Hmmm, there are many reasons why I dislike the idea of centralized voting and they're hard to articulate. But I'll try.
For one thing, it's generally easier to spot electoral fraud on a local level. If you have Washington watching everything, it's harder to spot fraud. Also, decentralized voting is nice because it allows a system to try out several voting techniques which compete with each other and hopefully a superior sytem will emerge.
It's also easier to change things on a local level. One voice among thousands is better than one voice among millions.
The arguments for standarization aren't that good, either. Once a nefarious party gets power, like the Bush administration, it can and will inevitably influence the voting process. Even if we had an open source system, I think they'd still find a way to weasel their way in, and then instead of cheating the Ohioan voters, they'd be cheating the national voters.
What does the electoral college have to do with the topic? I happen to think it's a preferential system to direct elections. Oh and standarization is a BIG mistake, imagine if the entire country was standardized and forced to use Diebold machines?
The people who run slashdot as well as the vast majority of the most vocal posters aren't very bright and are prone to hysteria. Hence the piling on, tin-foil hatters, mindless bashing etc. etc.
Logic should dictate to you (although I understand that logic is in short supply on slashdot) that such a scenario would never happen. Each town would choose the same voltage and side of the road because it is in their own self-interest. Why would a town choose economic, social, and political isolation by choosing a unique standard?
Just because a government forces something doesn't mean it won't happen.
Well, as long as the still US has the majority of high-tech jobs then I won't mind too much (India is more of a threat than Europe is). Wi-fi networks will be available here where they are useful, and they certainly shouldn't be subsidized just so that we can say that our Wi-Fi networks are growing faster than Europe.
I must say, the US really isn't behind in any of those technologies, at least as far as jobs are concerned. The broadband tends to be there for those who want it (like me), you just have to live in a fairly dense area (which most people don't). The business infrastructure has always been top-notch, here, which means plenty of growth in IT jobs, which is where it matters most for most techies.
America has beaten Europe in the past and, barring some unforeseen factor, will contine to do so in the future.
As for mentioning neo-cons, I don't really see how this fits into the conversation except as an extremely irrational viewpoint of the US.
Bush has increased spending, we're in a pretty nasty decifet (under almost complete GOP control BTW), we've lost quite a few jobs, and we haven't captured OBL (remember him?).
Well, I am actually generally against gun control, as it is usually a waste of time. However, airplanes are private property and your rights to own a gun do not extend to your right to have one on an airplane, which is private property. Most people, I would think, would come to the conclusion that allowing firearms on jetliners is not a good idea and I would be inclined to agree.
Well we could've prevented 3000 deaths. Of course, I wonder how many more deaths would occur on a regular basis as irate flight passengers fire on each other. Air rage, you know?
On one hand their shouldn't even be a diversity report on the DoJ, the idea that a lack of diversity means that discrimination is prevalent is ludicrous (sp?). Maybe the most competent employees happen to be white males? Ever consider that?
On the other hand W and his cronies are continuing to look like cowards due to silly, dumb actions like this. Conservatives are looking like the whiny bitches that we all know liberals are what with stuff like this and Fox news suing Al Franken. Conservatives shouldn't do stuff like this because we. are. better. than. they. are.
I dunno about you, but I'd rather have an effective Justice Department than a diverse one (not that the two are mutually exclusive or that the current one is necessarily effective). Just because it isn't diverse doesn't mean there is discrimination.
I am SO sick of political correctness and the American public is too, judging by the GOP's continuing success in elections. *grins*
Well I for one appreciate the simplicity and ease of use of the MS command line. For the 10% of time when using a CLI is preferable to using a GUI, it works fairly well.
Heh, while I realize that innovation has always been important for IBM and making money, it seems like they're trying too much to innovate and not enough to capture market share. It's like they're coming out with all these great inventions but they're pursuing pure science and not having a profit-making strategy.
Of course I realize that I'm probably wrong in some way but this is just how it seems to me.
Rotten, the Japanese never accepted unconditional surrender. Their sticking point in the negotiations in the months prior to Hiroshima was the preservation of the institution of Emperor. Guess what was preserved after Hirohito signed the documents of surrender? The institution of Emperor. They were already ready to surrender -- nothing was changed by the atomic bombs, except the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
To preempt a US assault on Japanese military forces during and after the Japanese conquest of Asia. Note that Pearl Harbor was a US naval base -- a legitimate military target, whatever one thinks of the surprise nature of the attack.
Nagasaki was a legimate military target and the dropping of the atomic bomb was an act of mercy. Although I will say that it's hard to weigh which act was moral superior/inferior. Let's just say that I do not feel bad about either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Having actually read the account of Gen. Wesley Clark, an American and then the SAC, on the subject, I can tell you this is utterly false. Europe was far more involved than we were -- we put up the tiniest troop and weaponry presence we could get away with. Europe, OTOH, knew that WW1 started in this tiny patch of land and were quite aware its instability.
It was happening in Europe's backyard, thus they should've been ashamed to need our help at all.
No, NATO brokered the peace, not the U.S. (the U.N. failed, too, except when they turned it over to NATO).
Nonsense, NATO only took the initiative of a campaign against the Serbs because of American pressure. Europeans let the slaughter continue for years.
You can't expect the US to be the world's policeman (and most leftists do) and not make up it's own rules. We are the intervening power in this world, we put a stop to the Bosnian conflict while Europe was sitting on their asses, etc. etc. Therefor we only trust ourselves and we have that right. If you want a sheriff you're gonna have to follow the rules, sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
Iraq, Laci Peterson, and the f_cking fires make for better stories. More boom for the buck, ya' know?
Hmmm, there are many reasons why I dislike the idea of centralized voting and they're hard to articulate. But I'll try.
For one thing, it's generally easier to spot electoral fraud on a local level. If you have Washington watching everything, it's harder to spot fraud. Also, decentralized voting is nice because it allows a system to try out several voting techniques which compete with each other and hopefully a superior sytem will emerge.
It's also easier to change things on a local level. One voice among thousands is better than one voice among millions.
The arguments for standarization aren't that good, either. Once a nefarious party gets power, like the Bush administration, it can and will inevitably influence the voting process. Even if we had an open source system, I think they'd still find a way to weasel their way in, and then instead of cheating the Ohioan voters, they'd be cheating the national voters.
HTH.
Yes, exactly. The Founding Fathers were just as scared of the next Caesar as they were of the next King George.
What does the electoral college have to do with the topic? I happen to think it's a preferential system to direct elections. Oh and standarization is a BIG mistake, imagine if the entire country was standardized and forced to use Diebold machines?
The people who run slashdot as well as the vast majority of the most vocal posters aren't very bright and are prone to hysteria. Hence the piling on, tin-foil hatters, mindless bashing etc. etc.
Your sig rules. Slashdot, home of the idiot-boys!
Logic should dictate to you (although I understand that logic is in short supply on slashdot) that such a scenario would never happen. Each town would choose the same voltage and side of the road because it is in their own self-interest. Why would a town choose economic, social, and political isolation by choosing a unique standard?
Just because a government forces something doesn't mean it won't happen.
Well, as long as the still US has the majority of high-tech jobs then I won't mind too much (India is more of a threat than Europe is). Wi-fi networks will be available here where they are useful, and they certainly shouldn't be subsidized just so that we can say that our Wi-Fi networks are growing faster than Europe.
The US was named #2 in that same survey.
I must say, the US really isn't behind in any of those technologies, at least as far as jobs are concerned. The broadband tends to be there for those who want it (like me), you just have to live in a fairly dense area (which most people don't). The business infrastructure has always been top-notch, here, which means plenty of growth in IT jobs, which is where it matters most for most techies.
America has beaten Europe in the past and, barring some unforeseen factor, will contine to do so in the future.
As for mentioning neo-cons, I don't really see how this fits into the conversation except as an extremely irrational viewpoint of the US.
You're wrong.
Bush's response wasn't tax cuts. It was tax cuts and more spending.
Bush has increased spending, we're in a pretty nasty decifet (under almost complete GOP control BTW), we've lost quite a few jobs, and we haven't captured OBL (remember him?).
:)
Kickass, sure... our asses.
Well, I am actually generally against gun control, as it is usually a waste of time. However, airplanes are private property and your rights to own a gun do not extend to your right to have one on an airplane, which is private property. Most people, I would think, would come to the conclusion that allowing firearms on jetliners is not a good idea and I would be inclined to agree.
Well we could've prevented 3000 deaths. Of course, I wonder how many more deaths would occur on a regular basis as irate flight passengers fire on each other. Air rage, you know?
It's not censorship when you are buying and installing software on your own computer for the express purpose of censorship.
While I do agree with you about guns in general, England's murder rate is nowhere near the murder rate of Washington DC.
:)
If you're gonna put the anti-gun nuts in their place, at least use some correct figures mmmkay?
Considering that 2% (if that) of the population use linux, why would they spend (and waste) their time and money developing a Linux version?
Slashdot, as usual, is wayyyyyy behind the times.
On one hand their shouldn't even be a diversity report on the DoJ, the idea that a lack of diversity means that discrimination is prevalent is ludicrous (sp?). Maybe the most competent employees happen to be white males? Ever consider that?
On the other hand W and his cronies are continuing to look like cowards due to silly, dumb actions like this. Conservatives are looking like the whiny bitches that we all know liberals are what with stuff like this and Fox news suing Al Franken. Conservatives shouldn't do stuff like this because we. are. better. than. they. are.
I dunno about you, but I'd rather have an effective Justice Department than a diverse one (not that the two are mutually exclusive or that the current one is necessarily effective). Just because it isn't diverse doesn't mean there is discrimination.
I am SO sick of political correctness and the American public is too, judging by the GOP's continuing success in elections. *grins*
Well I for one appreciate the simplicity and ease of use of the MS command line. For the 10% of time when using a CLI is preferable to using a GUI, it works fairly well.
Heh, while I realize that innovation has always been important for IBM and making money, it seems like they're trying too much to innovate and not enough to capture market share. It's like they're coming out with all these great inventions but they're pursuing pure science and not having a profit-making strategy.
Of course I realize that I'm probably wrong in some way but this is just how it seems to me.
Why don't you read the surrender proclamation yourself?
To preempt a US assault on Japanese military forces during and after the Japanese conquest of Asia. Note that Pearl Harbor was a US naval base -- a legitimate military target, whatever one thinks of the surprise nature of the attack.
Nagasaki was a legimate military target and the dropping of the atomic bomb was an act of mercy. Although I will say that it's hard to weigh which act was moral superior/inferior. Let's just say that I do not feel bad about either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Having actually read the account of Gen. Wesley Clark, an American and then the SAC, on the subject, I can tell you this is utterly false. Europe was far more involved than we were -- we put up the tiniest troop and weaponry presence we could get away with. Europe, OTOH, knew that WW1 started in this tiny patch of land and were quite aware its instability.
It was happening in Europe's backyard, thus they should've been ashamed to need our help at all.
No, NATO brokered the peace, not the U.S. (the U.N. failed, too, except when they turned it over to NATO).
Nonsense, NATO only took the initiative of a campaign against the Serbs because of American pressure. Europeans let the slaughter continue for years.
You can't expect the US to be the world's policeman (and most leftists do) and not make up it's own rules. We are the intervening power in this world, we put a stop to the Bosnian conflict while Europe was sitting on their asses, etc. etc. Therefor we only trust ourselves and we have that right. If you want a sheriff you're gonna have to follow the rules, sorry.
Because they refused unconditional surrender. This was one of our terms, and an important one.
You could ask the same question of the Japanese, why did they attack Pearl Harbor?