Forging millions paper ballots is harder than forging millions of electronic votes. Manipulating elections by arson draws too much attention, thus it is not really a problem.
Yes but assuming a bell curve, wouldn't we be just as likely (or nearly as likely) to reach civilizations behind us?
Like what? Planet of the Apes? I think we must realize we are on the bottom rung of what we consider civilization. Unless you consider a bee hive and such a civilization. Let's face it, we've only got one foot out the cave.
There is loads of evidence for global warming. To say there is no consensus is like saying that there is no consensus that smoking causes cancer. There may be a few maverick scientists who go against the consensus, plus the scores of industry sponsored mouthpieces but there certainly is a consensus.
I wish people would remember to specify anthropogenic global warming since that is what the debate is about, not global warming in general. So instead of talking generally about evidence of global warming lets get at the evidence of man's involvement. Perhaps that's what you meant in the first place, it just seems that people like to steer the argument towards something easier to prove and act like they have still proved the more specific and difficult argument.
They left a loose end allowing the true nature of Miivi.com to be discovered, then their 2nd attempt is Viide.com? I'm I the only one who gets an immediate mental association with old and new name? These guys must really suck at hide and seek.
OK, first of all I'm an atheist. I don't know why you thought I was some religious guy. In fact I thought you were a bible banger trying to make God all important and complicated as if there's something to it. 2nd I didn't bother addressing your lets tack on science retort because science and God are incompatible as far as I'm concerned and anyone seriously making a equation for God would have to accept science. In short, I was not saying that occam's razor means that God is the answer because it is the simplest. I was saying that the common interpretation of occam's razor being that the simplest solution is usually right is not the correct interpretation of occam's razor. The correct interpretation (my opinion) is "cut the crap." Cut out all the BS and use what's left to find the answer. Instead of saying God I should have said magic in the beginning to avoid all this religious nonsense.
So you think if someone said God governs the motion of all protons, electrons and neutrons this is the most complicated because the number of independent entries? You're counting all the particles individually? If you describe e.g. nuclear forces you can lump protons, electrons and neutrons into one, but if it is about God you suddenly have tons of "independent entities"?
God = all creation and cause and effect of all particles, waves, energy. Feel free to tack on anything else you feel like, it will still be much shorter than writing down all known science.
The simplest explanation is most likely to be true.
The explanation for everything must be God then. That's as simple as it gets. I'm not sure how the mass interpretation of Occam's razor became going with the simple explanation. What does that have to do with a razor anyway? It seems to me the correct interpretation is Cut the crap.
I don't see how anyone should be expected to be grateful for you're contribution. Should they also hate you for paying for blowing up civilians, kidnapping/rendition programs, torture etc. You seem a bit angry about your tax bill, you should take that out on the people who threaten to stick you in a cage if you don't pay.
I'd say the poor get fucked the worst. Their contribution is smaller yet hurts the most. Sales taxes, semi-hidden taxes on utilities and gas. Pain in the ass regulations.
You're welcome.
Just because someone else paid more for the shackles and chains doesn't mean anyone should be grateful.
Considering the aggregate may be useful for the parties and campaigners, my point is looking at the aggregate as an individual voter is just dabbling in fantasy. My prior comment was because you said:
I voted libertarian last election cycle, and it sure as hell didnt get me a libertarian candidate. Just more earmarking corrupt pork-fed collectivist Democrtats,
Which is like some many comments on here, which imply that your individual vote swung it, I know I'm taking it literal, but there seems to be this pervasive idea that this individual vs aggregate can just be blurred. On an intellectual level people know it's an aggregate thing and the aggregate is greater than the individual, but on an emotional level they really believe that it's individual thing, that their individual vote is somehow wagging the aggregate.
So when someone makes a claim against an insurance policy, the insurance company pays or doesn't pay without considering responsibility? Or if they don't pay and it goes to court, responsibility still isn't considered?
OK, I guess I misinterpreted some of what you were saying. As for why I dislike this working together idea and how I think most people act on it, let me use Libertarians as an example (this isn't directed at you, just why I don't like group think). Some Libertarians are more left leaning, some more right. Given a choice between only republicans and democrats, for the sake of argument lets say these Libertarians would vote 50/50 given those limited choices. Feeling that their voice cannot be heard voting for a Libertarian, they instead vote for their major party lessor evil thinking they are now part of a larger group and now having influence. The result is both republicans and democrats both gain the same amount of votes, the Libertarian voters have not had the influence that was desired, and the Libertarian voice has been silenced. So I agree that people need to take action and vote, but don't bother thinking about togetherness and the group. Just vote for who you personally want to win, even if you don't think they can win.
I can see how you think I am supporting some nihilist view, but I am not. I actually do vote, and vote Libertarian, and am fairly outspoken politically. My whole point is that it actually harms things. By getting on the bandwagon you are harming your position, because If you are a third party supporter and you vote for the lessor of the evil major parties you have a one in a billion chance of altering the election but you have sacrificed your voice which is in the form of one vote (which is all it ever was meant to be). I will not vote for my 2nd worse enemy over my ally based on a one in a billion shot (or some extreme long shot). Even if miraculously it works, it is a pyrrhic victory.
Your sophisticated sounding excuse for everyone to get on the bandwagon is a nice happy thought and you think it will help things, but it won't. It just further entrenches the major parties and the major parties become even less attentive to their constituents. I originally asked for the odds someone would give for a money bet since people like yourself seem so certain that my individual vote can alter the election. So what odds would you give me? And please don't say something like, "if everybody thought that" or " if everybody behaved this way", or "we need to work together". I have no control and you have no control over the behavior of big blocks of voters. Unless you are going to spend your time and money on a campaign you are not working with anyone, you are casting a single vote. It may seem nice to cast your single vote and believe you are working together with others, but you are still just casting your vote, and you have no idea what the people in the voting booths next to you are doing. There is no togetherness.
So yes, thats emperical evidence: voted L, got D in a mixed district.
Evidence? Of what? I hope you don't think the Democrats won in your situation because of the choice you made. Because there is no evidence of that. It mystifies me that people think they are single handedly altering the outcomes of elections.
If you think about it, whether I stay home and not vote or vote at random, it will not change the election because I am only one vote. My vote is my opinion. If someone asked me my opinion whether I like to eat shit, I will say no. Whether other people like to eat shit will not influence the way I state my opinion.
Be realistic. I don't expect my single vote to usher in a third party candidate. Likewise I don't expect it to change the outcome with the major party candidates at all. I'm asked who I prefer and I vote accordingly.
Think about it. The Libertarian candidate isn't going to win no matter what, but the Republicans might. If the Republicans can still win and gain power without your vote, then why should they care about Libertarian issues, or your opinions?
In your example if the Republicans win, so what? How should that change my behavior? Only if the election is down to one vote will it matter what I do. That does not concern me for the same reason playing the lottery does not concern me. And yes, the major parties do not care about libertarian issues, and why should a libertarian care for theirs or vote in support of a major candidate?
Exactly! I don't know what all the fuss is about. I'd like to sell my vote, and sell it often. What I do in the ballot box is my business. Of the 2 scenarios, 1st, I would have voted for the purchaser anyway = money for something I was going to do voluntarily. 2nd, I don't support the purchaser = I take money from my enemy and my enemy cannot verify my vote.
Put your money where your mouth is. If I vote Libertarian, what odds will you give me that my vote will throw the election to the Democrats? Probably worse odds than most lotteries. People need to realize they only have control of ONE vote. Unless you can control or influence other votes there is no use for strategy. You can spend a million hours strategizing with your one vote and you will still only have a handful of options and the outcome will not have changed. Just vote for the guy you want NOT the guy you don't want, it's simple. If you are helping campaign or giving money, then you might give some thought to strategy.
Also in the past I would have agreed with you that the Republicans are the lesser evil, but these days the Neocons are out of control. I'm just hoping Ron Paul can get his message out.
You only have one vote, and it is highly improbable that your single vote will change the outcome, whether it is an electoral college system or not. You should vote for who you really want to win regardless if they have a chance. The idea that your single vote is meaningful to a greater extent that your personal preference is stupid. Even if you have a Nader situation, you still only have a single vote. If you strategize about acting as an individual or some group think strategy it won't make a difference. If you as an individual went back in time and changed your votes based on any number of strategies, it would not change anything unless the election had come down to one vote.
The real trick is giving people the perception that they should vote for people they oppose, because voting for people they support would be a "waste." I see a waste of a vote as a vote which isn't used. Voting for a candidate you don't support is much worse than a waste, it is like giving aid to the enemy.
I'm sure they could develope some insane passenger aircraft, but they need to make money not bleed it. If I came up with a proposal to build basically the concord on steroids I don't think people would buy it. I'd try to sell them more cost effective and reliable planes since that's what they are buying.
Not to say there aren't good things from global warming, but I would rather deal with what we do know (the climate we have now) rather than hoping that things will be better with whatever climate we get later. Things change, I prefer to adapt. Funny you mention hoping, because the only people hoping are those who think they can keep the climate locked down. The rational person says, if global warming is going to happen, where do I want to be when it happens.
Slashdot Mirror
It just makes the true motivation for these machines crystal clear. Somebody wanted machines that are easily compromised and that's what they got.
Forging millions paper ballots is harder than forging millions of electronic votes. Manipulating elections by arson draws too much attention, thus it is not really a problem.
Like what? Planet of the Apes? I think we must realize we are on the bottom rung of what we consider civilization. Unless you consider a bee hive and such a civilization. Let's face it, we've only got one foot out the cave.
I wish people would remember to specify anthropogenic global warming since that is what the debate is about, not global warming in general. So instead of talking generally about evidence of global warming lets get at the evidence of man's involvement. Perhaps that's what you meant in the first place, it just seems that people like to steer the argument towards something easier to prove and act like they have still proved the more specific and difficult argument.
They left a loose end allowing the true nature of Miivi.com to be discovered, then their 2nd attempt is Viide.com? I'm I the only one who gets an immediate mental association with old and new name? These guys must really suck at hide and seek.
OK, first of all I'm an atheist. I don't know why you thought I was some religious guy. In fact I thought you were a bible banger trying to make God all important and complicated as if there's something to it. 2nd I didn't bother addressing your lets tack on science retort because science and God are incompatible as far as I'm concerned and anyone seriously making a equation for God would have to accept science. In short, I was not saying that occam's razor means that God is the answer because it is the simplest. I was saying that the common interpretation of occam's razor being that the simplest solution is usually right is not the correct interpretation of occam's razor. The correct interpretation (my opinion) is "cut the crap." Cut out all the BS and use what's left to find the answer. Instead of saying God I should have said magic in the beginning to avoid all this religious nonsense.
So you think if someone said God governs the motion of all protons, electrons and neutrons this is the most complicated because the number of independent entries? You're counting all the particles individually? If you describe e.g. nuclear forces you can lump protons, electrons and neutrons into one, but if it is about God you suddenly have tons of "independent entities"?
God = all creation and cause and effect of all particles, waves, energy. Feel free to tack on anything else you feel like, it will still be much shorter than writing down all known science.
The explanation for everything must be God then. That's as simple as it gets. I'm not sure how the mass interpretation of Occam's razor became going with the simple explanation. What does that have to do with a razor anyway? It seems to me the correct interpretation is Cut the crap.
I don't see how anyone should be expected to be grateful for you're contribution. Should they also hate you for paying for blowing up civilians, kidnapping/rendition programs, torture etc. You seem a bit angry about your tax bill, you should take that out on the people who threaten to stick you in a cage if you don't pay.
Just because someone else paid more for the shackles and chains doesn't mean anyone should be grateful.
Which is like some many comments on here, which imply that your individual vote swung it, I know I'm taking it literal, but there seems to be this pervasive idea that this individual vs aggregate can just be blurred. On an intellectual level people know it's an aggregate thing and the aggregate is greater than the individual, but on an emotional level they really believe that it's individual thing, that their individual vote is somehow wagging the aggregate.
So when someone makes a claim against an insurance policy, the insurance company pays or doesn't pay without considering responsibility? Or if they don't pay and it goes to court, responsibility still isn't considered?
What's that thing called insurance do?
OK, I guess I misinterpreted some of what you were saying. As for why I dislike this working together idea and how I think most people act on it, let me use Libertarians as an example (this isn't directed at you, just why I don't like group think). Some Libertarians are more left leaning, some more right. Given a choice between only republicans and democrats, for the sake of argument lets say these Libertarians would vote 50/50 given those limited choices. Feeling that their voice cannot be heard voting for a Libertarian, they instead vote for their major party lessor evil thinking they are now part of a larger group and now having influence. The result is both republicans and democrats both gain the same amount of votes, the Libertarian voters have not had the influence that was desired, and the Libertarian voice has been silenced. So I agree that people need to take action and vote, but don't bother thinking about togetherness and the group. Just vote for who you personally want to win, even if you don't think they can win.
Your sophisticated sounding excuse for everyone to get on the bandwagon is a nice happy thought and you think it will help things, but it won't. It just further entrenches the major parties and the major parties become even less attentive to their constituents. I originally asked for the odds someone would give for a money bet since people like yourself seem so certain that my individual vote can alter the election. So what odds would you give me? And please don't say something like, "if everybody thought that" or " if everybody behaved this way", or "we need to work together". I have no control and you have no control over the behavior of big blocks of voters. Unless you are going to spend your time and money on a campaign you are not working with anyone, you are casting a single vote. It may seem nice to cast your single vote and believe you are working together with others, but you are still just casting your vote, and you have no idea what the people in the voting booths next to you are doing. There is no togetherness.
Evidence? Of what? I hope you don't think the Democrats won in your situation because of the choice you made. Because there is no evidence of that. It mystifies me that people think they are single handedly altering the outcomes of elections.
In your example if the Republicans win, so what? How should that change my behavior? Only if the election is down to one vote will it matter what I do. That does not concern me for the same reason playing the lottery does not concern me. And yes, the major parties do not care about libertarian issues, and why should a libertarian care for theirs or vote in support of a major candidate?
Exactly! I don't know what all the fuss is about. I'd like to sell my vote, and sell it often. What I do in the ballot box is my business. Of the 2 scenarios, 1st, I would have voted for the purchaser anyway = money for something I was going to do voluntarily. 2nd, I don't support the purchaser = I take money from my enemy and my enemy cannot verify my vote.
Also in the past I would have agreed with you that the Republicans are the lesser evil, but these days the Neocons are out of control. I'm just hoping Ron Paul can get his message out.
The real trick is giving people the perception that they should vote for people they oppose, because voting for people they support would be a "waste." I see a waste of a vote as a vote which isn't used. Voting for a candidate you don't support is much worse than a waste, it is like giving aid to the enemy.
I'm sure they could develope some insane passenger aircraft, but they need to make money not bleed it. If I came up with a proposal to build basically the concord on steroids I don't think people would buy it. I'd try to sell them more cost effective and reliable planes since that's what they are buying.
Maybe as opposed to in a lab? I don't really know, just guessing.
You mean all the lakes are going to rise too!!? Holy crap, I better build my ark.