If it didn't help for Cerf to say "No, really, without Al Gore, we wouldn't have an Internet"^ in the middle of all the laughing about Gore having make the claim in the 2000 election, then how is his support going to help Obama?
The wikipedia page on Arrow's Theorem is a good start, and it gives two citations that you'll find helpfull:
Arrow, K.J., "A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare", Journal of Political Economy 58(4) (August, 1950), pp. 328-346.
Campbell, D.E., Kelly, J.S., "A simple characterization of majority rule", Economic Theory 15 (2000), pp. 689-700.
The gist is, majority rule can work for elections if there's only a single axis on which the choices are judged. Since I can think of at least two (broadly, fiscal issues and social issues; you may recall the popular internet meme that will place you on a 2-axis graph for those), then majority rule can only work if there are only two options to choose from.
Which, by the way, is why we have the complex primary system; to cut the options down to two.
I'm confused. You're saying you would PREFER to be at war with more countries? Because McCain is poking at Iran and Russia. He's fixing for a fight. With Obama, maybe we could avoid getting into those wars.
Third party canidates have no possibility for success; precisely because of the reasons you describe. As their support grows, it comes more at the expense of whichever major party they are closer to. It grows, and people think it might start to have a chance... until the major party LOSES an election before that happens, and voters abandon the third party like a sinking ship.
The problem is, our election system (called either "majority rule", "plurality rule", or "first past the post") is algorithmically incapable of expressing an opinion involving more than two options. Until this flaw is fixed, the only way a third-party can come to power is through a rapid and enormous shift that replaces one of the existing major parties (which has happened, what, three times in our 200+ year history?), an act that, I assure you, has the strongest bi-partisan opposition of any in the country.
The only way out is to change the game; we have to start using a preferential voting system to escape this. It's starting to happen. Instant Runoff Voting is starting to be used in some districts; I personally hate IRV and would much prefer any Condorcet-based system, but it's a start.
Any Libertarian, any Green, any Constitution--hell, anyone who would have preferred Clinton or Romney over the current options--should devote all their political effort to advocating for these systems. Start locally, and work up.
No. Follow the first link in the linked story (here, I'll save you the trouble.) It is precisely about the legislation being proposed which would ELMINATE OR STRONGLY RESRICT that acess, being lobbied for by the publishers (using the (poor) arguments in today's linked article.)
Amen to that! It looks like the best "value added" this pro-publisher piece could come up with was "We add value through branding".
Scientific journal publishers are surviving on one thing alone: inertia. And while it makes me sad to see the RIAA try to pull culture with it to its grave, it makes me *furious* to see these groups trying to pull science down with them.
Scientist do the writing, the editing, the peer-review, the *typesetting*... and then turn over the rights to their work for the privledge of paying up to $3,000 per seat to access it. When disseminating information was expensive, this made sense, but now... not so much. But like produces of shiny plastic discs, they'll pervert the laws for years to come to try to buy a few more years of life.
You can't have "civil disobedience" against a business model, only against law. And surreptitiously downloading the latest pop-idol's album isn't civil disobedience against copyright law. THIS is civil disobedience against copyright law; the important parts being that the act, and the actors name, have been announced to the authorities, and that he wants them to take him to court over it. Can you say the same?
Great idea; while we're already getting outpaced in labor capacity, let's cut the workforce! Or, let's cut all support to the hated, idiot hordes and see how long it takes before there's a violent revolution!
Or, you know, we could invest in education. Unless you think that's ivory tower elitism; maybe you don't subscribe to the whole right-wing platform?
The part where MIT manages to squeeze into 3rd seems to come up only if you completely de-emphasize freshmen retention. (Unless I'm reading the "plot using higher-dimension mathematics" wrong... which is possible since I wasn't good enough for MIT;)) Or in other words, it comes in #3 only if you're so supremely confident in your abilities that you're certain you won't be one of THOSE GUYS who flunks out in the first year. And that sort of over-confidence sounds just like MIT students, doesn't it?:)
Bogus argument. You could make the same claims for images; but the lack of drm in.jpg,.gif, and.png didn't stop anyone from putting images online. Hell, TEXT enjoys copyright protection, and there's all kinds of that, plain as day for anyone to "steal", embeded in every.html file!
W3C should decline, forcefully. And tell those font designers to deal with the protections on their fonts the same way everyone else deals with protections on their copyright-protected works: when you notice it, sue.
Honestly, what sort of performance could you expect from someone who spent 8 years as an Illinois state legislator and one term serving in the U.S. House.
Oh, did I say "House"? But Obama is serving in the Senate! I must be thinking of someone else.
I know it's probably not necessary to say, since "no one RTFA on/.", but advice I share to you from my librarian-girlfriend (who got an advanced copy at the ALA) is DO NOT READ THE GLOSSARY. She says a lot of the enjoyment she got from the book was first encountering the neologisms in context. The glossary is there for reading afterward, or if you really just can't figure out the meaning of something and feel like you're missing out.
(She's done with the book, I plan to pick up her copy soon.)
Excellent point! When a corporation has its employees working in an industry day in and day out and is fully aware of all the ins-and-outs, they SHOULD be allowed to "fudge" their explanation to the bumbling consumers who come in off the street with no clue of how finances work. If they didn't want to get ripped off, they should have spent four years in business school learning this stuff. Why, I would say, really, all this governement regulation to "protect consumers" is pointless. Let's trash the SEC; no one was _really_ harmed by the great depression, right? Let's trash the FDIC; no one was _really_ harmed by the S&L crisis, right? This "housing crisis" is the same thing; there's no need to protect people from predatory lending practices.
Naive capitalism assumes perfect information is immediately available and parsable by all actors involved. The truth is, that assumption is dead wrong.
Where is it written that the new system MUST be written to run on multiple cores, MUST use SOA, and, stupidiest of stupids, MUST use Web 2.0 gimmicks? If the cobol solution is so bad, wouldn't even a simple, naive, application still be an improvement? And if they avoid the bells, whistles, and buzz-words, not so prohibitively expensive?
(Okay, SOA will possibly help in the long term (if they do it right) with any future re-writes. But Web 2.0? Seriously?)
Slashdot Mirror
If it didn't help for Cerf to say "No, really, without Al Gore, we wouldn't have an Internet"^ in the middle of all the laughing about Gore having make the claim in the 2000 election, then how is his support going to help Obama?
Yeah, it's not like the President picks who's in charge of the FCC or anything...
Arrow, K.J., "A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare", Journal of Political Economy 58(4) (August, 1950), pp. 328-346.
Campbell, D.E., Kelly, J.S., "A simple characterization of majority rule", Economic Theory 15 (2000), pp. 689-700.
The gist is, majority rule can work for elections if there's only a single axis on which the choices are judged. Since I can think of at least two (broadly, fiscal issues and social issues; you may recall the popular internet meme that will place you on a 2-axis graph for those), then majority rule can only work if there are only two options to choose from.
Which, by the way, is why we have the complex primary system; to cut the options down to two.
I'm confused. You're saying you would PREFER to be at war with more countries? Because McCain is poking at Iran and Russia. He's fixing for a fight. With Obama, maybe we could avoid getting into those wars.
The problem is, our election system (called either "majority rule", "plurality rule", or "first past the post") is algorithmically incapable of expressing an opinion involving more than two options. Until this flaw is fixed, the only way a third-party can come to power is through a rapid and enormous shift that replaces one of the existing major parties (which has happened, what, three times in our 200+ year history?), an act that, I assure you, has the strongest bi-partisan opposition of any in the country.
The only way out is to change the game; we have to start using a preferential voting system to escape this. It's starting to happen. Instant Runoff Voting is starting to be used in some districts; I personally hate IRV and would much prefer any Condorcet-based system, but it's a start.
Any Libertarian, any Green, any Constitution--hell, anyone who would have preferred Clinton or Romney over the current options--should devote all their political effort to advocating for these systems. Start locally, and work up.
Unless Obama wins, and appoints Lessig to the position of "Coyright Czar".
Is that like a pin number?
No. Follow the first link in the linked story (here, I'll save you the trouble.) It is precisely about the legislation being proposed which would ELMINATE OR STRONGLY RESRICT that acess, being lobbied for by the publishers (using the (poor) arguments in today's linked article.)
Scientific journal publishers are surviving on one thing alone: inertia. And while it makes me sad to see the RIAA try to pull culture with it to its grave, it makes me *furious* to see these groups trying to pull science down with them.
Scientist do the writing, the editing, the peer-review, the *typesetting*... and then turn over the rights to their work for the privledge of paying up to $3,000 per seat to access it. When disseminating information was expensive, this made sense, but now... not so much. But like produces of shiny plastic discs, they'll pervert the laws for years to come to try to buy a few more years of life.
You can't have "civil disobedience" against a business model, only against law. And surreptitiously downloading the latest pop-idol's album isn't civil disobedience against copyright law. THIS is civil disobedience against copyright law; the important parts being that the act, and the actors name, have been announced to the authorities, and that he wants them to take him to court over it. Can you say the same?
Or, you know, we could invest in education. Unless you think that's ivory tower elitism; maybe you don't subscribe to the whole right-wing platform?
Biological evolution is for chimps; real men are all about memetic evolution!
The part where MIT manages to squeeze into 3rd seems to come up only if you completely de-emphasize freshmen retention. (Unless I'm reading the "plot using higher-dimension mathematics" wrong... which is possible since I wasn't good enough for MIT ;)) Or in other words, it comes in #3 only if you're so supremely confident in your abilities that you're certain you won't be one of THOSE GUYS who flunks out in the first year. And that sort of over-confidence sounds just like MIT students, doesn't it? :)
Chicken. Egg.
W3C should decline, forcefully. And tell those font designers to deal with the protections on their fonts the same way everyone else deals with protections on their copyright-protected works: when you notice it, sue.
No hover cars? Nevermind then.
Honestly, what sort of performance could you expect from someone who spent 8 years as an Illinois state legislator and one term serving in the U.S. House.
Oh, did I say "House"? But Obama is serving in the Senate! I must be thinking of someone else.
(She's done with the book, I plan to pick up her copy soon.)
Help & Preferences -> Index -> scroll down to 'Idle', select 'Never' (or de-select "Samzenpus") -> happiness
Naive capitalism assumes perfect information is immediately available and parsable by all actors involved. The truth is, that assumption is dead wrong.
(Okay, SOA will possibly help in the long term (if they do it right) with any future re-writes. But Web 2.0? Seriously?)
It's up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A. Your second B, A is superfluous.
The same thing that happens if you're out digging in the yard and the part of the water line that you're responsible for gets broken?
It is. Since http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.12/view.html?pg=5">four and a half years ago.