When I worked in a NOC for a major bank, we had full hand scanners, explosives sniffers and video records to endure when we clocked in. That was fifteen years ago. Just be happy we didn't install exploding sniffers. You know? To increase the efficiency of the firing/dismissal procedure.
They don't know if it is safe, useful, or practical at that point, and their tired and true methods, and more importantly humans in those other machines take priority.
To my mind, it takes about a quarter of a man*hour to assess this info, especially since they collaborated with the local county in the days before FEMA stepped in.
... However badmouthing FEMA or the FAA to the press makes this a less likely outcome.
(the more I look at US of A, the more alien/outlandish they look to me.
* individualism being pushed atop collaboration
* indivialism pushed to the limit is antagonizes with itself: not the type of "let live" individualism but authoritarianism
* "bad mouthing" - "the attack on prestige/authority"? - matters more than doing a good job together...)
Or rather Fema was going to have many national guard, army,and civilian aircraft flying about and did not want to worry about drone collisions.
But hey maybe the OP is correct and they where just being stupid. Your choice.
(looking from outside, looks like a typical US reaction: "us or them") What stops FEMA integrating the drone operators into the effort? Cooperating with them instead of shutting them down?
While it may sound boneheaded, the reality is that FEMA has a plan; even if it is using "outdated" tech--live pilots flying around. Their concerns are not irrelevant: flying objects they have no control/coordination of, and potential impact that can have on their piloted craft. When FEMA is called in, they become responsible. They are the ones everyone is going to scream at if things don't happen exactly the way we hope. If there are problems with inter-operation of drones with piloted craft FEMA would be skewered. Of course they'll be skewered because they aren't using drones as part of their SOP. But then again, when FEMA asks for money to update themselves and their SOP (for instance, so they can add drones to their toolset) the taxpayers scream bloody murder...
What stops FEMA to integrate (/coordinate with) the drone operators into their effort?
Warming does increase overall rainfall though, doesn't it? Obviously it's not good for the diversity of species or for humans, but wouldn't it lead to an overall increase in greenery?
Last time I checked, Sandy didn't cause a greenery explosion around New York, did it now?
Do you equate "value creation" to "having a real job"?
I sure don't. Driving a car, or preparing meals could be considered more value creation than what I do. It's the circumstances surrounding what these people do. I could be a door man, paid by a hotel to open doors and greet people. Or I could be a homeless bum that gets a bottle for opening the door for a day, replaceable by the poor sap sitting on the curb down the street pining for a bottle. One is a profession, the other is merely doing what they can to get by. Same basic effect - the door is opened when I walk up.
So, what's wrong with "sharing industry" then? Other than "everybody in the sharing system is replaceable", you say the same value is being created.
The whole "service industry" and "financial sector" (banks, stock market, etc) don't actually "create" anything, the just make value available or "provide maintenance" (like "health care" or "car service") or a simple vanitous waste (from haute couture to nail polishing/hair dressing). How's "sharing economy" ilegitimate from this perspective?
Did you even read TFA's (I'll wait for the roar of laughter to die down) on what these supposed sharing economy traits are? I did, and several other stories about the phenomenon besides that were stated earlier. In each case of "success" it's people making money off what they already own. It's the rich person living in a row house splitting the levels into apartments and renting them out and living in the basement with the proceeds of the rent. Or the person with a car working as a taxi driver for the day to make his car and gas payments while trying to have a real job. It's not a positive statement.
Do you equate "value creation" to "having a real job"?
If you trust humanity you'll end up paying for it, every time.
The same goes if you trust nobody. On this approach, you have two major choices:
* don't share. You'll lose nothing but opportunities/potential (of which some others may derive value)
* share under strict risk control. This control is going to cost you each and every time.
I can tell you have never used an SSD. At a certain point, more RAM becomes hardly noticeable.
And for a heavily C++ templated app, the IO is almost irrelevant (RAM and CPU predomine).
While for a Java project, Eclipse compiles the source while saving (me pressing Ctrl-Save is likely to take more than the compilation and writing the file to disk).
Not to mention that, for many compilations, the intermediary files may safely be generated on a RAM disk.
Yes, sure you are right: didn't use one because I never felt the need for an SSD while dev-ing. Certainly, the fact I'm not required to use Visual Studio or the like helps.
>First, the example you provide isn't a co-op laying fiber, it's a city doing it.
As if that's going to make any difference.
-- BMO
It might. IANAL, but in my mind, a coop will be a commercial entity (even if/when not-for-profit); trying to sue should be viewed as anti-competitive practices.
Sure, you're absolutely right.
The question is do you have the money for lawyers (remember, you're fighting a company so big it could buy its own law firm with paperclip money) and build-out your fiber infrastucture.
By the time you win, you're probably bankrupt
The coop will only need to countersue for uncompetitive practices, put on hold the first suit (because the stand of the plaintiff in the first suit highly depends on the result of counter-suit), and win the countersuit. With the damages awarded (cost of suit + unavailability of the network over the time of the suit), there would be enough funds to build it twice over.
In regards with the cost of lawyer: given the proeminence of the case and importance of the precedent, I don't know why I have the feeling that the guys at EFF would be glad to step in.
>First, the example you provide isn't a co-op laying fiber, it's a city doing it.
As if that's going to make any difference.
--
BMO
It might. IANAL, but in my mind, a coop will be a commercial entity (even if/when not-for-profit); trying to sue should be viewed as anti-competitive practices.
The U.S. just permanently lost any position as a leading internet innovator.
Unfortunatelly, no: it's still a leader in innovation... just not a leader in ethical application/development of that innovation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not decrying the innovation leadership position of US, it is the ethical positition US chose that I see unfortunate.
Ironic that he gave us the NBN and no Internet filter though.
Not for the lack of trying, no.
1 week before 2010 ellection, I sent an email to di Natale (Vic Greens) asking him his opinion on the internet filter. Here's an excerpt from his answer:
Thanks for getting in touch. You'll understand that now is a busy time, so my answer will have to be pretty brief. We don't support a mandatory filter, nor a classification-based system based on a blacklist. As far as the proposed review of the blacklist, it's obviously very difficult to imagine a model whereby a secret list could be reviewed transparently, and given the way the internet works an annual review by a retired judge is not going to suffice. We'll have to see the exact details on this part of the policy when the legislation finally emerges, but it's unlikely to mitigate our concerns with the filter policy.
...
I can't comment in any detail on the data retention issue, and have to defer to Scott Ludlam. All I can say is it's very worrying, we reject the need for the secrecy surrounding this, and we will do everything we can in the Senate to bring as much transparency as possible to the process.
You probably can guess who got my higher (than the Labor's) preference for the Senate in 2010.
I still think compulsory voting is still a good idea, in the same sense compulsory elementary schooling is. As a society, you just don't accept kids to give school a miss, why should one accept giving the elections a miss?
And I might agree with all you said above, would you be to change the wording of the last phrase from "stupid" into "ignorant" - I would even accept "wifully ignorant" or "lazy" ("stupid" does carry the connotation of "mental dullness". While being stupid will most likely cause ignorance, being ignorant may not be caused always caused by stupidity). Shall we settle on it?
Well it's one of those conundrums. I agree with the reasoning you mention, but again, in practice, it doesn't appear to be working. The ideal situation would be that it doesn't matter whether you have compulsory voting or not, because everyone would be engaged. Since that isn't the case, with or without compulsory attendance, it raises the question of whether you want to politically informed to just vote by allowing the politically lazy to stay at home, or if you still want everyone to vote. I'm still battling with the concept as I haven't set my mind one way or another.
That may be a false dichotomy. The problem is not the action of voting as such (that's just a mean, not an end), it's engagement. And there may be more than two solutions to the problem.
Here's a crazy idea: maybe lowering the age of voting... I don't know, if a kid can work (on some cases, as low as 11) and, I assume, pay taxes I don't see why s/he cannot vote. Sure, consider their votes only as a percentage of a "mature vote"... or consider their votes only in the case of a hang parliament, but anyway do count and make public the results of their votes. Now, the effects:
* if the teen votes always matter (even as a smaller proportion), what better incentive for a teenager to demonstrate her/his "adultness" (and, possibly, their rebelious nature) then by voting. What better incentive to their parents to cast a formal and informed vote than "avoid those ankle biters outvote the grown ups"
* if their vote doesn't count in election, what better information for political class about how the very near future full voters see them today. If the politicians try to come with populistic policies to "appeal to teens in advance", again what better incentives for parents to be more enganged than now?
* there may be some advantages even for the cases of "first generation australians" (those born from immigrant parents)
Granted, there may be some serious unforeseen consequences (e.g. the cost of running an election, but I don't think is unaffordable), but in any case I guess the level of engament and civic responsibility will raise.
New slashdot poll.
How many hours did you spent researching candidates?
1. 0. I don't vote.
2. 0. I just vote along party lines.
3...5 The rest of the options are probably statistically insignificant anyway so I won't even put them.
Fuck statistics.
I spent about 4 hours looking over their platforms and fidlling on belowtheline.org.au. Took me 4 minutes in the booth to transcribe all the preferences on the senate ballot, making sure it's not an informal vote. At 2010 election, I even rated all Labor senators high (but not the highest), except for Conroy with his push for Internet filters, he went straight on the last place.
Yes calling them stupid is over the top, particularly for people who don't speak english well.
(;) Apologies accepted - I'm not a native English speaker myself;) )
As for the liberal democrats, I enjoy shooting, so a part of me likes that this error occurred, but the media fallout (and just see the comment above about "ultra right" parties. I have no clue how enjoying vehicles, sport, shooting or fishing makes someone right wing, but as soon as it's something the green left don't agree with, they immediately label it as right wing) is not helping certain causes, most of all shooting rights (of which Australians don't really have any rights to). Because of this, another part of me thinks that it might be a backward step that they were promoted, basically through an error because they have a similar name to a popular party; I think it would be much better if it grew organically. Fact of the matter is, most of the electors still wouldn't have a clue that they voted, in error, for the liberal democrats.
Take all the above as a mistake (a honest one or just from carelessness, doesn't matter, still a mistake); with all the opportunities a mistake has for learning to do better next time. Yes, agreed, it may be a "lesson" many others in the same community may not need to learn; for them, there's another lesson, me thinks: living with the imperfections of the others, without eating their liver own over it.
I once thought that compulsory voting attendance was a good idea, because in theory it tries to make voters accountable and politically informed, but after working at a few elections, I can plainly see that almost all the people do not give a shit. They have absolutely no idea who their candidates are, and they don't even know which electorate they are in. The theory behind compulsory voting just doesn't apply in practice. Since the overwhelming majority of them, if it was optional voting, they wouldn't have come. The most important step for so many people is making sure their name is crossed off so that they don't get a fine. Because of that, I do think they're stupid.
I still think compulsory voting is still a good idea, in the same sense compulsory elementary schooling is. As a society, you just don't accept kids to give school a miss, why should one accept giving the elections a miss?
And I might agree with all you said above, would you be to change the wording of the last phrase from "stupid" into "ignorant" - I would even accept "wifully ignorant" or "lazy" ("stupid" does carry the connotation of "mental dullness". While being stupid will most likely cause ignorance, being ignorant may not be caused always caused by stupidity). Shall we settle on it?
If someone can't be bothered to learn the name of the person that they're voting for, then they shouldn't be voting.
I would tend to agree... but not entirely... not knowing the name of the person for which one is voting can have a larger number of causes than only "can't be bothered".
Increasing voter turnout is only a worthwhile goal if the voters actually have some idea of what they're doing.
Eh, no. I prefer to have a compulsory voting for the same reason I prefer a society with compulsory elementary schooling... compulsory voting requires a participation in civic matters. Even if some/many will still end "illiterate" or "lacking basic numeracy skills", there are chances that some (hopefully many) would actually get "some idea of what they're doing", be it only ofr the reasons of supporting the consequences of a wrong voting choice (the above - a convoluted way of saying: "No mistakes, no learning")
A vote for a party with an excellent and well developed platform, likely to achieve office and be held accountable and so deliver elements of its platform, without a considered opinion on the futility of politics, is stupidity.
Hmmm... I cannot but like the way you think... even if it's somehow wrong (rationale: not considering the limits - futility, in extrem - of politics cannot be interpreted as a proof of stupidity... even if it may be a sign of it).
Slashdot Mirror
When I worked in a NOC for a major bank, we had full hand scanners, explosives sniffers and video records to endure when we clocked in. That was fifteen years ago.
Just be happy we didn't install exploding sniffers. You know? To increase the efficiency of the firing/dismissal procedure.
FTFY
They don't know if it is safe, useful, or practical at that point, and their tired and true methods, and more importantly humans in those other machines take priority.
To my mind, it takes about a quarter of a man*hour to assess this info, especially since they collaborated with the local county in the days before FEMA stepped in.
... However badmouthing FEMA or the FAA to the press makes this a less likely outcome.
(the more I look at US of A, the more alien/outlandish they look to me.
* individualism being pushed atop collaboration
* indivialism pushed to the limit is antagonizes with itself: not the type of "let live" individualism but authoritarianism
* "bad mouthing" - "the attack on prestige/authority"? - matters more than doing a good job together...)
Or rather Fema was going to have many national guard, army,and civilian aircraft flying about and did not want to worry about drone collisions.
But hey maybe the OP is correct and they where just being stupid. Your choice.
(looking from outside, looks like a typical US reaction: "us or them")
What stops FEMA integrating the drone operators into the effort? Cooperating with them instead of shutting them down?
While it may sound boneheaded, the reality is that FEMA has a plan; even if it is using "outdated" tech--live pilots flying around. Their concerns are not irrelevant: flying objects they have no control/coordination of, and potential impact that can have on their piloted craft. When FEMA is called in, they become responsible. They are the ones everyone is going to scream at if things don't happen exactly the way we hope. If there are problems with inter-operation of drones with piloted craft FEMA would be skewered. Of course they'll be skewered because they aren't using drones as part of their SOP. But then again, when FEMA asks for money to update themselves and their SOP (for instance, so they can add drones to their toolset) the taxpayers scream bloody murder...
What stops FEMA to integrate (/coordinate with) the drone operators into their effort?
Warming does increase overall rainfall though, doesn't it? Obviously it's not good for the diversity of species or for humans, but wouldn't it lead to an overall increase in greenery?
Last time I checked, Sandy didn't cause a greenery explosion around New York, did it now?
While the anti-Americans world-wide are wagging their fingers at the US, China is killing itself with pollution...
Just in the news: China And California Partnership To Address Climate Change.
It doesn't look like is an "us and them" attitude (i.e. you better stop approaching the topic from a "who's-shitting-more contest" PoV).
Do you equate "value creation" to "having a real job"?
I sure don't. Driving a car, or preparing meals could be considered more value creation than what I do. It's the circumstances surrounding what these people do. I could be a door man, paid by a hotel to open doors and greet people. Or I could be a homeless bum that gets a bottle for opening the door for a day, replaceable by the poor sap sitting on the curb down the street pining for a bottle. One is a profession, the other is merely doing what they can to get by. Same basic effect - the door is opened when I walk up.
So, what's wrong with "sharing industry" then?
Other than "everybody in the sharing system is replaceable", you say the same value is being created.
Nothing is being created.
The whole "service industry" and "financial sector" (banks, stock market, etc) don't actually "create" anything, the just make value available or "provide maintenance" (like "health care" or "car service") or a simple vanitous waste (from haute couture to nail polishing/hair dressing).
How's "sharing economy" ilegitimate from this perspective?
Did you even read TFA's (I'll wait for the roar of laughter to die down) on what these supposed sharing economy traits are? I did, and several other stories about the phenomenon besides that were stated earlier. In each case of "success" it's people making money off what they already own. It's the rich person living in a row house splitting the levels into apartments and renting them out and living in the basement with the proceeds of the rent. Or the person with a car working as a taxi driver for the day to make his car and gas payments while trying to have a real job. It's not a positive statement.
Do you equate "value creation" to "having a real job"?
If you trust humanity you'll end up paying for it, every time.
The same goes if you trust nobody. On this approach, you have two major choices:
* don't share. You'll lose nothing but opportunities/potential (of which some others may derive value)
* share under strict risk control. This control is going to cost you each and every time.
How does artificially cutting your children off from a huge part of the world help develop their brain in a healthy way?
Like... umm... having 1 in 10 kids diagnosed with ADHD may be related to the use of gadgets?
As opposed to teaching them how to interact with the world in a responsible and constructive way?
Do I detect a false dichotomy here? The responsible and constructive way of interacting with the world is mandatory to be done using gadgets?
I can tell you have never used an SSD. At a certain point, more RAM becomes hardly noticeable.
And for a heavily C++ templated app, the IO is almost irrelevant (RAM and CPU predomine).
While for a Java project, Eclipse compiles the source while saving (me pressing Ctrl-Save is likely to take more than the compilation and writing the file to disk).
Not to mention that, for many compilations, the intermediary files may safely be generated on a RAM disk.
Yes, sure you are right: didn't use one because I never felt the need for an SSD while dev-ing. Certainly, the fact I'm not required to use Visual Studio or the like helps.
Sure, you're absolutely right.
The question is do you have the money for lawyers (remember, you're fighting a company so big it could buy its own law firm with paperclip money) and build-out your fiber infrastucture.
By the time you win, you're probably bankrupt
The coop will only need to countersue for uncompetitive practices, put on hold the first suit (because the stand of the plaintiff in the first suit highly depends on the result of counter-suit), and win the countersuit. With the damages awarded (cost of suit + unavailability of the network over the time of the suit), there would be enough funds to build it twice over.
In regards with the cost of lawyer: given the proeminence of the case and importance of the precedent, I don't know why I have the feeling that the guys at EFF would be glad to step in.
Or... you know.... actually put some RAM into your developer machine.
> as a developer, I have no use for SSD in my desktop system.
Do you compile code?
With a 32 GB RAM, why do you thing compilation would be relevant for the SSD or HDD choice?
>First, the example you provide isn't a co-op laying fiber, it's a city doing it.
As if that's going to make any difference.
-- BMO
It might. IANAL, but in my mind, a coop will be a commercial entity (even if/when not-for-profit); trying to sue should be viewed as anti-competitive practices.
how a prize named after Andrei Sakharov is gonna go over with Snowden's landlord, a veteran of the KGB that tormented Andrei Sakharov.
The same way that landlord can live with an avenue in Moscow name after Sakharov.
Or... you think that avenue is under risk of being tormented too?
The U.S. just permanently lost any position as a leading internet innovator.
Unfortunatelly, no: it's still a leader in innovation... just not a leader in ethical application/development of that innovation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not decrying the innovation leadership position of US, it is the ethical positition US chose that I see unfortunate.
(sweating over a trope)
That is not just sexism, [but also] poor taste at its best.
FTFY
Ironic that he gave us the NBN and no Internet filter though.
Not for the lack of trying, no.
1 week before 2010 ellection, I sent an email to di Natale (Vic Greens) asking him his opinion on the internet filter. Here's an excerpt from his answer:
Thanks for getting in touch. You'll understand that now is a busy time, so my answer will have to be pretty brief. We don't support a mandatory filter, nor a classification-based system based on a blacklist. As far as the proposed review of the blacklist, it's obviously very difficult to imagine a model whereby a secret list could be reviewed transparently, and given the way the internet works an annual review by a retired judge is not going to suffice. We'll have to see the exact details on this part of the policy when the legislation finally emerges, but it's unlikely to mitigate our concerns with the filter policy.
...
I can't comment in any detail on the data retention issue, and have to defer to Scott Ludlam. All I can say is it's very worrying, we reject the need for the secrecy surrounding this, and we will do everything we can in the Senate to bring as much transparency as possible to the process.
You probably can guess who got my higher (than the Labor's) preference for the Senate in 2010.
I still think compulsory voting is still a good idea, in the same sense compulsory elementary schooling is. As a society, you just don't accept kids to give school a miss, why should one accept giving the elections a miss?
And I might agree with all you said above, would you be to change the wording of the last phrase from "stupid" into "ignorant" - I would even accept "wifully ignorant" or "lazy" ("stupid" does carry the connotation of "mental dullness". While being stupid will most likely cause ignorance, being ignorant may not be caused always caused by stupidity). Shall we settle on it?
Well it's one of those conundrums. I agree with the reasoning you mention, but again, in practice, it doesn't appear to be working. The ideal situation would be that it doesn't matter whether you have compulsory voting or not, because everyone would be engaged. Since that isn't the case, with or without compulsory attendance, it raises the question of whether you want to politically informed to just vote by allowing the politically lazy to stay at home, or if you still want everyone to vote. I'm still battling with the concept as I haven't set my mind one way or another.
That may be a false dichotomy. The problem is not the action of voting as such (that's just a mean, not an end), it's engagement. And there may be more than two solutions to the problem.
Here's a crazy idea: maybe lowering the age of voting... I don't know, if a kid can work (on some cases, as low as 11) and, I assume, pay taxes I don't see why s/he cannot vote. Sure, consider their votes only as a percentage of a "mature vote"... or consider their votes only in the case of a hang parliament, but anyway do count and make public the results of their votes.
Now, the effects:
* if the teen votes always matter (even as a smaller proportion), what better incentive for a teenager to demonstrate her/his "adultness" (and, possibly, their rebelious nature) then by voting. What better incentive to their parents to cast a formal and informed vote than "avoid those ankle biters outvote the grown ups"
* if their vote doesn't count in election, what better information for political class about how the very near future full voters see them today. If the politicians try to come with populistic policies to "appeal to teens in advance", again what better incentives for parents to be more enganged than now?
* there may be some advantages even for the cases of "first generation australians" (those born from immigrant parents)
Granted, there may be some serious unforeseen consequences (e.g. the cost of running an election, but I don't think is unaffordable), but in any case I guess the level of engament and civic responsibility will raise.
New slashdot poll. How many hours did you spent researching candidates? 1. 0. I don't vote. 2. 0. I just vote along party lines. 3...5 The rest of the options are probably statistically insignificant anyway so I won't even put them.
Fuck statistics.
I spent about 4 hours looking over their platforms and fidlling on belowtheline.org.au. Took me 4 minutes in the booth to transcribe all the preferences on the senate ballot, making sure it's not an informal vote.
At 2010 election, I even rated all Labor senators high (but not the highest), except for Conroy with his push for Internet filters, he went straight on the last place.
Yes calling them stupid is over the top, particularly for people who don't speak english well.
( ;) Apologies accepted - I'm not a native English speaker myself ;) )
As for the liberal democrats, I enjoy shooting, so a part of me likes that this error occurred, but the media fallout (and just see the comment above about "ultra right" parties. I have no clue how enjoying vehicles, sport, shooting or fishing makes someone right wing, but as soon as it's something the green left don't agree with, they immediately label it as right wing) is not helping certain causes, most of all shooting rights (of which Australians don't really have any rights to). Because of this, another part of me thinks that it might be a backward step that they were promoted, basically through an error because they have a similar name to a popular party; I think it would be much better if it grew organically. Fact of the matter is, most of the electors still wouldn't have a clue that they voted, in error, for the liberal democrats.
Take all the above as a mistake (a honest one or just from carelessness, doesn't matter, still a mistake); with all the opportunities a mistake has for learning to do better next time. Yes, agreed, it may be a "lesson" many others in the same community may not need to learn; for them, there's another lesson, me thinks: living with the imperfections of the others, without eating their liver own over it.
I once thought that compulsory voting attendance was a good idea, because in theory it tries to make voters accountable and politically informed, but after working at a few elections, I can plainly see that almost all the people do not give a shit. They have absolutely no idea who their candidates are, and they don't even know which electorate they are in. The theory behind compulsory voting just doesn't apply in practice. Since the overwhelming majority of them, if it was optional voting, they wouldn't have come. The most important step for so many people is making sure their name is crossed off so that they don't get a fine. Because of that, I do think they're stupid.
I still think compulsory voting is still a good idea, in the same sense compulsory elementary schooling is. As a society, you just don't accept kids to give school a miss, why should one accept giving the elections a miss?
And I might agree with all you said above, would you be to change the wording of the last phrase from "stupid" into "ignorant" - I would even accept "wifully ignorant" or "lazy" ("stupid" does carry the connotation of "mental dullness". While being stupid will most likely cause ignorance, being ignorant may not be caused always caused by stupidity). Shall we settle on it?
If someone can't be bothered to learn the name of the person that they're voting for, then they shouldn't be voting.
I would tend to agree... but not entirely... not knowing the name of the person for which one is voting can have a larger number of causes than only "can't be bothered".
Increasing voter turnout is only a worthwhile goal if the voters actually have some idea of what they're doing.
Eh, no. I prefer to have a compulsory voting for the same reason I prefer a society with compulsory elementary schooling... compulsory voting requires a participation in civic matters.
Even if some/many will still end "illiterate" or "lacking basic numeracy skills", there are chances that some (hopefully many) would actually get "some idea of what they're doing", be it only ofr the reasons of supporting the consequences of a wrong voting choice
(the above - a convoluted way of saying: "No mistakes, no learning")
A vote for a party with an excellent and well developed platform, likely to achieve office and be held accountable and so deliver elements of its platform, without a considered opinion on the futility of politics, is stupidity.
Hmmm... I cannot but like the way you think... even if it's somehow wrong (rationale: not considering the limits - futility, in extrem - of politics cannot be interpreted as a proof of stupidity... even if it may be a sign of it).