If they succeed at secession, then they'll need a successor to the US president for their new government. What better way than to hold a succession convention?
In other words, if you were saying "I am the champion of the world" to a competitor in an athletic event via letter or text message in order to cause anxiety and their poorer performance then that would be a criminal act.
If one really wanted to go all out on this solution, there are ways of very easily making an animated gif have different filesizes/hashes/names. On each successive frame of the animation, only part of the picture is overwritten (the part that moves). It wouldn't be too computationally difficult to add pixels to one frame or another, that visually would be identically because it's overwriting with an identical pixel. It could always be on the second frame, and could probably be done without even having full GIF parsing.
However, they could use fuzzy matching on just the first frame if this sort of thing became popular. And then it would come down to randomly picking a slightly different subclip out of a larger clip. And the battle would just keep getting more and more complex. The problem is that any solution is too solvable with enough effort.
Here's how it works- government comes up with a "policy" or something that has no effect, but looks like it might do something on the surface. Independently, the job market improves. Result - the government takes credit.
It's more like we can't afford to pay for their infrastructure. Our state has so much corruption and it really funnels the money from downstate to Chicago. We aren't dirt poor in the rest of the state, and I'm sure we can pay for our own infrastructure just fine like any of the low-population states out there. It's not like we even have large hills to contend with when building roads.
Well - the reason why they would get disproportionate attention is because proportionate attention would give less resources than direct self-rule. And yet these states joined the union. The smallest states would have no reason to join the union or stay without any chance at real representation. They're still making the overall nation stronger by being there.
Democrat's policies are well-utilized in rural areas (that is, social welfare programs). But here, it's not for lack of jobs or other resources. It's just too easy to make a career out of living off the state/federal government. And do better than they would with the low wages of a real job. Because the programs were created with the cost of living of the city in mind.
I agree that it's broken, but heavily populated california should not be able to completely bully states like Rhode Island out of a chance. Even though their population is small, part of the deal with being part of the union is having your needs met by it. And meeting their needs is in the greater interest of the country. That means that little states get a slightly unfair larger vote to make up for it. If the popular vote didn't win, it's possibly because what's popular might have been particularly bad for a group of people who happen to get handicapped representation.
I live in "flyover" country - actually just on the other side of the river from St. Louis. Have you ever stopped to think that democratic policies tend to favor population centers and have bad effects for rural areas? Likewise, republican policy often tends to fare badly for city dwellers. It's too bad there's such a divide in understanding. Even calling it flyover country shows you have no concern for this part of the country, and would be a poor choice for a President who is to lead all the people.
You only think that because your preferred candidate did not win. It's true that the electoral college suppresses all but the two major parties, but it also gives better representation to states with small populations. Nobody gets less than one electoral vote.
Try living in Illinois, but not near Chicago. About 1/5 of our population is centered in Chicago. This means that almost all of our laws favor a very tiny geographic region of the state. The rest of us really don't get what works for us. 20% is enough to tip the scales to win almost anything in state legislature.
My wife is happy with Windows 8 and Classic Shell, but she goes to Modern UI for the weather app. We don't see ads on it yet and it's pretty.
I also copied in the International themes from Windows 7. I had just found out that they have wallpaper packs for Canada, Australia, and UK on a default US Windows 7 install, but hidden with the localization settings. What a terrible shame - these are beautiful wallpapers, and she has it set to rotate once every 30 minutes through Canada right now. Why look at your own country when there is so much to see out there?
I also added Gadgets back to Windows 8 for her, and added her Notes Gadget from Windows Vista. Best of all 3 worlds.
Sure - I feel safe clicking the link. Slashdot shows the domain of the link as mrblog.com. The reverse lookup of the ip address at mrblog.com tells me it's Godaddy's parking servers (parkwebwin-v01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net)
Ha, I do all my deposits and withdrawals from the ATM just inside the front door of my bank, mostly during banking hours. No, dealing with people is not worth the extra effort.
Wouldn't it just be easier to have your browser only access URLs matching the domain that you're on?
Isn't that up to the web developer? If the bank is providing the HTML, they can ensure that none of their pages are linking to resources outside their domain/subdomains. It's not like Cross-site request forgeries or cross-site scripting attacks are originating from Bank of America's web site.
Sandboxing the web site to only point to your own domain is sort of like just making sure your code is good in the first place.
All that says is that, unfortunately, people are robotic and vote with the party they voted for historically. This means no one put any thought into their vote. Good for them keeping their jobs, but bad for America. What if America actually looked at more than two candidates and actually voted for the best choice based on the needs our government has at this very moment? That would be terrible for statisticians, but good for America.
Funny, I half expect to see Paul Ryan run. He'd make a better president than Romney, anyway. He actually seemed to have a degree more intelligence. What I'd like to see is a pair of candidates so bad that the 3rd parties finally get a run for it. If they hit between 5-7% one year, then the next time around they'd probably win the election. Just think, 5-7% is no throwaway vote amount.
Why vote for the lesser of TWO evils? There are a lot more evils running.
I voted Libertarian for President simply because the two big candidates were both such big disappointments. It was the only platform that looked well thought out and reasonable. Despite having an (R) lean on a lot of things, I found it hard not to vote (D) this year just because Illinois is in such a financial mess and they're the ones willing to work at it.
Slashdot Mirror
If they succeed at secession, then they'll need a successor to the US president for their new government. What better way than to hold a succession convention?
In other words, if you were saying "I am the champion of the world" to a competitor in an athletic event via letter or text message in order to cause anxiety and their poorer performance then that would be a criminal act.
If one really wanted to go all out on this solution, there are ways of very easily making an animated gif have different filesizes/hashes/names. On each successive frame of the animation, only part of the picture is overwritten (the part that moves). It wouldn't be too computationally difficult to add pixels to one frame or another, that visually would be identically because it's overwriting with an identical pixel. It could always be on the second frame, and could probably be done without even having full GIF parsing.
However, they could use fuzzy matching on just the first frame if this sort of thing became popular. And then it would come down to randomly picking a slightly different subclip out of a larger clip. And the battle would just keep getting more and more complex. The problem is that any solution is too solvable with enough effort.
In other news, there's apparently an Apple store in Antarctica.
Where would they even end up? The Sahara? Antarctica?
Here's how it works- government comes up with a "policy" or something that has no effect, but looks like it might do something on the surface. Independently, the job market improves. Result - the government takes credit.
It's more like we can't afford to pay for their infrastructure. Our state has so much corruption and it really funnels the money from downstate to Chicago. We aren't dirt poor in the rest of the state, and I'm sure we can pay for our own infrastructure just fine like any of the low-population states out there. It's not like we even have large hills to contend with when building roads.
Well - the reason why they would get disproportionate attention is because proportionate attention would give less resources than direct self-rule. And yet these states joined the union. The smallest states would have no reason to join the union or stay without any chance at real representation. They're still making the overall nation stronger by being there.
Democrat's policies are well-utilized in rural areas (that is, social welfare programs). But here, it's not for lack of jobs or other resources. It's just too easy to make a career out of living off the state/federal government. And do better than they would with the low wages of a real job. Because the programs were created with the cost of living of the city in mind.
I agree that it's broken, but heavily populated california should not be able to completely bully states like Rhode Island out of a chance. Even though their population is small, part of the deal with being part of the union is having your needs met by it. And meeting their needs is in the greater interest of the country. That means that little states get a slightly unfair larger vote to make up for it. If the popular vote didn't win, it's possibly because what's popular might have been particularly bad for a group of people who happen to get handicapped representation.
I live in "flyover" country - actually just on the other side of the river from St. Louis. Have you ever stopped to think that democratic policies tend to favor population centers and have bad effects for rural areas? Likewise, republican policy often tends to fare badly for city dwellers. It's too bad there's such a divide in understanding. Even calling it flyover country shows you have no concern for this part of the country, and would be a poor choice for a President who is to lead all the people.
You only think that because your preferred candidate did not win. It's true that the electoral college suppresses all but the two major parties, but it also gives better representation to states with small populations. Nobody gets less than one electoral vote.
Try living in Illinois, but not near Chicago. About 1/5 of our population is centered in Chicago. This means that almost all of our laws favor a very tiny geographic region of the state. The rest of us really don't get what works for us. 20% is enough to tip the scales to win almost anything in state legislature.
My wife is happy with Windows 8 and Classic Shell, but she goes to Modern UI for the weather app. We don't see ads on it yet and it's pretty.
I also copied in the International themes from Windows 7. I had just found out that they have wallpaper packs for Canada, Australia, and UK on a default US Windows 7 install, but hidden with the localization settings. What a terrible shame - these are beautiful wallpapers, and she has it set to rotate once every 30 minutes through Canada right now. Why look at your own country when there is so much to see out there?
I also added Gadgets back to Windows 8 for her, and added her Notes Gadget from Windows Vista. Best of all 3 worlds.
Sure - I feel safe clicking the link. Slashdot shows the domain of the link as mrblog.com. The reverse lookup of the ip address at mrblog.com tells me it's Godaddy's parking servers (parkwebwin-v01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net)
Ha, I do all my deposits and withdrawals from the ATM just inside the front door of my bank, mostly during banking hours. No, dealing with people is not worth the extra effort.
Isn't that up to the web developer? If the bank is providing the HTML, they can ensure that none of their pages are linking to resources outside their domain/subdomains. It's not like Cross-site request forgeries or cross-site scripting attacks are originating from Bank of America's web site.
Sandboxing the web site to only point to your own domain is sort of like just making sure your code is good in the first place.
All that says is that, unfortunately, people are robotic and vote with the party they voted for historically. This means no one put any thought into their vote. Good for them keeping their jobs, but bad for America. What if America actually looked at more than two candidates and actually voted for the best choice based on the needs our government has at this very moment? That would be terrible for statisticians, but good for America.
Funny, I half expect to see Paul Ryan run. He'd make a better president than Romney, anyway. He actually seemed to have a degree more intelligence. What I'd like to see is a pair of candidates so bad that the 3rd parties finally get a run for it. If they hit between 5-7% one year, then the next time around they'd probably win the election. Just think, 5-7% is no throwaway vote amount.
Why vote for the lesser of TWO evils? There are a lot more evils running.
They would have been cheaper, as long as he was prevented from cutting taxes.
The electoral college is necessary to enforce a two-party system, and prevent a vote for a 3rd-party candidate from having any meaning at all.
And this is why we've been on the same two party system for about 150 years.
I voted Libertarian for President simply because the two big candidates were both such big disappointments. It was the only platform that looked well thought out and reasonable. Despite having an (R) lean on a lot of things, I found it hard not to vote (D) this year just because Illinois is in such a financial mess and they're the ones willing to work at it.
Coke v. Pepsi when half the country can't even taste the difference.
Well, Obama is bad for the economy. It's a shame that Romney would be too, but at least he was right about that.
Who's racist? Obama got 93% of the black vote. Now THAT's racist.