Representing large numbers of people is more important than representing "a state".
Popular voting indeed has issues, but I believe they are less problematic than the current system (particularly if we get a proper vote tallying system).
Your "typical voting situation" is my "symptom of the brokenness of our election system". When you say "One of the parties", you are tacitly assuming that there should be only two. I disagree vehemently.
Your argument breaks down when you consider that states are not homogenous. Right now, whoever carries the rural states has a big advantage, because those states have disproportional sway in the electoral college. That's Bad.
Right now, the swing states are OR, PA, OH, FL, and a couple others. These states are not the most populous...they just happen to be the ones where the votes are close. The candidates get the most bang for their buck there.
Texas is going to go Bush. So neither Bush nor Kerry pays any attention whatsoever to what Texans want to see in a President. This is not good. Same is true for Californians and New Yorkers.
I want every candidate to campaign for every vote. I want them to earn their victory.
People bitch about Florida, but the vote in New Mexico was even closer. In either case, the election came down to within a reasonable margin of error in several important states.
In other words, it was a dead heat. I don't think the 2000 election says anything one way or the other about the electoral college.
What's despicable about it? Why should I not decry behavior I think is wrong?
I'll tell YOU what's despicable. Having the audacity to tell the State of Washington how to spend tax dollars, knowing full well that every state in the Union is strapped for cash. The audacity part comes in when you realize that Microsoft doesn't even PAY any taxes.
Want the situation to get better? Start destroying these megalith corporations that flaunt the law. Put commerce back in the hands of the people that really run this country's economy: Small businesses.
Thanks for the factual update on the GPS constellation. I've slept since the last time I looked at that data. : )
I wasn't kidding when I said the fourth satellite locates you in time. When you get your three-space coordinates, you also get a very accurate time-hack. That's what I meant.
GPS relies on computations of distance based on the speed of light. If you know what time it "really" is, you subtract that value from the signal you've received from the GPS satellite. Multiply that time difference by the speed of light, and you've got the distance between you and that satellite. You now know that your location is somewhere on a sphere with the satellite at the center, and you know how big that sphere is. By getting a similar value from a second satellite, you've now located yourself on the circular intersection between two spheres. With a third satellite, you can locate yourself to one of two points (one of those points is way out in orbit, and it's disregarded).
However, your GPS unit doesn't usually have an atomic clock in it. Therefore, it needs another source to know what time it "really" is. It's a system of four simultaneous equations in X, Y, Z, and time.
When you can see more than four satellites, you're right, you get a progressively better position hack.
So what if I think that "traditional" methods of law enforcement are radically overbroad? (I'm thinking specifically of RICO and the DEA seizure rules)
The most egregious abuses of the PATRIOT act are the ones that got ruled on today. The gag order provisions make it impossible to know if the law is being abused. Judicial oversight is THE key part of our criminal justice system.
And, no, I don't think that anything more than the criminal justice system is needed to find and stop terrorists. We do not need to give up our freedoms to be safe.
My favourite part is the DOJ's response to ACLU's FOIA request for a list of people served under these "National Security Letters" (Basically, this is a subpoena for any information we want, and we're going to jail you if you say anything about it). Five page document. Every line blacked out. I'm sure that every single one of those people were real threats to national security. After all, our government says they were!
The GPS satellite system has a fair amount of redundancy. You'd have to knock out a large number of satellites (I can't remember if there are 17, or 30) in order to substantially degrade its utility.
Basically, in order to locate you in three dimensions, the GPS receiver needs to be able to see four satellites. (It's actually locating you in four dimensions: X, Y, Z, and time) It's possible you could knock out enough satellites that there were not four visible in the sky at all times, thereby making GPS unavailable in certain regions at certain times. Those patches of inactivity would be pretty tricky to predict, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Could you please tell me the first three words in the Constitution?
You know, the big fancy-lookin' ones.
Representing large numbers of people is more important than representing "a state".
Popular voting indeed has issues, but I believe they are less problematic than the current system (particularly if we get a proper vote tallying system).
Oh rats. I just got modded to hell because I forgot to include [sarcasm] tags.
Stupid mods.
My Powerbook zaps me in the ass every time I bring my Leatherman near it.
I kinda like it, really...
Everybody knows that Macintoshes are hermetically sealed at the factory and can never ever be upgraded.
I'm serious! There's a taser in there that zaps you in the butt if you try!
Your "typical voting situation" is my "symptom of the brokenness of our election system". When you say "One of the parties", you are tacitly assuming that there should be only two. I disagree vehemently.
Your argument breaks down when you consider that states are not homogenous. Right now, whoever carries the rural states has a big advantage, because those states have disproportional sway in the electoral college. That's Bad.
Right now, the swing states are OR, PA, OH, FL, and a couple others. These states are not the most populous...they just happen to be the ones where the votes are close. The candidates get the most bang for their buck there.
Texas is going to go Bush. So neither Bush nor Kerry pays any attention whatsoever to what Texans want to see in a President. This is not good. Same is true for Californians and New Yorkers.
I want every candidate to campaign for every vote. I want them to earn their victory.
People bitch about Florida, but the vote in New Mexico was even closer. In either case, the election came down to within a reasonable margin of error in several important states.
In other words, it was a dead heat. I don't think the 2000 election says anything one way or the other about the electoral college.
That doesn't mean the EC is a good system...
If you don't think changing the margin of error changes the results, you slept through your statistics class.
Er, if there are five candidates, and X voters, and each voter says "Yes" or "No" to each candidate, you have 5X votes cast.
Sure, that's a big number. Good thing we have calculators.
What works well about it, other than disproportionately favoring rural states?
Why is a voter in Wyoming worth three to five times as much as a voter in California?
The EC is unfairly biased in favor of rural states. The President should represent the People, not the States. The Senate represents the States.
Never mind that it locks in the two-party duality. Winner take all voting systems are inherently flawed.
Isn't that just what he said? And didn't he write the web site you're linking to?
Most statisticians are in that set.
What's despicable about it? Why should I not decry behavior I think is wrong?
I'll tell YOU what's despicable. Having the audacity to tell the State of Washington how to spend tax dollars, knowing full well that every state in the Union is strapped for cash. The audacity part comes in when you realize that Microsoft doesn't even PAY any taxes.
Want the situation to get better? Start destroying these megalith corporations that flaunt the law. Put commerce back in the hands of the people that really run this country's economy: Small businesses.
Uh huh. Markets are places where people go to exchange money for services and products. How much money has Firefox brought in?
The case rests, your honor.
So don't buy it. What's the problem?
Thanks for the factual update on the GPS constellation. I've slept since the last time I looked at that data. : )
I wasn't kidding when I said the fourth satellite locates you in time. When you get your three-space coordinates, you also get a very accurate time-hack. That's what I meant.
GPS relies on computations of distance based on the speed of light. If you know what time it "really" is, you subtract that value from the signal you've received from the GPS satellite. Multiply that time difference by the speed of light, and you've got the distance between you and that satellite. You now know that your location is somewhere on a sphere with the satellite at the center, and you know how big that sphere is. By getting a similar value from a second satellite, you've now located yourself on the circular intersection between two spheres. With a third satellite, you can locate yourself to one of two points (one of those points is way out in orbit, and it's disregarded).
However, your GPS unit doesn't usually have an atomic clock in it. Therefore, it needs another source to know what time it "really" is. It's a system of four simultaneous equations in X, Y, Z, and time.
When you can see more than four satellites, you're right, you get a progressively better position hack.
Sorry, I hate compromising my principles. Congress would destroy my soul.
We've already got laws against treason. I think those would work just fine.
What do we do to balance the legislature's moronicity?
I'd love to give you examples. Oh wait, all the information coming out of DOJ has been sanitized with a Sharpie.
Information might want to be free, but the Fed sure doesn't want you to get your grimy hands on it, citizen.
Hell, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...if THEY have nothing to hide, THEY should have nothing to fear!
Who benefits from an over-complex legal code? Lawyers.
Who's in Congress? Lawyers.
Guess what.
So what if I think that "traditional" methods of law enforcement are radically overbroad? (I'm thinking specifically of RICO and the DEA seizure rules)
The most egregious abuses of the PATRIOT act are the ones that got ruled on today. The gag order provisions make it impossible to know if the law is being abused. Judicial oversight is THE key part of our criminal justice system.
And, no, I don't think that anything more than the criminal justice system is needed to find and stop terrorists. We do not need to give up our freedoms to be safe.
My favourite part is the DOJ's response to ACLU's FOIA request for a list of people served under these "National Security Letters" (Basically, this is a subpoena for any information we want, and we're going to jail you if you say anything about it). Five page document. Every line blacked out. I'm sure that every single one of those people were real threats to national security. After all, our government says they were!
The GPS satellite system has a fair amount of redundancy. You'd have to knock out a large number of satellites (I can't remember if there are 17, or 30) in order to substantially degrade its utility.
Basically, in order to locate you in three dimensions, the GPS receiver needs to be able to see four satellites. (It's actually locating you in four dimensions: X, Y, Z, and time) It's possible you could knock out enough satellites that there were not four visible in the sky at all times, thereby making GPS unavailable in certain regions at certain times. Those patches of inactivity would be pretty tricky to predict, though.
Your typing is sure going downhill. Sounds like you're having a pleasant night indeed!
And yes, I am joking. More or less. : )
I've got a mayonnaise jar and some of these and we should be cool.