The problem with signals is that they're passive. The civilization doesn't gain ANY information by sending signals - only by receiving them. =)
A physical object (the size of a pea?) could be sent very close to the speed of light - so I don't see that as a problem. What, 90%? Maybe even more?
But it'd be a pretty amazing technology, indeed, if such a small object were capable of sending back any data to the home system. It'd take a tremendous amount of energy for such a small transmitter to be effective over such distances.
Right?
Actually, I guess repeaters could do it. You send out a chain of the pea transmitters, and have them repeat info back along the line. Shoot them out a minute apart, and the signal only needs to be strong enough to be detected at a range of about a light minute. Still, a crazy distance, but a heck of a lot easier than 20+ light-years. Granted, you'd have to send them out for about 100 years - at a pea per minute. Hmmm...
The year of advanced economics (micro and macro) that I took in college was a good foundation, I wager, and then I studied game theory quite a bit more in my graduate studies - so I know a little bit of what I'm talking about. Throw in a pretty focused understanding of genetic algorithms, and a bit of natural selection and chaos theory, and I think that I can trust my own instincts when it comes to guessing how twisted the real world gets - and how poorly our simple understanding of economics applies - especially when you tie in our twisted legal system.
You don't deny any of my points, you just insult my understanding of "the world."
If you want to continue the conversation, I suggest that you try to actually respond to some of the points that I brought up, instead of resting on your implied economic laurels that somehow make you correct without question or debate, and make me incorrect in my "opinions."
This system you describe depends on three other factors:
A free press that notices the peaceful protesting (even if people are protesting actions of the press, which is of course in the business of making money.)
Shareholders who are concerned about the morality of the actions of the corporations.
An informed and concerned populace.
Also, it assumes laws that don't exist - I have "property rights" over the air that I breathe, I have legal recourse over property right infringements that I can't prove (you use DDT, I ate your corn, I have cancer, did your DDT cause my cancer?), and it also depends on other things that you don't like, either...
The government defending its citizens from foreign powers - including enforcing law against foreign corporations.
Another poster put it well, some people define "whatever the market decides" as the optimal outcome, no matter how bad that decision is.
Another problem, is that a monopoly can exist, specifically in a utility, and you can't not buy a utility. I can't boycott power and gas in February in Minnesota.
Imagine that a company were granted property rights to air. They're enforcing their property rights by forcing you to pay for the air you breathe. They can raise the price as much as you like, and they can use the courts to either force you to pay, or put you in jail. Electricity, water, and the like (utilities) are just like air, in modern society.
Also, property rights and the rule of law, as you describe, don't prohibit collusion (because that would be stopping the market from being "free," in your depiction). So, even if multiple companies existed that sold the right to breathe air, they'd use price fixing to make sure that they all made a profit, even though they don't deserve one. The same thing holds for real utilities.
And I continue to believe that by their very nature, utilities are a ball and chain around the necks of consumers, which it is impossible to free the sheep of.
When it comes to utilities, without regulation, the wolves will slaughter the sheep. And any time someone advocates deregulating utilities, and they claim that without question, the consumers will benefit - I start checking under their sheep clothing for the claws and fangs.
I personally believe that the mathematical situation described by a "free market" is impossible, by all of your constraints on how truly free it must be. Specifically, any law could be twisted to somehow "apply," thus making it not "truly free." And therefore, the only way to achieve that "free market" that you advocate, is complete anarchy. No thanks.
The original post that I was responding to was advocating free markets in all conditions, and indicated that those that DON'T believe in free markets are probably idiots.
I was cautioning that, with utilities in particular, it appears that the closer that you get to true "free market" conditions, the WORSE the results get, from the standpoint of the consumer. (With utilities, in particular. Water, electricity, etc.)
I admit that if you reached a true "free market" condition, it is a possiblity that all of a sudden, the best result is achieved, with respect to both all consumers and all producers.
But the evidence indicates that the results get worse and worse, not better and better, the closer you get.
I was refering to South America, where some countries pretty much completely deregulated utility industries, and havoc ensued.
It sounds like Rothbard, from your description, is describing laws that marketize environmental protection. This has failed before, and it will fail in the future. Who files a tort, when the victim and his relatives are all dead? And, who sets the value of compensation for polluted air?
Also, sending out a link to a page that refers to "Liberal petulance" in the first paragraph isn't a great way to endorse free market pollution controls to someone who expressed a fairly liberal position.
I just resent the fact that the Republicans tells me how great free markets are, while at the same time telling me that we have to reduce our dependance on foreign oil. Hello?
The only way for the free market to function optimally is for the government to retract itself from the market entirely, and cease any tampering with the free market.
Tell that to people paying electric and water bills that have gone through the roof in deregulated markets. Or people who live downwind of hog farms. Or people who drink water tainted by rusting computer parts.
The free market doesn't always produce the optimal outcome.
Well, like I said, I like to think that he could see through to structures in music that most of us can't even imagine.
Can you imagine what hearing the amateurish music of others must have been like for him? Imagine reading buggy, poorly written COBOL all of the time.
*shrug* Like I said, I know for more about "Amadeus" than I do about Mozart. And I put that character into a little Good Will Hunting box in my head, and it's entertaining for me to think about. I really should respect the actual musician Mozart more - but I haven't got the time to dedicate myself to his study - or the musical talent to really appreciate his work.
I admit that I enjoy the fictitious character from Milos Forman's "Amadeus" more than the true Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
But I like to think that maybe Forman and Peter Shaffer got it right. That Mozart really was an uncomparable genius with music. That maybe he posessed a greater understanding of music than any before or since.
It's like - think of an obfuscated C programming contest. That's what I think "A Musical Joke" was for Mozart.
But like I said, I honestly enjoy the fiction more than the probable truth - he was just messing around, and put in a few clever tricks.
I say we get together and do a hostile takeover of Diebold and get this thing right for 2004!:-D
Hear, hear!
That's just what Michael Moore propses in his new book, "Dude, Where's My Country?" Don't sit on your ass - get out there and change the system. Minimally, he suggests that you find someone who thinks like you, but who isn't planning on voting in 2004. It is your mission to get that person to vote! But yeah, taking over Diebold would be a pretty good thing, too. =)
Hmm... That "Do Not Cite Without Permission" thing is kind of sucky...
I agree that the "Hail to the Thief" stuff is a bit stupid. Minimally, people should respect the office - if not the person who holds it.
I find no conclusive evidence that the use of the felons' list favored one party over another, though it is likely that it favored Democrats because of the role the county supervisors played in the use of the list.
Yeah, that's pretty damning against the position I've been expousing. I'm kind of surprised he said this, given the previous few paragraphs... I'll read through the rest of it when I get a chance. Looks like an interesting read - thanks!
I have an acknowledgement of the fact that statistically we'll never have a result we can hang our hat on.
You said that before, and you're right. That's a far more fair and balanced look at the results than most conservatives (or liberals) give.
What I do have a preformed opinion about...
Similarly, I'm equally miffed by people (not you) who confront me with "Bush won the election by any possible measure of the votes" that is done as a statement of fact without acknowledging the statistical issues, the violation of court orders, the illegal counting of absentee ballots, and other stuff - and they don't attempt to resolve the problems with the "election" in question. =)
Funny how we're pretty similar in that regard, huh? =)
I've been pretty rough, too - and I really do appreciate the tone that you've taken in this latest post. That is an interesting paper, and I'll look into it.
Sorry - I went to his website, and picked the section on the Florida election. No, I didn't read it very carefully, because all along, I've been asking you to read the book, or stop bickering with me.
I agree, SSNs in the voting lists would have helped. I hope that, by reflecting on what happened in 2000, that the lawmakers figure out that things need to change - or their districts vote those lawmakers out.
He continues to allege theft and fraud and conspiracy when none of the facts to date support that conclusion.
"None." In order to honestly say "none of the facts to date support that conclusion," I think you'd have to read the book, and investigate all of his sources. That's what I've been asking you to do, if you're honestly interested. You're not working from a neutral position either. You continue to allege incompetence on the part of this reporter, without being willing to read the text that I've recommended as being the best compiled source of his information.
I never brought up the alleged intimidation, and you haven't pointed to facts denying anything that I've brought up in this entire thread - you just keep saying, "no," or "you're wrong," or "Katherine Harris isn't a villain."
I'd say that wiping people from the voter lists, and sending them letters telling them that they couldn't vote, because they're fellons (when they're not fellons) is a little harrassing, wouldn't you agree? And also, you haven't denied the "come vote" on the wrong date posters that were put up all over.
Aren't you equally outraged that in one of the counties that ignored the purge list it was reported that 450 felons illegally voted?
Yeah, and if they illegally voted, they should be prosecuted and punished for their actions. Yes, I am outraged that people break the law. But, in this circumstance, as I told you, I wish that Florida would change its laws to restore the right to vote to fellons who have served their time.
"Trite" is an adjective, not a noun.
Completely misses the point.
You're telling me to ignore what happened, to forget about it, to shut up about it, and to move on. That sounds like ignoring the past. I want to pay attention to what happened, investigate it, yell about it to get peoples' attention on the topic, and change bad laws and prosecute people who broke the law, so that we can move on to a better election process.
So, tell me how incessantly carping on the "failures" of the previous election have done anything to improve the next one?
Tell me how harrassing me, and telling me to be quiet, and telling me to stop investigating what has happened will do anything to improve the next election?
I agree, SSNs should be added. You never heard me say they shouldn't. That's a creative way to try to fix it, and I credit you with bringing it up. But that's the first positive thing you've done in this entire discussion.
Also, the DNC doesn't have billions. And the state would have to buy the better voting equipment, not the DNC.
Those who dwell on the past are doomed to never see the future.
"Dwell." One conversation in a public forum is not "dwelling." If you want to move on, then move on - stop responding to my posts, since you haven't expressed any appreciation or acknowledgement of good ideas, or any intention to honestly investigate. You're the one with a pre-formed opinion.
No, it points out a single identified and corrected error that was made in the past that was unrelated to the rest of the allegations in the article.
Except that the rest of the allegations in the book (maybe not the article) are related to the same external company's poor record of verifiying their results. Florida paid a huge sum for this work, which, according to the contract, included personal voice phone calls to verify the accuracy. Since not one of the 8,000 people on the first list received a personal phone call, that sheds great doubt on the rest of the names provided by the contractor. In fact, they would not answer questions about their methods, and how many phone calls they made. It is not at all "unrelated" to the rest of the allegations.
That's just stastics, there is nothing inherently unfair in that process.
I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one. I see malicious intent, you see statistical fluke. Either way, these actions did innacurately and illegaly bar legal voters, most of whom were Democratic voters.
Strange I seem to recall the main complaint in the article was that the methods used were in fact not revealed. How do you come by this 80% match idea?
Because it's cited in the book, was reported by the external contracter, and verified with the Secretary of State.
Again strange, considering that the directive was to satisfy the Florida constitution. How does enforcing the constitution make Harris the villain?
The directive to instruct county officials to remove suspected fellons, and to invite them to petition for re-instatement was not upholding the Florida constitution - it was breaking it - and two courts ordered her not to do it. She did it, anyway. That makes her a villain.
My complaint about the list of articles was because you said that they were a list of articles that were the source of the book.
If you write a book, will it contain every English character symbol that you have ever written? No. Will every word in your book come from words that you have previously written? No. If you want to summarize your position in this dialog of postings with me, is it likely that you will refer back to your original postings? Yes. If your understanding of the facts have changed, since you wrote the original posts, will you attempt to correct those differences, in your new summary? Yes.
That's what I meant by saying that he "based his book" on those articles. The articles in question are based on interviews that he and others conducted, and documents that he was given. If you want to get into a debate about his journalistic integrity, then please cite instances where you believe his methods failed, or produced innaccurate results. Blanket aspersions don't really hold much water, though. He's actually spoken with people who were involved - and you have not. Also, ad hominem attacks are entertaining - but it's probably far more interesting and enlightening to discuss the facts, and potential mistakes, than it is to question how I described the process of him writing his own book.
I just really doubt the "giant Republican conspiracy"
I encourage you to doubt it. I also encourage you to investigate it, before you decide it's not true. Doubt is great. But the character of your posts hasn't been curious inquisition - it's been pretty aggessive and negative.
Consider that this conspiracy would have required active cooperation in these Democratically controlled counties.
Actually, if you've followed my posts, all that it would have required is for the people in charge of voting procedures in those counties to follow the directives of the Secretary of State. That's not "active cooperation" in a "conspiracy." That's following orders - from someone that the Florida Judicial system has labeled "crazy."
Personally I feel that it has been investigated to death and beyond.
That article that you linked me to starts with a reported and corrected error and then leaps off into the realm of should and if in quite a hurry.
It points out the magnitude of error that the contractor made in the past.
If minorities commit a majority of the felonies then how are they "unfairly singled out"?
Because any time that you remove supposed felons, you will be removing more minorities (Democrats) than not. Therefore, a pretty good way to get minority (Democratic) votes uncounted is to try to target felons and supposed felons.
The problem is, many false matches were made against "black sounding" names (anyone that met an 80% match was excluded) - and many felons were denied their vote, even though the states that they come from had restored their right to vote after serving out their time, and Florida is compelled by Federal law to follow the laws of other states on the matter. Harris acted in the exact opposite manner.
There are also facts in there that Palm Beach and Duvall simply ignored the lists.
That's because they recognized the massive errors in the list. The fact that other counties did not ignore the list should alarm you.
Again we're back to counties exercising their own rights and initiatives.
...and countermanding the directives from the Secretary of State. Harris should never have been allowed to make those directives.
Your list of articles are a collection of self-serving items mainly about interviews for the writer of the book in question.
The author of the book wrote all of the articles. What's your point?
Yes, I'm advocating that you read the book. Yes, the author of the book advocates that you read the book.
Look, if you think that I'm an idiot, and I read a book written by an idiot - then why do you care what I think?
I don't think you're an idiot - but I honestly believe that there are rather alarming facts that you are either unaware of, or chose to ignore. Some of what the author says might be incorrect - but don't you personally feel that it's worth investigation?
Sorry, you've misunderstood the source of the number of votes being between 20,000 to 200,000 votes. It's not somewhere within that range, from one source - there were multiple sources of confusion, error, and law-breaking that result in some number between about 20,000 and 200,000 votes being either not counted, never received in the first place, or counted despite them not being legal votes. Whether you personally think the number is 20,000 or 200,000 or somewhere in between depends on which sources of error estimation you trust, which reports of illegal activity you credit, and how paranoid you are. I personally don't think the number is as high as 200,000 - but I think it's definitely more than 20,000. Why am I admitting that I don't believe every piece of information that Palast cites? Because I'm a skeptic, and I'm trying to be honest.
This is a pretty good listing of some of the articles Palast based his book on.
I really, honestly, appreciate your calling me on this point of my argument - and it was based on poor communication on my part. You're sick of me saying this, but THE BOOK does a far better job (obviously) of communicating the frightening facts in the Florida election.
Error rates for punch card machines were being quoted at around 3.5%. We remain within the statistical noise.
Trusting in the flat distribution of error rates for the punch card machines assumes equal programming of them in all districts. They were ordered (by Harris) to be programmed to silently eat errors in strongly Democratic regions (voiding the vote with no warning), and the same machines were ordered to complain to the operator (at the time of the vote) about any detectable errors in the ballot in strongly Republican errors, thus allowing the person to re-vote.
The number of votes that were possibly mis-counted or thrown away by this mechanism is documented in the book, which I don't happen to have handy.
If you want to read one article, and one article alone, which documents some of what I'm talking about, I think this is a pretty good one. It doesn't list all of the voter numbers that Palast found, but it does list the biggest.
Conspiracy or no conspiracy the vote was too close to be resolved in a way that would remove any doubt.
You may be right. But that doesn't make me less pissed that the law was broken, legal voters were intimidated, and I get lectured by people (not you, really) telling me that the Democrats tried to steal the election. The Republicans DID steal the election, in my opinion - and I'm trying to share some of the facts that I'm basing that opinion on. Whether they won inside of an error rate is a disturbing question (can't we come up with a better voting system? MOST elections are within 3.5%!!!), but it's not the one I've been posting about. I'm not saying Gore won because of a 3.5% error margin, I'm saying that I think he would have won, but for the illegal (and immoral, and CRAZY) actions of Harris. Whether or not he should have won, if no laws had been broken, or should have won on a political basis - those are other questions for other debates.
I just want to point out that 800 MB per person works out to 1,600 slices of 512x512 CT data (the standard size of CT slices at 16 bits per voxel) - which means that this amount of data is roughly the same thing as about a 1mm * 1mm * 1mm CT scan of every human on the planet.
Can you not hear me telling you to read the book that I suggested, if you're honestly interested? Because if you're not willing to do that, then there are two choices - either you're not honestly interested and you just enjoy yelling your opinions, or you're too busy. If you're too busy, then I'm not going to waste my time breaking it down point by point, when you could just read the first chapter of the book!
How the heck where they ever going to "get the election right"?
By making sure that people who had a legal right to vote were not deterred, and by making sure that only votes that met the legal critereon of being counted were counted.
No matter what way you slice it, no matter who you say did what right or wrong the margin of victory in Florida would forever remain below the margin of error.
READ THE BOOK. Okay? According to sources in the book (and no, I'm not talking about Al Gore as a source), somewhere between 20,000 and 200,000 votes were counted incorrectly. I say "somerhwere between", because I'm being honest - you can debate the finer points of how best to have delt with the fact that incorrect (and illegal) instructions were given to the districts by the office of the Secretary of State. But, anywhere between 20,000 and 200,000 lies well outside of the margin of error. If you want to get into a honest debate about the 20,000 to 200,000 votes, you can either read the first couple chapters of the book, or you can read my quoting the book. If you don't want an honest debate, then just tell me so, so I can stop wasting my time on you. But no, you are incorrect that "No matter what way you slice it, no matter who you say did what right or wrong the margin of victory in Florida would forever remain below the margin of error."
Why would it be more legitimate if Gore won the state by 10 votes than Bush by 1,000?
Would it be more legitimate if 8,000 legal voters had never been told by the office of the Secretary of State that they could not legally vote? I'm not talking about 1,000 votes, I'm talking thousands.
The precincts that everyone was complaining about (especially the infamous butterfly ballot) were controlled by Democrats.
"Controlled by Democrats." No, actually. They were controlled by the Secretary of State, who was appointed by Jeb Bush, who is, incidentally, not a Democrat.
The horrible ballot that everyone is blaming was designed by a Democrat, was published in the newspapers before the election for comment and not word one was utterred.
Yup, the Democrats made mistakes. Does that somehow honestly make it wrong for us to complain about other mistakes? Does that somehow make it wrong for us to complain about the law being broken?
What court orders did Harris directly disobey?
She was directly ordered by Florida courts, TWICE, that she could not direct possible felons who might be inelligible to vote, to request a review of their voting status. She did it anyway.
How did this affect the outcome of COUNTRY-RUN elections?
Well, actually, the election was a COUNTY-RUN election, within a state whose elections were regulated and officiated by the Secretary of State, who was called "crazy" by the Florida judicial system.
And the way it DID affect the outcome was that legal voters were turned away at the doors, or intimidated into not showing up in the first place; or once they did get there, the vote tabulating machines ate any questionable ballots, while in Republican districts, the same exacting tabulating machines had been ordered by the Secretary of State to report the error on the ballot, thus allowing a re-vote.
My problem is that this is always presented as a one-sided "Bush stole the election" with the other side trying to wrap itself in the cloak of all things good and righteous.
I have not presented Gore as the paragon of integrity. Would you care to discuss the defin
However, simply saying read this book gets nowhere.
Look, I am not going to quote the entire book here, and I can't be certain which points in the book you would find convincing. Really, honestly, I think you should take a half hour to stop at a library and read the first chapter or two of the book, if you have an honest interest in the course of events that resulted in George Bush being the President of the United States.
The fact is that you have a group of people who keep whining about the 2000 election
Are you trying to flame me?
First, it's more than a "group of people." It's not as though one organization is mobilizing people to specifically think about it - it's a large and diverse group. In fact, most of the news outlets in Europe were pretty dumbfounded by our election.
Also, "whining about the 2000 election"? This is the most powerful elected official in the world - you'd think that getting the election right would be pretty important, wouldn't you? Any concern about the fairness of the election is a pretty valid topic of consideration.
And, may I remind you how much the Right "whined" about Whitewater and Monica Lewinski? I think we can "whine" a bit more about what I think was an unfair election.
Was the Clinton administration perfect? No. Good Lord, no. And I wasn't silent during his administration, either. Moreover, I didn't expect silence from his critics. I'd appreciate it if you'd allow me to "whine" - and if you don't want to hear it, then I guess you can stop listening.
...and how "Bush and the USSC stole the election"
Actually, it was Harris who pretty much stole the election. Jeb Bush had a lot to do with it, and the U.S. Supreme Court validated their actions - but no, I'd pretty much place the blame squarely on the Secretary of State, thanks.
and completely ignore both the tactics that Gore was using
Since I seem to be ignorant of the topic, I'd appreciate an enumeration of what are presumably unfair tactics, given the tone of your post. If you can suggest a book that discusses the matter, I'd be happy to read it.
that started the whole mess
Actually, I think that cleaning the registered voter lists of supposed felons who had supposedly lost the right to vote, months before the election, "started the whole mess."
and the fact that the Fla SC completely ignored their own laws in an attempt to give Al his recount.
That is interesting. I don't think that either side is clean in this situation. But I know for a fact that Harris directly disobeyed court orders - months before the election - and that's pretty scary.
No, thanks, I think I'll whine a bit more about it.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with signals is that they're passive. The civilization doesn't gain ANY information by sending signals - only by receiving them. =)
A physical object (the size of a pea?) could be sent very close to the speed of light - so I don't see that as a problem. What, 90%? Maybe even more?
But it'd be a pretty amazing technology, indeed, if such a small object were capable of sending back any data to the home system. It'd take a tremendous amount of energy for such a small transmitter to be effective over such distances.
Right?
Actually, I guess repeaters could do it. You send out a chain of the pea transmitters, and have them repeat info back along the line. Shoot them out a minute apart, and the signal only needs to be strong enough to be detected at a range of about a light minute. Still, a crazy distance, but a heck of a lot easier than 20+ light-years. Granted, you'd have to send them out for about 100 years - at a pea per minute. Hmmm...
The year of advanced economics (micro and macro) that I took in college was a good foundation, I wager, and then I studied game theory quite a bit more in my graduate studies - so I know a little bit of what I'm talking about. Throw in a pretty focused understanding of genetic algorithms, and a bit of natural selection and chaos theory, and I think that I can trust my own instincts when it comes to guessing how twisted the real world gets - and how poorly our simple understanding of economics applies - especially when you tie in our twisted legal system.
You don't deny any of my points, you just insult my understanding of "the world."
If you want to continue the conversation, I suggest that you try to actually respond to some of the points that I brought up, instead of resting on your implied economic laurels that somehow make you correct without question or debate, and make me incorrect in my "opinions."
This system you describe depends on three other factors:
A free press that notices the peaceful protesting (even if people are protesting actions of the press, which is of course in the business of making money.)
Shareholders who are concerned about the morality of the actions of the corporations.
An informed and concerned populace.
Also, it assumes laws that don't exist - I have "property rights" over the air that I breathe, I have legal recourse over property right infringements that I can't prove (you use DDT, I ate your corn, I have cancer, did your DDT cause my cancer?), and it also depends on other things that you don't like, either...
The government defending its citizens from foreign powers - including enforcing law against foreign corporations.
Another poster put it well, some people define "whatever the market decides" as the optimal outcome, no matter how bad that decision is.
Another problem, is that a monopoly can exist, specifically in a utility, and you can't not buy a utility. I can't boycott power and gas in February in Minnesota.
Imagine that a company were granted property rights to air. They're enforcing their property rights by forcing you to pay for the air you breathe. They can raise the price as much as you like, and they can use the courts to either force you to pay, or put you in jail. Electricity, water, and the like (utilities) are just like air, in modern society.
Also, property rights and the rule of law, as you describe, don't prohibit collusion (because that would be stopping the market from being "free," in your depiction). So, even if multiple companies existed that sold the right to breathe air, they'd use price fixing to make sure that they all made a profit, even though they don't deserve one. The same thing holds for real utilities.
Far from an optimal solution.
And I continue to believe that by their very nature, utilities are a ball and chain around the necks of consumers, which it is impossible to free the sheep of.
When it comes to utilities, without regulation, the wolves will slaughter the sheep. And any time someone advocates deregulating utilities, and they claim that without question, the consumers will benefit - I start checking under their sheep clothing for the claws and fangs.
I personally believe that the mathematical situation described by a "free market" is impossible, by all of your constraints on how truly free it must be. Specifically, any law could be twisted to somehow "apply," thus making it not "truly free." And therefore, the only way to achieve that "free market" that you advocate, is complete anarchy. No thanks.
The original post that I was responding to was advocating free markets in all conditions, and indicated that those that DON'T believe in free markets are probably idiots.
I was cautioning that, with utilities in particular, it appears that the closer that you get to true "free market" conditions, the WORSE the results get, from the standpoint of the consumer. (With utilities, in particular. Water, electricity, etc.)
I admit that if you reached a true "free market" condition, it is a possiblity that all of a sudden, the best result is achieved, with respect to both all consumers and all producers.
But the evidence indicates that the results get worse and worse, not better and better, the closer you get.
That's all I was really trying to point out.
One situation, where the government completely privatized a utility.
You're being naive, if you think that the laws of economics only apply in the U.S. You could learn a great deal from looking internationally.
This describes what happened in Bolivia, right after privatization of a utility.
I honestly haven't read it, but this seems like a pretty good document on the subject:
Here
You are in the fantasy world, I never mentioned the US, you did.
I presume that the laws of free markets would apply, no matter which country they are applied in? Even if the country is in South America?
I was refering to South America, where some countries pretty much completely deregulated utility industries, and havoc ensued.
It sounds like Rothbard, from your description, is describing laws that marketize environmental protection. This has failed before, and it will fail in the future. Who files a tort, when the victim and his relatives are all dead? And, who sets the value of compensation for polluted air?
Also, sending out a link to a page that refers to "Liberal petulance" in the first paragraph isn't a great way to endorse free market pollution controls to someone who expressed a fairly liberal position.
I just resent the fact that the Republicans tells me how great free markets are, while at the same time telling me that we have to reduce our dependance on foreign oil. Hello?
The only way for the free market to function optimally is for the government to retract itself from the market entirely, and cease any tampering with the free market.
Tell that to people paying electric and water bills that have gone through the roof in deregulated markets. Or people who live downwind of hog farms. Or people who drink water tainted by rusting computer parts.
The free market doesn't always produce the optimal outcome.
I'm an idiot savant with no special abilities.
Well, like I said, I like to think that he could see through to structures in music that most of us can't even imagine.
Can you imagine what hearing the amateurish music of others must have been like for him? Imagine reading buggy, poorly written COBOL all of the time.
*shrug* Like I said, I know for more about "Amadeus" than I do about Mozart. And I put that character into a little Good Will Hunting box in my head, and it's entertaining for me to think about. I really should respect the actual musician Mozart more - but I haven't got the time to dedicate myself to his study - or the musical talent to really appreciate his work.
Thanks. I loved reading that description.
I admit that I enjoy the fictitious character from Milos Forman's "Amadeus" more than the true Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
But I like to think that maybe Forman and Peter Shaffer got it right. That Mozart really was an uncomparable genius with music. That maybe he posessed a greater understanding of music than any before or since.
It's like - think of an obfuscated C programming contest. That's what I think "A Musical Joke" was for Mozart.
But like I said, I honestly enjoy the fiction more than the probable truth - he was just messing around, and put in a few clever tricks.
Well said - but that wasn't the grand-parent's point.
By your definition, I don't think ANY idiot exists who thinks that government *spending* (in and of itself) is always a good thing.
There might be some folks who think that the government always spends money well - on things worth buying. They're wrong.
However, there really are people who think that the government always spends money poorly - on things not worth buying. They're really, really wrong.
Are you seriously asserting that government spending is always a bad thing?
I say we get together and do a hostile takeover of Diebold and get this thing right for 2004! :-D
Hear, hear!
That's just what Michael Moore propses in his new book, "Dude, Where's My Country?" Don't sit on your ass - get out there and change the system. Minimally, he suggests that you find someone who thinks like you, but who isn't planning on voting in 2004. It is your mission to get that person to vote! But yeah, taking over Diebold would be a pretty good thing, too. =)
Corrected link.
Hmm... That "Do Not Cite Without Permission" thing is kind of sucky...
I agree that the "Hail to the Thief" stuff is a bit stupid. Minimally, people should respect the office - if not the person who holds it.
I find no conclusive evidence that the use of the felons' list favored one party over another, though it is likely that it favored Democrats because of the role the county supervisors played in the use of the list.
Yeah, that's pretty damning against the position I've been expousing. I'm kind of surprised he said this, given the previous few paragraphs... I'll read through the rest of it when I get a chance. Looks like an interesting read - thanks!
I have an acknowledgement of the fact that statistically we'll never have a result we can hang our hat on.
You said that before, and you're right. That's a far more fair and balanced look at the results than most conservatives (or liberals) give.
What I do have a preformed opinion about...
Similarly, I'm equally miffed by people (not you) who confront me with "Bush won the election by any possible measure of the votes" that is done as a statement of fact without acknowledging the statistical issues, the violation of court orders, the illegal counting of absentee ballots, and other stuff - and they don't attempt to resolve the problems with the "election" in question. =)
Funny how we're pretty similar in that regard, huh? =)
I've been pretty rough, too - and I really do appreciate the tone that you've taken in this latest post. That is an interesting paper, and I'll look into it.
I think the grand-parent poster meant "You don't have any distribution rights without a license."
Sorry - I went to his website, and picked the section on the Florida election. No, I didn't read it very carefully, because all along, I've been asking you to read the book, or stop bickering with me.
I agree, SSNs in the voting lists would have helped. I hope that, by reflecting on what happened in 2000, that the lawmakers figure out that things need to change - or their districts vote those lawmakers out.
He continues to allege theft and fraud and conspiracy when none of the facts to date support that conclusion.
"None." In order to honestly say "none of the facts to date support that conclusion," I think you'd have to read the book, and investigate all of his sources. That's what I've been asking you to do, if you're honestly interested. You're not working from a neutral position either. You continue to allege incompetence on the part of this reporter, without being willing to read the text that I've recommended as being the best compiled source of his information.
I never brought up the alleged intimidation, and you haven't pointed to facts denying anything that I've brought up in this entire thread - you just keep saying, "no," or "you're wrong," or "Katherine Harris isn't a villain."
I'd say that wiping people from the voter lists, and sending them letters telling them that they couldn't vote, because they're fellons (when they're not fellons) is a little harrassing, wouldn't you agree? And also, you haven't denied the "come vote" on the wrong date posters that were put up all over.
Aren't you equally outraged that in one of the counties that ignored the purge list it was reported that 450 felons illegally voted?
Yeah, and if they illegally voted, they should be prosecuted and punished for their actions. Yes, I am outraged that people break the law. But, in this circumstance, as I told you, I wish that Florida would change its laws to restore the right to vote to fellons who have served their time.
"Trite" is an adjective, not a noun.
Completely misses the point.
You're telling me to ignore what happened, to forget about it, to shut up about it, and to move on. That sounds like ignoring the past. I want to pay attention to what happened, investigate it, yell about it to get peoples' attention on the topic, and change bad laws and prosecute people who broke the law, so that we can move on to a better election process.
So, tell me how incessantly carping on the "failures" of the previous election have done anything to improve the next one?
Tell me how harrassing me, and telling me to be quiet, and telling me to stop investigating what has happened will do anything to improve the next election?
I agree, SSNs should be added. You never heard me say they shouldn't. That's a creative way to try to fix it, and I credit you with bringing it up. But that's the first positive thing you've done in this entire discussion.
Also, the DNC doesn't have billions. And the state would have to buy the better voting equipment, not the DNC.
Those who dwell on the past are doomed to never see the future.
"Dwell." One conversation in a public forum is not "dwelling." If you want to move on, then move on - stop responding to my posts, since you haven't expressed any appreciation or acknowledgement of good ideas, or any intention to honestly investigate. You're the one with a pre-formed opinion.
No, it points out a single identified and corrected error that was made in the past that was unrelated to the rest of the allegations in the article.
Except that the rest of the allegations in the book (maybe not the article) are related to the same external company's poor record of verifiying their results. Florida paid a huge sum for this work, which, according to the contract, included personal voice phone calls to verify the accuracy. Since not one of the 8,000 people on the first list received a personal phone call, that sheds great doubt on the rest of the names provided by the contractor. In fact, they would not answer questions about their methods, and how many phone calls they made. It is not at all "unrelated" to the rest of the allegations.
That's just stastics, there is nothing inherently unfair in that process.
I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one. I see malicious intent, you see statistical fluke. Either way, these actions did innacurately and illegaly bar legal voters, most of whom were Democratic voters.
Strange I seem to recall the main complaint in the article was that the methods used were in fact not revealed. How do you come by this 80% match idea?
Because it's cited in the book, was reported by the external contracter, and verified with the Secretary of State.
Again strange, considering that the directive was to satisfy the Florida constitution. How does enforcing the constitution make Harris the villain?
The directive to instruct county officials to remove suspected fellons, and to invite them to petition for re-instatement was not upholding the Florida constitution - it was breaking it - and two courts ordered her not to do it. She did it, anyway. That makes her a villain.
My complaint about the list of articles was because you said that they were a list of articles that were the source of the book.
If you write a book, will it contain every English character symbol that you have ever written? No. Will every word in your book come from words that you have previously written? No. If you want to summarize your position in this dialog of postings with me, is it likely that you will refer back to your original postings? Yes. If your understanding of the facts have changed, since you wrote the original posts, will you attempt to correct those differences, in your new summary? Yes.
That's what I meant by saying that he "based his book" on those articles. The articles in question are based on interviews that he and others conducted, and documents that he was given. If you want to get into a debate about his journalistic integrity, then please cite instances where you believe his methods failed, or produced innaccurate results. Blanket aspersions don't really hold much water, though. He's actually spoken with people who were involved - and you have not. Also, ad hominem attacks are entertaining - but it's probably far more interesting and enlightening to discuss the facts, and potential mistakes, than it is to question how I described the process of him writing his own book.
I just really doubt the "giant Republican conspiracy"
I encourage you to doubt it. I also encourage you to investigate it, before you decide it's not true. Doubt is great. But the character of your posts hasn't been curious inquisition - it's been pretty aggessive and negative.
Consider that this conspiracy would have required active cooperation in these Democratically controlled counties.
Actually, if you've followed my posts, all that it would have required is for the people in charge of voting procedures in those counties to follow the directives of the Secretary of State. That's not "active cooperation" in a "conspiracy." That's following orders - from someone that the Florida Judicial system has labeled "crazy."
Personally I feel that it has been investigated to death and beyond.
Look, there are 8 gliders like this - 4 directions, and 2 states, if I remember right.
Why on earth did he pick one that goes DOWN?
Why not pick one that goes up and right?
Crackers should have one that goes DOWN.
It points out the magnitude of error that the contractor made in the past.
If minorities commit a majority of the felonies then how are they "unfairly singled out"?
Because any time that you remove supposed felons, you will be removing more minorities (Democrats) than not. Therefore, a pretty good way to get minority (Democratic) votes uncounted is to try to target felons and supposed felons.
The problem is, many false matches were made against "black sounding" names (anyone that met an 80% match was excluded) - and many felons were denied their vote, even though the states that they come from had restored their right to vote after serving out their time, and Florida is compelled by Federal law to follow the laws of other states on the matter. Harris acted in the exact opposite manner.
There are also facts in there that Palm Beach and Duvall simply ignored the lists.
That's because they recognized the massive errors in the list. The fact that other counties did not ignore the list should alarm you.
Again we're back to counties exercising their own rights and initiatives.
Your list of articles are a collection of self-serving items mainly about interviews for the writer of the book in question.
The author of the book wrote all of the articles. What's your point?
Yes, I'm advocating that you read the book. Yes, the author of the book advocates that you read the book.
Look, if you think that I'm an idiot, and I read a book written by an idiot - then why do you care what I think?
I don't think you're an idiot - but I honestly believe that there are rather alarming facts that you are either unaware of, or chose to ignore. Some of what the author says might be incorrect - but don't you personally feel that it's worth investigation?
Sorry, you've misunderstood the source of the number of votes being between 20,000 to 200,000 votes. It's not somewhere within that range, from one source - there were multiple sources of confusion, error, and law-breaking that result in some number between about 20,000 and 200,000 votes being either not counted, never received in the first place, or counted despite them not being legal votes. Whether you personally think the number is 20,000 or 200,000 or somewhere in between depends on which sources of error estimation you trust, which reports of illegal activity you credit, and how paranoid you are. I personally don't think the number is as high as 200,000 - but I think it's definitely more than 20,000. Why am I admitting that I don't believe every piece of information that Palast cites? Because I'm a skeptic, and I'm trying to be honest.
This is a pretty good listing of some of the articles Palast based his book on.
I really, honestly, appreciate your calling me on this point of my argument - and it was based on poor communication on my part. You're sick of me saying this, but THE BOOK does a far better job (obviously) of communicating the frightening facts in the Florida election.
Error rates for punch card machines were being quoted at around 3.5%. We remain within the statistical noise.
Trusting in the flat distribution of error rates for the punch card machines assumes equal programming of them in all districts. They were ordered (by Harris) to be programmed to silently eat errors in strongly Democratic regions (voiding the vote with no warning), and the same machines were ordered to complain to the operator (at the time of the vote) about any detectable errors in the ballot in strongly Republican errors, thus allowing the person to re-vote.
The number of votes that were possibly mis-counted or thrown away by this mechanism is documented in the book, which I don't happen to have handy.
If you want to read one article, and one article alone, which documents some of what I'm talking about, I think this is a pretty good one. It doesn't list all of the voter numbers that Palast found, but it does list the biggest.
Conspiracy or no conspiracy the vote was too close to be resolved in a way that would remove any doubt.
You may be right. But that doesn't make me less pissed that the law was broken, legal voters were intimidated, and I get lectured by people (not you, really) telling me that the Democrats tried to steal the election. The Republicans DID steal the election, in my opinion - and I'm trying to share some of the facts that I'm basing that opinion on. Whether they won inside of an error rate is a disturbing question (can't we come up with a better voting system? MOST elections are within 3.5%!!!), but it's not the one I've been posting about. I'm not saying Gore won because of a 3.5% error margin, I'm saying that I think he would have won, but for the illegal (and immoral, and CRAZY) actions of Harris. Whether or not he should have won, if no laws had been broken, or should have won on a political basis - those are other questions for other debates.
I just want to point out that 800 MB per person works out to 1,600 slices of 512x512 CT data (the standard size of CT slices at 16 bits per voxel) - which means that this amount of data is roughly the same thing as about a 1mm * 1mm * 1mm CT scan of every human on the planet.
Can you not hear me telling you to read the book that I suggested, if you're honestly interested? Because if you're not willing to do that, then there are two choices - either you're not honestly interested and you just enjoy yelling your opinions, or you're too busy. If you're too busy, then I'm not going to waste my time breaking it down point by point, when you could just read the first chapter of the book!
How the heck where they ever going to "get the election right"?
By making sure that people who had a legal right to vote were not deterred, and by making sure that only votes that met the legal critereon of being counted were counted.
No matter what way you slice it, no matter who you say did what right or wrong the margin of victory in Florida would forever remain below the margin of error.
READ THE BOOK. Okay? According to sources in the book (and no, I'm not talking about Al Gore as a source), somewhere between 20,000 and 200,000 votes were counted incorrectly. I say "somerhwere between", because I'm being honest - you can debate the finer points of how best to have delt with the fact that incorrect (and illegal) instructions were given to the districts by the office of the Secretary of State. But, anywhere between 20,000 and 200,000 lies well outside of the margin of error. If you want to get into a honest debate about the 20,000 to 200,000 votes, you can either read the first couple chapters of the book, or you can read my quoting the book. If you don't want an honest debate, then just tell me so, so I can stop wasting my time on you. But no, you are incorrect that "No matter what way you slice it, no matter who you say did what right or wrong the margin of victory in Florida would forever remain below the margin of error."
Why would it be more legitimate if Gore won the state by 10 votes than Bush by 1,000?
Would it be more legitimate if 8,000 legal voters had never been told by the office of the Secretary of State that they could not legally vote? I'm not talking about 1,000 votes, I'm talking thousands.
The precincts that everyone was complaining about (especially the infamous butterfly ballot) were controlled by Democrats.
"Controlled by Democrats." No, actually. They were controlled by the Secretary of State, who was appointed by Jeb Bush, who is, incidentally, not a Democrat.
The horrible ballot that everyone is blaming was designed by a Democrat, was published in the newspapers before the election for comment and not word one was utterred.
Yup, the Democrats made mistakes. Does that somehow honestly make it wrong for us to complain about other mistakes? Does that somehow make it wrong for us to complain about the law being broken?
What court orders did Harris directly disobey?
She was directly ordered by Florida courts, TWICE, that she could not direct possible felons who might be inelligible to vote, to request a review of their voting status. She did it anyway.
How did this affect the outcome of COUNTRY-RUN elections?
Well, actually, the election was a COUNTY-RUN election, within a state whose elections were regulated and officiated by the Secretary of State, who was called "crazy" by the Florida judicial system.
And the way it DID affect the outcome was that legal voters were turned away at the doors, or intimidated into not showing up in the first place; or once they did get there, the vote tabulating machines ate any questionable ballots, while in Republican districts, the same exacting tabulating machines had been ordered by the Secretary of State to report the error on the ballot, thus allowing a re-vote.
My problem is that this is always presented as a one-sided "Bush stole the election" with the other side trying to wrap itself in the cloak of all things good and righteous.
I have not presented Gore as the paragon of integrity. Would you care to discuss the defin
Look, I am not going to quote the entire book here, and I can't be certain which points in the book you would find convincing. Really, honestly, I think you should take a half hour to stop at a library and read the first chapter or two of the book, if you have an honest interest in the course of events that resulted in George Bush being the President of the United States.
The fact is that you have a group of people who keep whining about the 2000 election
Are you trying to flame me?
First, it's more than a "group of people." It's not as though one organization is mobilizing people to specifically think about it - it's a large and diverse group. In fact, most of the news outlets in Europe were pretty dumbfounded by our election.
Also, "whining about the 2000 election"? This is the most powerful elected official in the world - you'd think that getting the election right would be pretty important, wouldn't you? Any concern about the fairness of the election is a pretty valid topic of consideration.
And, may I remind you how much the Right "whined" about Whitewater and Monica Lewinski? I think we can "whine" a bit more about what I think was an unfair election.
Was the Clinton administration perfect? No. Good Lord, no. And I wasn't silent during his administration, either. Moreover, I didn't expect silence from his critics. I'd appreciate it if you'd allow me to "whine" - and if you don't want to hear it, then I guess you can stop listening.
Actually, it was Harris who pretty much stole the election. Jeb Bush had a lot to do with it, and the U.S. Supreme Court validated their actions - but no, I'd pretty much place the blame squarely on the Secretary of State, thanks.
and completely ignore both the tactics that Gore was using
Since I seem to be ignorant of the topic, I'd appreciate an enumeration of what are presumably unfair tactics, given the tone of your post. If you can suggest a book that discusses the matter, I'd be happy to read it.
that started the whole mess
Actually, I think that cleaning the registered voter lists of supposed felons who had supposedly lost the right to vote, months before the election, "started the whole mess."
and the fact that the Fla SC completely ignored their own laws in an attempt to give Al his recount.
That is interesting. I don't think that either side is clean in this situation. But I know for a fact that Harris directly disobeyed court orders - months before the election - and that's pretty scary.
No, thanks, I think I'll whine a bit more about it.