Slashdot Mirror
Math Indicates Pollster Is Forging Results
An anonymous reader writes "Nate Silver suggests the political pollster Strategic Vision is 'cooking the books. And whoever is doing so is doing a pretty sloppy job.' Silver crunched five years worth of their polling data, and found their reported results followed a suspicious pattern which traditionally suggests fraud. The five-year distribution of the numbers 'is not random. It's not close to random.' The polling firm had already been reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research for failing to disclose their methodology, though the firm argues they did comply with the organization's request. Their response to Silver's accusation? 'We have a call in to our attorney on this and fully intend to take action that will vindicate us.'"
As much as I don't like to see NASA die, what is Bad News for NASA is probably Good News for the private launch industry. Go go SpaceX and Armadillo!
Bello vel Pace Paratus.
Meta-moders, There are posts on here that are from the NASA story. The reason is that /. is currently broke (as in a bug, not as in USA debt). Some came here automatically. Mine was posted because I was following the other posters. Please nuke the modders that hit these as off-topic. It should be obvious that they KNEW that /. had issues and some of the posts came here (a post from in front of here told them so). For these modders to be nuking ppl for posting in this area is ridiculous considering the situation.
I disagree. If a posting ends up linked to the wrong story it is off-topic. It doesn't matter whether it is the fault of the poster or a bug in the Slashdot code, off-topic is off-topic, and should be modded as such. The purpose of modding is for the benefit of the readers, not the posters!
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
you should vote strategically
that is, you shouldn't vote for the candidate who best matches your ideology
you should vote for the candidate that best matches your ideology and has the best chance to win
yes, this means that you tend to vote for the most lukewarm limp candidate who is doing his best to appeal to as many people as possible... and that is a bad thing why?
the power of democracy is that it manufactures legitimacy. it does this by picking rulers that best match the opinion of the people. therefore, the candidates do their best to be that person. and this is a GOOD THING. legitimacy=social stability=prosperity=the whole reason democracy is a good thing. and no, it doesn't mean that the candidates are the same from the republican party and the democratic party. tell me with a straight face mccain would be earnestly pursuing health care right now. tell me with a straight face gore would invade iraq in 2003. no, the democrats and the republicans ARE NOT THE SAME
furthermore, two party system is not automatically inferior and democracy destroying. in fact, in democracies without two major parties, coalition governments form, in which, in pure grabs for power, completely ideologically opposed party representatives will get in bed with each other to grab power. go ahead, ask any german. and this is superior to two parties how? you honestly believe it is the two party system that is keeping your FRINGE beliefs from gaining traction? no, your ideas don't gain traction because your ideas are FRINGE. begining and ending of reason your ideas don't work. its not because its blocked by some status quo, its because your ideas are flawed. if they were good ideas, they would be adopted by a major party. duh
of course, those on the fringe will appeal that for you there be a pure correlation between your ideology and whom you vote for. ridiculous and naive: if everyone voted that way, 20-30 fringe candidates would take a roughly approximately equal share of the pie, and the guy who for vague reasons got a slightly greater vote (remember, he's fringe) would represent everyone. so randomly one year we would be represented by the communist party, the next the nazi party, and the vast majority of the country (the various ideologically fundamentalist factions who only vote their conscience and never strategically) would despise the guy. so superior?
of course, it doesn't happen this way. what happens in real life is fringe boosters and enthusiasts work hard to get people to vote for their fringe candidate. this usually consists of cannibalism of those who would otherwise vote for the ideologically nearer candidate. such that those who vote fringe candidates and enthuse for them wind up ensuring that the guy FURTHEST from your ideology actually wins! ie: gore, bushjr, and nader (spoiler for gore) in 2000. or bushsr, clinton, and perot (spoiler for bushsr) in 1992
don't vote your opinion. guess the most popular options, and vote STRATEGICALLY: the guy CLOSEST to you ideologically. or vote your opinion, and ensure the guy FURTHEST from you ideologically wins
politics is not about idealism. politics is about compromise. if you don't compromise, you lose. simple as that, on all levels of politics, from the white house, to the state house, to the town hall, to the voting booth: its a simple undeniable fact that compromise always wins over the idealist
meanwhile, if you think ytou are being noble by "never compromising your ideals" you are actually a fool, and you are working hard that you will never, ever see anything you believe actually become public policy. the real world never works the idealist's way. grow up and stop being naive and vote STRATEGICALLY. or forever remain fringe and forgotten. your choice
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it