measure of national well-being took a dramatic turn for the better on his watch: unemployment was down, poverty was down, incomes were up, stock values were up, budget deficits were down, and we even got the reversal of some long-term sociological problems (e.g., violent crime rates and teen pregnancy rates, which had been rising for decades, started falling).
cawacko
Well-known member
"Low end mcpapers". That's what you're calling the USA Today circa 2000? Interesting.
Early 2000 was the very height of the dotcom boom. There were 122 million Internet users in the US that year, out of a population of 282 million. I don't know how many had knowledge of the Internet, in addition to those who were using it. But it sure wasn't an obscure thing, at the time.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/276445/number-of-internet-users-in-the-united-states/