Thank you for the links. I am eager to read up on how your system works.
I have been reading on various voting systems and also on things like PR. I would be very curious to hear what you think about http://rangevoting.org/AustralianPol.html which purports that IRV yields the same duopoly we have in the US. I would also like your take on this http://rangevoting.org/AusIRV.html which talks about it in a different context. And this http://rangevoting.org/WhyThirdRange.html which uses the 2007 election to say IRV doesn't help third parties as much as it should.
Is there a reason you prefer it over Range Voting? What I have read leads me to conlude Range Voting is better. See http://rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html. But, I am definitely interested in opposing views.
The trade off with PR, as I understand it, is that since you vote for a party instead of a candidate there is less accountability for the individual politician. So we either choose more accountability (better individual candidates) or better overall representation (more proportional). Is there a PR system where people still vote for candidates instead of parties? I don't want a party choosing my representative (that is what we have now anyways with two party....) Also, since the party chooses the candidate list there is even more incentive for party loyalty (which is bad for voters but good for the party).
Read the Wikipedia article on voting systems. It is very fascinating. There are a variety of better systems out there than what we have. My personal favorite is Range Voting. Range Voting allows you to score each candidate (e.g. from 0 to 10). The candidate with the highest average wins. There is a caveat to keep someone with one vote of a perfect score from winning (or similar). It is a great system. It allows you to vote your conscience without giving the advantage to the "other team" by "throwing away" your vote. I believe this system would incubate viable "third" parties and shift our political discourse away from the "them vs us" nonsense we have now (e.g. voting against a candidate).
IRV is a step in the right direction, but there is math which shows that it tends towards the same two party system we have now. There is also empirical evidence to back this up. I am for voting reform, but I think IRV would essentially be shooting ourselves in the foot. If it were successful, we wouldn't see the kind of change we want (i.e. better representation) and the two party system would be strengthened. After all, we would have IRV and they would still be winning (to the chagrin of many of their "constituients"...)
And left wingers believe that prohibition will stop guns yet they preach to us that it doesn't stop marijuana...
So, what's the moral? Politicians on both sides speak out of both sides of their mouths and are masters of hypocrisy and stirring up their base against the "evil" other side...
True fps masters shun keyboard-mouse and use mouse-mouse. With keyboard-mouse you only have unlimited turning speed. But with mouse-mouse you have unlimited turning speed and unlimited *movement* speed! Any good player can then twitch instantly through any level. Meanwhile the knuckle-dragging keyboard users have to press a button to move. Those noobs don't have a chance. Let alone the console mouth-breathers who have to press a stick to move and press a stick to turn. Lol. Noobs.
I have enjoyed it so far. I think it corrects many of the mistakes of the Wii. Better online experience etc. It is backwards compatible with the Wii. That means you not only have the Wii U and Wii library, but also all the ROMs on the virtual console. If you are rolling in cash, get a WiiU.
Mouse+keyboard is different, not better. It gives you (virtually) unlimited turning speed. This makes FPS's play *differently* - not better. Twitch FPS's can be fun, but it can also be loads of fun to play an FPS with limited turning speeds.
Every game is like this. All games have arbitrary rules. Good games have them tuned so players can enjoy the competition. What you are suggesting is like saying, bicycle races aren't fun, because motorcycles have been *proven* to beat them.
I've got students who lament their lack of prowess. They have to work very hard for every A or B they earn and are discouraged by those who breeze by without any effort. I try to console them. I tell them that they are learning how to work hard, which is at least as important (possibly more so) than being 'smart'. I tell them I've seen 'smart' kids who never learned how to work hard and went nowhere in life. I tell them getting to work and solving a problem is more valuable to an employer than being able to solve a problem quicker, but not having the discipline or follow through to do so. Of course, some kids are both smart and hard working and my hat is off to them.
Bottom line: knowing how to work is a kind of smartness that is no less valuable than book smarts.
Thanks for a well written commentary on the posts being made. I was quite saddened by the underlying ignorance in many of the highly rated posts. Many of them sounded as ignorant and hysterical as Jenny McCarthy telling us that vaccines cause autism.
I have a question about 'falsifiability'. How is evolution or the big bang falsifiable in a practical sense. If tomorrow, the LHC finds a particle which thoroughly smashed the standard model and any major competing theories, we wouldn't say "Aha! the big bang is wrong!" We would just retool our theories to meet current data. Or if a fossil shows up in the wrong layer or dates to the wrong time, we wouldn't say "Aha! Evolution is wrong!" We would just retool our theory to fit the current data.
Now I am not some super genius, so it is highly likely that you can pick apart my specific examples I tried to use to frame my question. I ask you to try to understand the spirit of my question and answer accordingly even if my ignorance has framed my question poorly.
This has been discussed many times here. It goes something like this: Carter [or whoever] made an executive order that says we can't use the stuff, because, in doing so, we would be able to make more nuclear weapons material or something. So, the stuff is really useful, but we aren't legally allowed to use it. So it is only waste in a legal sense. tl;dr if this was China [or some other developing country or France probably] we would be using it. Also, all of the above was reconstructed from my memory of barely read posts about this, so don't take it as gospel, but it should be enough to help you find the real answer on google or something.
I have a convertible tablet pc and it is wonderful for replacing chalkboards. I have a wireless projector that I connect to and I run onenote. I can write on my tablet as I would on a board, only it is infinitely better that writing on a board. I have a full selection of colors and tools always ready. I can copy and paste. I can search through old notes as if they were typed. If the students are confused about something I wrote we can go back and check it (and see if I made a mistake - instead of getting into a ego battle about who's right).
If you have ever tried to work out algebra/calculus/geometry problems on a computer vs paper - you know paper is better. Not so with a tablet. It brings all the advantages of paper and none of it's drawbacks. It is great for a large section of the public. Windows 7 even has a tool that you can write down math formulas and it will interpret them as math to insert somewhere. That's miles better for many than learning latex or some markup or whatever.
I only use my tablet for working out physics and math problems. I use onenote. There is finally a computer which replaces paper. It is this. IMO - get a convertible tablet. Get one with dual digitizers. Make sure the active digitizer is pressure sensitive. Turn on pressure sensitive ink in onenote and select an ink thick enough to notice. And watch the number of problems you work out on paper go to zero and enjoy having the text of your handwritten notes searchable as if it were text. Enjoy the color. Enjoy the productivity. Enjoy it./rant
Yes, that's it. We should all write crapware with planned obsolescence. There is no room for well written software that lasts more than two years I say.
Seeds, Micheal. "Foundations of Astronomy". 4th ed. Page 15:
A scientific model is a mental conception of how something works. We all use models. For example, we might have a model in our minds of how a car works and use this model to make practical decisions about how to start the car on a cold morning. Our model doesn't have to be right to be useful. We may be totally wrong about how the engine works, but our model will probably be useful as long as we don't extend it too far. Of course, if we decide to rebuild our own carburetor, we might discover that our model is no longer adequate for our needs.
A scientific model need not be right, but it must be useful. That is, it must allow us to make useful predictions about how nature works. Scientists use models as mental crutches to help them think about nature. A chemist, for example, thinks of a molecule as little balls linked together with rods. Real molecules are much more complex than this model, but it is almost impossible to think about chemistry without using such a model to visualize molecular structure.
The astronomer's model of the celestial sphere is very helpful, and we can use it to think about the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. We can imagine the way the stars move across the sky, and we can predict the motion of the sky as a whole. Of course, the model is wrong, but as a mental aid to visualizing the motions in the sky, it is very useful within its limitations.
Some scientific models can be systems of mathematical equations expressed in computer programs that mimic the behavior of complex processes-an exploding star, for example. Our imaginations are not capable of numerical precision; such models act as mathematical crutches to help us "imagine" complicated processes with numerical precision.
Scientific models can range from general aids to visualization to mathematical equations that mimic the behaviors of complex systems. In every case, the model helps us think about nature. It doesn't have to be true, but as long as we don't press a model beyond its limitations, it can be tremendously useful. In a sense, scientists are not so much searching for ultimate truths as they are trying to build better and better models of how nature works.
This aspect of science is not taught enough. Science is only a model, but it is a fantastic and useful model and is constantly being made better. It seems to me that some people feel that using the word model to describe science is some sort of pejorative like the way the uneducated use the word "theory".
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for the links. I am eager to read up on how your system works.
I have been reading on various voting systems and also on things like PR. I would be very curious to hear what you think about http://rangevoting.org/AustralianPol.html which purports that IRV yields the same duopoly we have in the US. I would also like your take on this http://rangevoting.org/AusIRV.html which talks about it in a different context. And this http://rangevoting.org/WhyThirdRange.html which uses the 2007 election to say IRV doesn't help third parties as much as it should.
Is there a reason you prefer it over Range Voting? What I have read leads me to conlude Range Voting is better. See http://rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html. But, I am definitely interested in opposing views.
The trade off with PR, as I understand it, is that since you vote for a party instead of a candidate there is less accountability for the individual politician. So we either choose more accountability (better individual candidates) or better overall representation (more proportional). Is there a PR system where people still vote for candidates instead of parties? I don't want a party choosing my representative (that is what we have now anyways with two party....) Also, since the party chooses the candidate list there is even more incentive for party loyalty (which is bad for voters but good for the party).
Read the Wikipedia article on voting systems. It is very fascinating. There are a variety of better systems out there than what we have. My personal favorite is Range Voting. Range Voting allows you to score each candidate (e.g. from 0 to 10). The candidate with the highest average wins. There is a caveat to keep someone with one vote of a perfect score from winning (or similar). It is a great system. It allows you to vote your conscience without giving the advantage to the "other team" by "throwing away" your vote. I believe this system would incubate viable "third" parties and shift our political discourse away from the "them vs us" nonsense we have now (e.g. voting against a candidate).
IRV is a step in the right direction, but there is math which shows that it tends towards the same two party system we have now. There is also empirical evidence to back this up. I am for voting reform, but I think IRV would essentially be shooting ourselves in the foot. If it were successful, we wouldn't see the kind of change we want (i.e. better representation) and the two party system would be strengthened. After all, we would have IRV and they would still be winning (to the chagrin of many of their "constituients"...)
And left wingers believe that prohibition will stop guns yet they preach to us that it doesn't stop marijuana...
So, what's the moral? Politicians on both sides speak out of both sides of their mouths and are masters of hypocrisy and stirring up their base against the "evil" other side...
True fps masters shun keyboard-mouse and use mouse-mouse. With keyboard-mouse you only have unlimited turning speed. But with mouse-mouse you have unlimited turning speed and unlimited *movement* speed! Any good player can then twitch instantly through any level. Meanwhile the knuckle-dragging keyboard users have to press a button to move. Those noobs don't have a chance. Let alone the console mouth-breathers who have to press a stick to move and press a stick to turn. Lol. Noobs.
I have enjoyed it so far. I think it corrects many of the mistakes of the Wii. Better online experience etc. It is backwards compatible with the Wii. That means you not only have the Wii U and Wii library, but also all the ROMs on the virtual console. If you are rolling in cash, get a WiiU.
Mouse+keyboard is different, not better. It gives you (virtually) unlimited turning speed. This makes FPS's play *differently* - not better. Twitch FPS's can be fun, but it can also be loads of fun to play an FPS with limited turning speeds.
Every game is like this. All games have arbitrary rules. Good games have them tuned so players can enjoy the competition. What you are suggesting is like saying, bicycle races aren't fun, because motorcycles have been *proven* to beat them.
What about the people who first solved it? What about those who do it blind folded? There are people who did just figure it out.
I've got students who lament their lack of prowess. They have to work very hard for every A or B they earn and are discouraged by those who breeze by without any effort. I try to console them. I tell them that they are learning how to work hard, which is at least as important (possibly more so) than being 'smart'. I tell them I've seen 'smart' kids who never learned how to work hard and went nowhere in life. I tell them getting to work and solving a problem is more valuable to an employer than being able to solve a problem quicker, but not having the discipline or follow through to do so. Of course, some kids are both smart and hard working and my hat is off to them.
Bottom line: knowing how to work is a kind of smartness that is no less valuable than book smarts.
"Am they slow or am I just not making any sense?"
Emphasis mine. That's kinda funny really.
Finally, a remote that my 3 year old can't hide
No, but they still can put peanut butter in it.
Thanks for a well written commentary on the posts being made. I was quite saddened by the underlying ignorance in many of the highly rated posts. Many of them sounded as ignorant and hysterical as Jenny McCarthy telling us that vaccines cause autism.
I have a question about 'falsifiability'. How is evolution or the big bang falsifiable in a practical sense. If tomorrow, the LHC finds a particle which thoroughly smashed the standard model and any major competing theories, we wouldn't say "Aha! the big bang is wrong!" We would just retool our theories to meet current data. Or if a fossil shows up in the wrong layer or dates to the wrong time, we wouldn't say "Aha! Evolution is wrong!" We would just retool our theory to fit the current data.
Now I am not some super genius, so it is highly likely that you can pick apart my specific examples I tried to use to frame my question. I ask you to try to understand the spirit of my question and answer accordingly even if my ignorance has framed my question poorly.
Wish I had mod points...interesting...
This has been discussed many times here. It goes something like this: Carter [or whoever] made an executive order that says we can't use the stuff, because, in doing so, we would be able to make more nuclear weapons material or something. So, the stuff is really useful, but we aren't legally allowed to use it. So it is only waste in a legal sense. tl;dr if this was China [or some other developing country or France probably] we would be using it. Also, all of the above was reconstructed from my memory of barely read posts about this, so don't take it as gospel, but it should be enough to help you find the real answer on google or something.
GP is right, google it.
I can walk around the room while I write on the board....I am free from being shackled!!!
I have a convertible tablet pc and it is wonderful for replacing chalkboards. I have a wireless projector that I connect to and I run onenote. I can write on my tablet as I would on a board, only it is infinitely better that writing on a board. I have a full selection of colors and tools always ready. I can copy and paste. I can search through old notes as if they were typed. If the students are confused about something I wrote we can go back and check it (and see if I made a mistake - instead of getting into a ego battle about who's right).
/rant
If you have ever tried to work out algebra/calculus/geometry problems on a computer vs paper - you know paper is better. Not so with a tablet. It brings all the advantages of paper and none of it's drawbacks. It is great for a large section of the public. Windows 7 even has a tool that you can write down math formulas and it will interpret them as math to insert somewhere. That's miles better for many than learning latex or some markup or whatever.
I only use my tablet for working out physics and math problems. I use onenote. There is finally a computer which replaces paper. It is this. IMO - get a convertible tablet. Get one with dual digitizers. Make sure the active digitizer is pressure sensitive. Turn on pressure sensitive ink in onenote and select an ink thick enough to notice. And watch the number of problems you work out on paper go to zero and enjoy having the text of your handwritten notes searchable as if it were text. Enjoy the color. Enjoy the productivity. Enjoy it.
It's more like saying here's a list of car makes and models that don't have functioning locks even though their owner's think the locks work.
Answer: No. So what are we whining about, exactly?
Yes, that's it. We should all write crapware with planned obsolescence. There is no room for well written software that lasts more than two years I say.
Seeds, Micheal. "Foundations of Astronomy". 4th ed. Page 15:
A scientific model is a mental conception of how something works. We all use models. For example, we might have a model in our minds of how a car works and use this model to make practical decisions about how to start the car on a cold morning. Our model doesn't have to be right to be useful. We may be totally wrong about how the engine works, but our model will probably be useful as long as we don't extend it too far. Of course, if we decide to rebuild our own carburetor, we might discover that our model is no longer adequate for our needs.
A scientific model need not be right, but it must be useful. That is, it must allow us to make useful predictions about how nature works. Scientists use models as mental crutches to help them think about nature. A chemist, for example, thinks of a molecule as little balls linked together with rods. Real molecules are much more complex than this model, but it is almost impossible to think about chemistry without using such a model to visualize molecular structure.
The astronomer's model of the celestial sphere is very helpful, and we can use it to think about the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. We can imagine the way the stars move across the sky, and we can predict the motion of the sky as a whole. Of course, the model is wrong, but as a mental aid to visualizing the motions in the sky, it is very useful within its limitations.
Some scientific models can be systems of mathematical equations expressed in computer programs that mimic the behavior of complex processes-an exploding star, for example. Our imaginations are not capable of numerical precision; such models act as mathematical crutches to help us "imagine" complicated processes with numerical precision.
Scientific models can range from general aids to visualization to mathematical equations that mimic the behaviors of complex systems. In every case, the model helps us think about nature. It doesn't have to be true, but as long as we don't press a model beyond its limitations, it can be tremendously useful. In a sense, scientists are not so much searching for ultimate truths as they are trying to build better and better models of how nature works.
This aspect of science is not taught enough. Science is only a model, but it is a fantastic and useful model and is constantly being made better. It seems to me that some people feel that using the word model to describe science is some sort of pejorative like the way the uneducated use the word "theory".