I really like the reference to Hamilton inside the wave equation. Back in the early 1800s Sir William Rowan Hamilton was working with ways to express optics and dynamics with a single equation framework. At the time, the effects were mainly felt in optics, but it presaged quantum mechanics.
"Interesting" doesn't really say it. "Informative" doesn't say it, either. "Funny" would be close, but isn't quite appropriate, because it's true. (IMHO)
We need moderations for "Scary" or "Devastatingly Ironic" added to the choices.
Actually, I was being facetious with the remark about Vermont becoming a battleground.
I suspect the battlegrounds would be determined by media penetration - how many people can be reached per dollar spent. In that respect, it would be interesting to understand the price differences between advertising on captive networks like cable or satellite vs broadcast. It would also be interesting to understand the demographics of the above, and what percentage of the population still counts on broadcast, in particular.
I generally like the idea of breaking Electoral blocks, but retaining the Electoral votes, themselves. IMHO it's a decent steppingstone from where we are today, and it looks like it would mitigate voter fraud problems, at least some.
From everything I've read, NT has a good security model, under the covers - even better than most Unix variants. (like Linux) It's just that they don't use it effectively. Even further, the Windows culture is pretty much contrary to their making effective use of their own security.
Perhaps Unices haven't had as much security capability, but we've had the culture to at least understand separation between root and users. We've also had the open exchange that gets bugs reported and fixed, another cultural aspect.
But then again, now we have run-as-root Lindows / Linspire. This distribution REALLY SCARES ME, especially when they sell it into the novice market - the ones least likely to do proper maintenance and most likely to click on silly attachements. (as root, no less)
I understand Lindows / Linspire is trying to make something simple for the novice. But IMHO, they've done it in entirely the wrong way. Far better than running the user as root would be to have standard setup of "user" and make the new user that. Then make a comprehensive set of sudu scripts, with extensive error checking, to administer the system.
BTW, the Linux security model isn't standing still, either.
Now explain it to Soccer Moms, NASCAR Dads, Security Moms, and Joe 6pak. Someone else suggested renaming Condorcet, to get rid of the Freedom Fries effect.
I need to read more on Approval voting. Whenever alternative schemes come up, IRV is first to be mentioned, followed by Condorcet. Then a bunch of others, and that's where Approval is.
The whole perceived point of improved voting systems is so that a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush, a vote for Buchanon is not a vote for Gore, etc. These voting systems diminish the power of the two dominant parties, and allow minors to emerge.
You know, in an odd sort of way, this reminds me of Intel and Microosft business practices. Both are under the Eye for monopoly practices, so both are "forbidden" from doing certain things, like per-CPU licensing. But both also have list prices that would render PC makers effectively/nearly unprofitable, and then give what are essentially loyalty-based kickbacks. The kickbacks restore profitability - if you are loyal.
Odd parallel, but not perfect. I have long felt that Congress bribes us with our own money.
Yesterday I used the term 'neocon' and was told that that destroyed all of my credibility, and made me a buy-in with "The Conspiracy." I was also told that NPR and the BBC, which I cited as my major news sources, are "left wing arms of the government," and that I should choose a more centrist news source, like Fox News.
I kid you not, but it was anonymous coward who told me so.
No, splitting electoral college votes wouldn't eliminate battleground states, it would just move them around. Unfortunately, to my detriment, because where else but Vermont can you get 3 electoral votes with barely over 1/2 million people? I was just in Ohio last week, and the TV commercials were a pain in the (body part). I don't really want that in MY state.
Putting it that way, I don't really think the *people* in any state want it to be a battleground, for that very reason. There is some enjoyment of status, but overall it's a pain. Is it really worth months of blitzkreig advertising for one glimpse of the candidate?
By the way, this is also a States Rights issue. The Constitution leaves it up to the States to run their elections, as they see fit. That's the other reason for the Electoral College - it's really the States choosing the President. There really is no such thing as a National Election - it just looks that way because all of the states happen to choose their Electors by popular vote, and the Electors almost always follow that vote.
You've just gotten rid of my "Freedom Fries" complaint. Of course I still 'would like French Fries with that,' but I'm trying to anticipate a middle-America response.
I believe I could explain IRV to 50+% of the US population, and I think they could understand it. I can't say the same about Condorcet. This is a case where "even better yet" is the enemy of "better". Personally, I don't believe we could sell the US population on Condorcet or Approval at this time, due to *perceived* complexity. At the same time, I believe there is a chance for IRV. But if the proponents of voting reform get all tied up in IRV vs Condorcet vs Approval, or some other scheme, nothing will get done, at all.
That said, I believe what we really need is a two-step process. First get IRV in place, simply because we probably could, as a first-level reform. Once the American voter is used to it, and sees that the sky hasn't fallen, perhaps 20 years down the road, go for something better. A land that renamed French Fries to Freedom Fries won't trust its voting to a system with a name like Condorcet. (I need to learn more about other schemes. I did check your link, though I don't necessarily agree with everything I read there.) Personally, I believe IRV *is* an improvement over simple majority, and that most of the stones cast against it are odd corner-cases.
Last weekend I was visiting family in Ohio, and heard SO many political commercials, it practically wasn't worth trying to watch ANY tv at all.
Anyway, a Bush commercial was fearmongering about what "Kerry and the Liberals in Congress" would do to our taxes. Not to pick on Bush in the general case, but in reference to this specific commercial, Congress is not composed of Liberals, Republicans dominate the House and have a slim majority in the Senate. Kerry ain't doing Nuthin' without cooperation from Republicans.
That's the way it should be. (well, the converse, anyway.) That's the way it isn't, now.
No. 1 requirement for a car is safety. No. 2 requirement for a car is reliability. No. 3 requirement for a car is cost, and obviously this interacts with (1) and (2). Fun-to-drive and performance start at No. 4, other than that inadequate performance can be unsafe.
My first FI car was a 78 VW Rabbit, with *mechanical* fuel injection. Reliable as all get out. Sometime later, VW added what seemed to be an electronic tweak to the mechanical injection. In other words, the mechanical got it as good as my Rabbit was, but the electronics could make it better. But the car could run without the electronics.
I don't like too much electrical stuff it a car, when it adds new points of failure. Not to be a Luddite, but let's separate mission-critical from nice-to-have, keep the mission-critical as reliable as economically possible. Then remember that even if it's merely nice-to-have, it will still cost to have repaired.
I never mentioned a 'neocon conspiracy'. There never has been a conspiracy. The neocons have been completely above board about their agenda, and it has been fully reported on the news.
Clinton answered the Sudan point. At the time, the offer did not appear credible, or at least sufficiently credible to pay whatever price the Sudanese were asking. BTW, Clinton said that the cruise missile attack on Afghanistan was the most he felt he could get away with, at the time. Even so, he was accused of wagging the dog.
As for sources for my facts, I made nothing up. a: NPR interview with CIA people. b: OK, this is my opinion, but the secrecy of the current administration is well reported in the news. c: Another NPR interview. d: Partly logical extraction, partly current news about generals' estimates of required troop strength, partly pre-war comments by a friend in the Guard about required troop strength AND duration estimates.
I'm sorry that I use NPR and BBC as my primary news sources. But I don't plan on changing to Fox News. From what I see and hear, in the news and on sites like Slashdot, the Left in the US might well be slightly right of Center in the rest of the world. I see no need to add further Rightward bias to my sources.
The OS is *plumbing*. It ought to be take-it-for-granted invisible. When I turn the spigot, I expect water to come out of the faucet, and I don't think about the pipes behind the walls and in the basement. Except for construction or renovation purposes, I consider the plumbing to be *part of the house*, not a separate entity.
Microsoft has brought this problem on themselves. They have taken something that ought to be plumbing and turned it into a high-profit, high-visibility product. They have pushed to turn every other (non-Microsoft) aspect of computing into a commodity, while preventing something that *ought* to be a commodity, the OS, from being one.
They deserve a comeuppance for distorting the marketplace this way. Unfortunately others have bought into this model as well, and will also be hurt.
In recent times, the hatred seemed to really boil over during the Clinton years.
Somewhere else someone mentioned Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton. I was around, but not politically aware for Johnson, and becoming politically aware for Nixon. I remember Viet Nam protests, and I remember vitriol directed toward Nixon during Watergate. But none of it seemed to be the personal-level HATRED that seemed to be directed toward Clinton, though I'll admit that I may not have fully appreciated the Johnson and Nixon years.
The Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush-I years do seem like the civil old days, though.
On the side, I'll bet if Clinton had made *every single decision* the exact same as Bush-II, he would have: a: Never gotten assent from Congress to do half of it. b: Been dragged through the mud for whatever did work, if not impeached.
Clinton would have been held responsible, and NAILED for allowing 9/11 to happen. No 'failure of imagination' excuse for him.
Clinton would never have been allowed to take this much of the government into secrecy.
Clinton would have been impeached, found guilty, and removed from office for the Iraq war, and rightfully so. a: We *knew* 6-12 months before the war that the DOD and White House were cherrypicking their intelligence and sources. It was well-reported on at least NPR. b: The disgrace of Abu Graib is a direct result of the cloak of secrecy adopted by the Bush Administration. The cloak drops to the floor, it can't just hide the Man at the top. That means you can't just trust a few, you've got to trust them all, when you allow your government to go secret. c: The planning - it came out in the first days of the invasion that the Neocons "expected Iraq to spontaneously organize into a Reagan-style free-market democracy," as soon as Saddam was deposed. d: The planning - based on the flawed assumption (c) the pricetag (troop count) was lowered, which also presumably made it easier to sell the War, with today's Mess-o-potamia results. NONE of this was rocket science. NONE of this is new news. The ONLY surprise is that nothing has boiled over yet, outside of Iraq. There were plenty of humor/protest assertions to that effect, prior to the War even starting.
How about just getting opposite parties in Presidency and Congress. History sez that the nation generally (not always, but generally) does better when the Presidency and Congress are NOT from the same party.
I'll make no attempts to comment on any merit past that one point, in an effort to keep this short.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops. I wasn't 100% certain of whether Triton was around Uranus or Neptune, but I knew Titan was around Saturn.
We know it's not really John Romero because he, Stephen King, and BSD are all dead. I read it on Slashdot.
But unfortunately for you, the MOON around URANUS is TRITON, not Titan.
I really like the reference to Hamilton inside the wave equation. Back in the early 1800s Sir William Rowan Hamilton was working with ways to express optics and dynamics with a single equation framework. At the time, the effects were mainly felt in optics, but it presaged quantum mechanics.
"Interesting" doesn't really say it.
"Informative" doesn't say it, either.
"Funny" would be close, but isn't quite appropriate, because it's true. (IMHO)
We need moderations for "Scary" or "Devastatingly Ironic" added to the choices.
Good to hear, if true. The run-as-root thing keeps coming up, time and again.
Can you please explain what they do, and how they make their system administrable by noobs?
Actually, I was being facetious with the remark about Vermont becoming a battleground.
I suspect the battlegrounds would be determined by media penetration - how many people can be reached per dollar spent. In that respect, it would be interesting to understand the price differences between advertising on captive networks like cable or satellite vs broadcast. It would also be interesting to understand the demographics of the above, and what percentage of the population still counts on broadcast, in particular.
I generally like the idea of breaking Electoral blocks, but retaining the Electoral votes, themselves. IMHO it's a decent steppingstone from where we are today, and it looks like it would mitigate voter fraud problems, at least some.
From everything I've read, NT has a good security model, under the covers - even better than most Unix variants. (like Linux) It's just that they don't use it effectively. Even further, the Windows culture is pretty much contrary to their making effective use of their own security.
Perhaps Unices haven't had as much security capability, but we've had the culture to at least understand separation between root and users. We've also had the open exchange that gets bugs reported and fixed, another cultural aspect.
But then again, now we have run-as-root Lindows / Linspire. This distribution REALLY SCARES ME, especially when they sell it into the novice market - the ones least likely to do proper maintenance and most likely to click on silly attachements. (as root, no less)
I understand Lindows / Linspire is trying to make something simple for the novice. But IMHO, they've done it in entirely the wrong way. Far better than running the user as root would be to have standard setup of "user" and make the new user that. Then make a comprehensive set of sudu scripts, with extensive error checking, to administer the system.
BTW, the Linux security model isn't standing still, either.
I suspect the real figure of merit here isn't how many facts you select, in order to retain your belief.
It's rather how many facts you have to throw out, in order to retain your belief.
Best is being able to accept new facts, and change your belief, when warranted. (Oops, I guess that isn't "resolute.")
Now explain it to Soccer Moms, NASCAR Dads, Security Moms, and Joe 6pak. Someone else suggested renaming Condorcet, to get rid of the Freedom Fries effect.
But if it's bad for profits, it must be Bad Science. You know, Fuzzy Math, and that kind of stuff. Good Science is good for profits.
I need to read more on Approval voting. Whenever alternative schemes come up, IRV is first to be mentioned, followed by Condorcet. Then a bunch of others, and that's where Approval is.
In that case, it's hopeless.
The whole perceived point of improved voting systems is so that a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush, a vote for Buchanon is not a vote for Gore, etc. These voting systems diminish the power of the two dominant parties, and allow minors to emerge.
You know, in an odd sort of way, this reminds me of Intel and Microosft business practices. Both are under the Eye for monopoly practices, so both are "forbidden" from doing certain things, like per-CPU licensing. But both also have list prices that would render PC makers effectively/nearly unprofitable, and then give what are essentially loyalty-based kickbacks. The kickbacks restore profitability - if you are loyal.
Odd parallel, but not perfect. I have long felt that Congress bribes us with our own money.
Better be careful...
Yesterday I used the term 'neocon' and was told that that destroyed all of my credibility, and made me a buy-in with "The Conspiracy." I was also told that NPR and the BBC, which I cited as my major news sources, are "left wing arms of the government," and that I should choose a more centrist news source, like Fox News.
I kid you not, but it was anonymous coward who told me so.
No, splitting electoral college votes wouldn't eliminate battleground states, it would just move them around. Unfortunately, to my detriment, because where else but Vermont can you get 3 electoral votes with barely over 1/2 million people? I was just in Ohio last week, and the TV commercials were a pain in the (body part). I don't really want that in MY state.
Putting it that way, I don't really think the *people* in any state want it to be a battleground, for that very reason. There is some enjoyment of status, but overall it's a pain. Is it really worth months of blitzkreig advertising for one glimpse of the candidate?
By the way, this is also a States Rights issue. The Constitution leaves it up to the States to run their elections, as they see fit. That's the other reason for the Electoral College - it's really the States choosing the President. There really is no such thing as a National Election - it just looks that way because all of the states happen to choose their Electors by popular vote, and the Electors almost always follow that vote.
You've just gotten rid of my "Freedom Fries" complaint. Of course I still 'would like French Fries with that,' but I'm trying to anticipate a middle-America response.
I believe I could explain IRV to 50+% of the US population, and I think they could understand it. I can't say the same about Condorcet. This is a case where "even better yet" is the enemy of "better". Personally, I don't believe we could sell the US population on Condorcet or Approval at this time, due to *perceived* complexity. At the same time, I believe there is a chance for IRV. But if the proponents of voting reform get all tied up in IRV vs Condorcet vs Approval, or some other scheme, nothing will get done, at all.
That said, I believe what we really need is a two-step process. First get IRV in place, simply because we probably could, as a first-level reform. Once the American voter is used to it, and sees that the sky hasn't fallen, perhaps 20 years down the road, go for something better. A land that renamed French Fries to Freedom Fries won't trust its voting to a system with a name like Condorcet. (I need to learn more about other schemes. I did check your link, though I don't necessarily agree with everything I read there.) Personally, I believe IRV *is* an improvement over simple majority, and that most of the stones cast against it are odd corner-cases.
Last weekend I was visiting family in Ohio, and heard SO many political commercials, it practically wasn't worth trying to watch ANY tv at all.
Anyway, a Bush commercial was fearmongering about what "Kerry and the Liberals in Congress" would do to our taxes. Not to pick on Bush in the general case, but in reference to this specific commercial, Congress is not composed of Liberals, Republicans dominate the House and have a slim majority in the Senate. Kerry ain't doing Nuthin' without cooperation from Republicans.
That's the way it should be. (well, the converse, anyway.)
That's the way it isn't, now.
Why would you want to do this?
No. 1 requirement for a car is safety.
No. 2 requirement for a car is reliability.
No. 3 requirement for a car is cost, and obviously this interacts with (1) and (2).
Fun-to-drive and performance start at No. 4, other than that inadequate performance can be unsafe.
My first FI car was a 78 VW Rabbit, with *mechanical* fuel injection. Reliable as all get out. Sometime later, VW added what seemed to be an electronic tweak to the mechanical injection. In other words, the mechanical got it as good as my Rabbit was, but the electronics could make it better. But the car could run without the electronics.
I don't like too much electrical stuff it a car, when it adds new points of failure. Not to be a Luddite, but let's separate mission-critical from nice-to-have, keep the mission-critical as reliable as economically possible. Then remember that even if it's merely nice-to-have, it will still cost to have repaired.
I never mentioned a 'neocon conspiracy'. There never has been a conspiracy. The neocons have been completely above board about their agenda, and it has been fully reported on the news.
Clinton answered the Sudan point. At the time, the offer did not appear credible, or at least sufficiently credible to pay whatever price the Sudanese were asking. BTW, Clinton said that the cruise missile attack on Afghanistan was the most he felt he could get away with, at the time. Even so, he was accused of wagging the dog.
As for sources for my facts, I made nothing up.
a: NPR interview with CIA people.
b: OK, this is my opinion, but the secrecy of the current administration is well reported in the news.
c: Another NPR interview.
d: Partly logical extraction, partly current news about generals' estimates of required troop strength, partly pre-war comments by a friend in the Guard about required troop strength AND duration estimates.
I'm sorry that I use NPR and BBC as my primary news sources. But I don't plan on changing to Fox News. From what I see and hear, in the news and on sites like Slashdot, the Left in the US might well be slightly right of Center in the rest of the world. I see no need to add further Rightward bias to my sources.
The OS is *plumbing*. It ought to be take-it-for-granted invisible. When I turn the spigot, I expect water to come out of the faucet, and I don't think about the pipes behind the walls and in the basement. Except for construction or renovation purposes, I consider the plumbing to be *part of the house*, not a separate entity.
Microsoft has brought this problem on themselves. They have taken something that ought to be plumbing and turned it into a high-profit, high-visibility product. They have pushed to turn every other (non-Microsoft) aspect of computing into a commodity, while preventing something that *ought* to be a commodity, the OS, from being one.
They deserve a comeuppance for distorting the marketplace this way. Unfortunately others have bought into this model as well, and will also be hurt.
In recent times, the hatred seemed to really boil over during the Clinton years.
Somewhere else someone mentioned Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton. I was around, but not politically aware for Johnson, and becoming politically aware for Nixon. I remember Viet Nam protests, and I remember vitriol directed toward Nixon during Watergate. But none of it seemed to be the personal-level HATRED that seemed to be directed toward Clinton, though I'll admit that I may not have fully appreciated the Johnson and Nixon years.
The Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush-I years do seem like the civil old days, though.
On the side, I'll bet if Clinton had made *every single decision* the exact same as Bush-II, he would have:
a: Never gotten assent from Congress to do half of it.
b: Been dragged through the mud for whatever did work, if not impeached.
Clinton would have been held responsible, and NAILED for allowing 9/11 to happen. No 'failure of imagination' excuse for him.
Clinton would never have been allowed to take this much of the government into secrecy.
Clinton would have been impeached, found guilty, and removed from office for the Iraq war, and rightfully so.
a: We *knew* 6-12 months before the war that the DOD and White House were cherrypicking their intelligence and sources. It was well-reported on at least NPR.
b: The disgrace of Abu Graib is a direct result of the cloak of secrecy adopted by the Bush Administration. The cloak drops to the floor, it can't just hide the Man at the top. That means you can't just trust a few, you've got to trust them all, when you allow your government to go secret.
c: The planning - it came out in the first days of the invasion that the Neocons "expected Iraq to spontaneously organize into a Reagan-style free-market democracy," as soon as Saddam was deposed.
d: The planning - based on the flawed assumption (c) the pricetag (troop count) was lowered, which also presumably made it easier to sell the War, with today's Mess-o-potamia results.
NONE of this was rocket science. NONE of this is new news. The ONLY surprise is that nothing has boiled over yet, outside of Iraq. There were plenty of humor/protest assertions to that effect, prior to the War even starting.
My car got keyed right after my wife put a Kerry sticker on the bumper.
How about just getting opposite parties in Presidency and Congress. History sez that the nation generally (not always, but generally) does better when the Presidency and Congress are NOT from the same party.
I'll make no attempts to comment on any merit past that one point, in an effort to keep this short.