How many other things turned out to be wrong after being accepted as fact by 90% of scientists throughout history? Damned near everything in science.
We understand very little about climate today. Yes, we understand more than we did 10 years ago but it's still very little.
Show me a climate model that can be back-tested and then we can talk about taking civilization-altering steps.
BP announced yesterday that this reservoir will be abandoned once the leak is sealed. There is no longer a financial motive for not closing it ASAP.
Sorry, I don't have a link. I was at the press conference.
Not true. Tar balls form when the oil is weathered, and they have been showing up on the coast in S. La for about 8 days now. The ones found on Key West were sent to LSU for analysis, but consensus here says they are from the blowout.
"Then I can show up at their door offering my services as a 'security consultant' (for $200/hr). 'Look here' I say. 'Look how I am easily changing the settings in your router.'. That's usually about the time they wet their $400 slacks and write me a check."
So you're gonna make 'em an offer they can't refuse, huh? That's called extortion.
"If their lives depended on it (I take it you're assuming that the failure to form the U.S. as we know it would have threatened their lives; I'm not quite sure how"
-and you are correct, a bit blurry when I posted that. The Declaration of Independance was basically the death warrant, not the CC. However, everyone's personal wealth and future prospects for power were in play. Granted, not even close to being the same.
48 of 50 states (if I remember correctly) have a winner-take-all allocation of EC votes - i.e. you win the majority in a state you get all the EC votes for that state. However, if all states allocated it's EC votes proportionally to the number of votes won you'd have essentially the same thing as a national popular vote. Looking at those two maps relative to county population it's pretty clear Gore or Kerry could have concentrated their resources and tailored their promises to a small portion of the country and won handily under a popular vote system.
"I think it is highly unlikely that campaigning exclusively in those states would have changed the numbers by more than a few percentage points either way."
You underestimate the power of pandering.
I also reject assumptions based on previous elections. My whole point is that campaigns would be fundamentally different than they have to be run today with our current EC system. I'm also trying my best not to turn this into another (R) vs (D) debate - parties are irrelevant to my argument.
And you are making the assumption that highly-populated urban areas, CA and NY are toss-ups - they are not. In fact, they are (D) strong-holds. TX is red, but that doesn't mean a candidate couldn't make TX a toss-up by promising the moon in pork.
Win those, and they can write-off the rest of the country.
This isn't some theory I just cooked up. In fact, the EC and distribution of representatives among the states was perhaps the most volatile of all debates during the Constitutional Convention. Our bi-cameral legislature (two houses - Senate and the House) came about as a compromise between the two factions. The only other major schism during the Convention dealt with how to count slaves as part of the population - and that had direct bearing on the # of Reps by population (i.e. part and parcel of the same argument)
The Founders had far more to lose in this debate than we do today, argued as if their lives depended on it (which they were) - so I defer to their judgement.
I didn't say I agreed with it, I simply said that was the point behind vote-swapping. It really is foolish to assume whomever you trade with is going to follow through.
Like it or not, this is the only "equitable" way to do it without redrawing (Gerrymandering) state lines so that each state has the same population.
A states total Electoral College votes are the sum of it's reps in Congress. Each state has two Senators, but the number of Representatives in the House is determined by census every ten years.
# of senators + # of reps = total electoral votes the state has.
The imbalance is caused by the fact that Rhode Island and California each have 2 Senators apiece. Again, so long as population dictates the number of House Members there is no better way to do this.
I'll repeat a point in another post on this thread: winner-by-popular-vote would be a DISASTER for the entire country. A candidate need only campaign in CA, TX, NY, and maybe a handful of densely-populated metro areas and they'd win. Those of us in the other 85% of the country would be screwed
I'm not sure if this has been pointed out, but the point of these vote-swapping sites was to circumvent the Electoral College. So if you oppose the EC system, this should be right up your alley...
Say you live in a solid Red state but really want the (D) to win. Your vote doesn't have as much value as that of a Blue voter in a toss-up state. Compound that if the toss-up state is only in play because a 3rd-party candidate is on the ballot.
IMO vote-swapping is unconstitutional since it circumvents the Electoral College put in place by the Constitution. And before you rail against the EC, imagine the havoc created by a popular-vote-wins system. Unless you're a resident of CA, NY, or TX you are SOL! A candidate would only need to campaign in those states alone, promising the moon while ignoring the other 47 states and s/he becomes the next President.
If it seems like I'm piling on, it's because I am....
Above, RyoShin laments:
"I'm sure common answers would be to donate to the EFF, UCLA, or some other activist group, which is not a bad idea at all, but I lack funds."
"At $30, I would gladly buy the game again to get the various Wii abilities, the PS2 extras (and more)"
-Granted, that was in response to the Great Debate of our time: the PS3/Xbox360/Wii wars....
"I'm a year away from finishing my Bachelor's in Science (CS, of course). In this time, I have had access to a rather nice internship process, and gained lots of relevant experience through two jobs."
-I'm not knocking your post (actually, it's strong), just the fact that you have 3 jobs in IT, yet can't afford a token donation to the EFF??? Of course it's easier to post on/. than actually take action - how else do you think the M/RIAA have lasted this long?
"I'm also a student (from Iowa) in Michigan, and plan to graduate at the end of this year or beginning of next year. When I do, I'm getting the hell out of here and not looking back. Even if my college offered me a free Masters run, I would be hesitant to pick it up."
-hesitate on the free Masters? You, or THEM?
"I had comcast twice in the same area (I move around a lot). The second time I had them, I didn't pay very good attention to my finances, and accidentally paid for an extra month"
-(speaks for itself)
"...would be to donate to the EFF, UCLA, or some other activist group, which is not a bad idea at all, but I lack funds."
"...even more sad is that it seems that I would have about the same effect on any issue with a congressman, from internet radio fees to the use of taxpayer money..."
Wait! So you're saying a legitimate business that generates massive tax revenues for the Gov't actually has more influence with that Gov't than the guy who can't even afford a $5 donation to the only group that truly has his interests at heart? ['legitimate' only in the sense that they turn a profit]
Might I suggest - oh I don't know - a REAL JOB? Actually I think you'll need some education on what it takes to pay bills before anyone would hire you..
And finally, damn you for being so naive that I'm actually posting in pseudo-favor of the RIAA! At least now I can understand how their 'Titanic' business model is still afloat.
I'm all for tort reform, banishing those pushing frivolous lawsuits, etc, but for once I think the whining geek masses have a reasonable and valid point.
This hardware was not just advertised Vista-compatible: IMO the entire legitimacy of it's existence, release date and initial price point depends on Vista functionality. The models in question are clearly aimed at the early adopter crowd, and like every other video card ever mfgd will drop considerably in price almost daily until the end of time. As an early adopter myself, I would never expect perfectly flawless driver performance for any hardware on zero-day of the OS release. However, if I'm willingly spending an absurd premium for early-adopter gear, the release-day driver sure as hell had better deliver basic functionality. After all, the entire Vista cabal are telling us that the dramatic leap in visual technology with DX10 + Aero + the best currently available video hardware should be so overwhelming as to make most 'tolerable' bugs/flaws unnoticeable until the first driver update.
Some variation of the following is now what these early adopters can look forward to: a series of weekly (or so) unstable driver revs start coming out, progressively improving - or - nVidia tapdances for maybe 45 days, then releases a fairly strong driver package - The exact date the stable driver drops will probably be the same in either scenario. On that date, all those early adopters are guaranteed to be able to purchase their same model card for %25-40 less than they originally spent and most likely have more refined versions of the hardware at that.
That's an actionable loss in my book. I can't believe those in the distribution chain aren't screaming louder. You know this is going to hammer the retail outlets with liberal return policies... Maybe it's just too soon and the high-$$$ lawsuits start being reported next week.
Slashdot Mirror
You proved my point. The "consensus" was proven completely wrong when those discoveries were made.
How many other things turned out to be wrong after being accepted as fact by 90% of scientists throughout history? Damned near everything in science. We understand very little about climate today. Yes, we understand more than we did 10 years ago but it's still very little. Show me a climate model that can be back-tested and then we can talk about taking civilization-altering steps.
Islam isn't a race, so there's that.
BP announced yesterday that this reservoir will be abandoned once the leak is sealed. There is no longer a financial motive for not closing it ASAP. Sorry, I don't have a link. I was at the press conference.
Not true. Tar balls form when the oil is weathered, and they have been showing up on the coast in S. La for about 8 days now. The ones found on Key West were sent to LSU for analysis, but consensus here says they are from the blowout.
"Then I can show up at their door offering my services as a 'security consultant' (for $200/hr). 'Look here' I say. 'Look how I am easily changing the settings in your router.'. That's usually about the time they wet their $400 slacks and write me a check."
So you're gonna make 'em an offer they can't refuse, huh? That's called extortion.
Gangsta-geek?
Perfect! Now when they raid your neighbor's house for the kiddie-pr0n you downloaded via his open AP, you will have framed him for a drug rap as well.
Well played. Very well played.
I think that says more about our expectation level of Redmond, not that they're finally making inroads.
"If their lives depended on it (I take it you're assuming that the failure to form the U.S. as we know it would have threatened their lives; I'm not quite sure how"
t e2004/countymap.htm.
-and you are correct, a bit blurry when I posted that. The Declaration of Independance was basically the death warrant, not the CC. However, everyone's personal wealth and future prospects for power were in play. Granted, not even close to being the same.
While I reject your polling numbers as applicable to this debate (apples/oranges), if you simply compared population centers (specifically # of registered voters) my point becomes clearer. Here's the county-by-county results for 2000 and 2004 in simple blue-red maps: http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm & http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vo
48 of 50 states (if I remember correctly) have a winner-take-all allocation of EC votes - i.e. you win the majority in a state you get all the EC votes for that state. However, if all states allocated it's EC votes proportionally to the number of votes won you'd have essentially the same thing as a national popular vote. Looking at those two maps relative to county population it's pretty clear Gore or Kerry could have concentrated their resources and tailored their promises to a small portion of the country and won handily under a popular vote system.
"I think it is highly unlikely that campaigning exclusively in those states would have changed the numbers by more than a few percentage points either way."
You underestimate the power of pandering.
I also reject assumptions based on previous elections. My whole point is that campaigns would be fundamentally different than they have to be run today with our current EC system. I'm also trying my best not to turn this into another (R) vs (D) debate - parties are irrelevant to my argument.
And you are making the assumption that highly-populated urban areas, CA and NY are toss-ups - they are not. In fact, they are (D) strong-holds. TX is red, but that doesn't mean a candidate couldn't make TX a toss-up by promising the moon in pork.
Win those, and they can write-off the rest of the country.
This isn't some theory I just cooked up. In fact, the EC and distribution of representatives among the states was perhaps the most volatile of all debates during the Constitutional Convention. Our bi-cameral legislature (two houses - Senate and the House) came about as a compromise between the two factions. The only other major schism during the Convention dealt with how to count slaves as part of the population - and that had direct bearing on the # of Reps by population (i.e. part and parcel of the same argument)
The Founders had far more to lose in this debate than we do today, argued as if their lives depended on it (which they were) - so I defer to their judgement.
I didn't say I agreed with it, I simply said that was the point behind vote-swapping. It really is foolish to assume whomever you trade with is going to follow through.
Like it or not, this is the only "equitable" way to do it without redrawing (Gerrymandering) state lines so that each state has the same population.
A states total Electoral College votes are the sum of it's reps in Congress. Each state has two Senators, but the number of Representatives in the House is determined by census every ten years.
# of senators + # of reps = total electoral votes the state has.
The imbalance is caused by the fact that Rhode Island and California each have 2 Senators apiece. Again, so long as population dictates the number of House Members there is no better way to do this.
I'll repeat a point in another post on this thread: winner-by-popular-vote would be a DISASTER for the entire country. A candidate need only campaign in CA, TX, NY, and maybe a handful of densely-populated metro areas and they'd win. Those of us in the other 85% of the country would be screwed
I'm not sure if this has been pointed out, but the point of these vote-swapping sites was to circumvent the Electoral College. So if you oppose the EC system, this should be right up your alley...
Say you live in a solid Red state but really want the (D) to win. Your vote doesn't have as much value as that of a Blue voter in a toss-up state. Compound that if the toss-up state is only in play because a 3rd-party candidate is on the ballot.
IMO vote-swapping is unconstitutional since it circumvents the Electoral College put in place by the Constitution. And before you rail against the EC, imagine the havoc created by a popular-vote-wins system. Unless you're a resident of CA, NY, or TX you are SOL! A candidate would only need to campaign in those states alone, promising the moon while ignoring the other 47 states and s/he becomes the next President.
Congress should pass a law...
If it seems like I'm piling on, it's because I am....
6 26649 you give us this gem:
7 39205:
/. than actually take action - how else do you think the M/RIAA have lasted this long?
6 49515
5 73269
Above, RyoShin laments: "I'm sure common answers would be to donate to the EFF, UCLA, or some other activist group, which is not a bad idea at all, but I lack funds."
However, in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=229605&cid=18
"At $30, I would gladly buy the game again to get the various Wii abilities, the PS2 extras (and more)" -Granted, that was in response to the Great Debate of our time: the PS3/Xbox360/Wii wars....
And from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=244753&cid=19
"I'm a year away from finishing my Bachelor's in Science (CS, of course). In this time, I have had access to a rather nice internship process, and gained lots of relevant experience through two jobs." -I'm not knocking your post (actually, it's strong), just the fact that you have 3 jobs in IT, yet can't afford a token donation to the EFF??? Of course it's easier to post on
Ahhh, educated too! From: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=229833&cid=18
"I'm also a student (from Iowa) in Michigan, and plan to graduate at the end of this year or beginning of next year. When I do, I'm getting the hell out of here and not looking back. Even if my college offered me a free Masters run, I would be hesitant to pick it up." -hesitate on the free Masters? You, or THEM?
This one ain't so strong, from: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238923&cid=19
"I had comcast twice in the same area (I move around a lot). The second time I had them, I didn't pay very good attention to my finances, and accidentally paid for an extra month" -(speaks for itself)
God I love me some internet!
"...would be to donate to the EFF, UCLA, or some other activist group, which is not a bad idea at all, but I lack funds."
"...even more sad is that it seems that I would have about the same effect on any issue with a congressman, from internet radio fees to the use of taxpayer money..."
Wait! So you're saying a legitimate business that generates massive tax revenues for the Gov't actually has more influence with that Gov't than the guy who can't even afford a $5 donation to the only group that truly has his interests at heart?
['legitimate' only in the sense that they turn a profit]
Might I suggest - oh I don't know - a REAL JOB? Actually I think you'll need some education on what it takes to pay bills before anyone would hire you..
And finally, damn you for being so naive that I'm actually posting in pseudo-favor of the RIAA! At least now I can understand how their 'Titanic' business model is still afloat.
www.voterlistsonline.com Don't even need to see it, and it already scares you, right? ;_)
I'm all for tort reform, banishing those pushing frivolous lawsuits, etc, but for once I think the whining geek masses have a reasonable and valid point.
This hardware was not just advertised Vista-compatible: IMO the entire legitimacy of it's existence, release date and initial price point depends on Vista functionality. The models in question are clearly aimed at the early adopter crowd, and like every other video card ever mfgd will drop considerably in price almost daily until the end of time. As an early adopter myself, I would never expect perfectly flawless driver performance for any hardware on zero-day of the OS release. However, if I'm willingly spending an absurd premium for early-adopter gear, the release-day driver sure as hell had better deliver basic functionality. After all, the entire Vista cabal are telling us that the dramatic leap in visual technology with DX10 + Aero + the best currently available video hardware should be so overwhelming as to make most 'tolerable' bugs/flaws unnoticeable until the first driver update.
Some variation of the following is now what these early adopters can look forward to: a series of weekly (or so) unstable driver revs start coming out, progressively improving - or - nVidia tapdances for maybe 45 days, then releases a fairly strong driver package - The exact date the stable driver drops will probably be the same in either scenario. On that date, all those early adopters are guaranteed to be able to purchase their same model card for %25-40 less than they originally spent and most likely have more refined versions of the hardware at that.
That's an actionable loss in my book. I can't believe those in the distribution chain aren't screaming louder. You know this is going to hammer the retail outlets with liberal return policies... Maybe it's just too soon and the high-$$$ lawsuits start being reported next week.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, only play one on TV