Greg did some really great research, figuring out how to access the box.
The way that most of us would use the Actiontec is to plug it into our wired/wireless router/switch, just as we would our cable/dsl modem. This would use one 100Mbps ethernet port. This leaves one unused 100Mbps ethernet port.
Items that have not yet been mentioned:
1) One could connect the second 100Mbps ethernet port to a cable/dsl modem and, by modifying the Actiontec's software, use the 56k modem as a fallback internet connection. If the Actiontec notices that the connected cable/dsl modem has become unresponsive, it could dial-up an ISP using it's own 56k modem.
2) One could also daisy-chain N Actiontec's and (with software modifications) have an N * 56k connection. ( One will also need N distinct phone lines.)
Item #1 is probably the most interesting to most of us, but item #2 is not a bad feature either and would likely use similar code. If anyone out there explores either of these ideas, I'd like to hear more about it.
As a software engineer, I know what its like to be handed a system and to see that there's something very wrong with it, and then be told to fix it. And, of course, any documentation provided is sparse and ambiguous.
In this situation ( a legacy system ) its always best to make as few changes as possible, since we can't accurately predict how the changes will affect the performance of the rest of the system.
The Electoral College has some flaws in it, but it has a valid use.
We live in a Federal Republic. A federation of 50 states. 50 seperate / parallel / distributed "countries," joined by a federal government.
Within this architecture, it is most appropriate for states to elect the President.
A direct ( popular ) election would clearly re-inforce the dominance of states with the largest populations, and furthermore lead to the dominance of the densest cities within those states.
Current Flaws
1) Electors that add a useless level of indirection, and are even dangerous in that they can vote in whatever manner they please; including opposing the underlying population.
2) A "winner takes all" approach to awarding electoral votes of a state to candidates.
Simple Solution
1) Electors MUST be replaced by "points." A state would have as many "Electoral Points" as it now has Electoral Votes.
When a candidate is awarded a point, it acts as the equivalent of an "automatic electoral vote."
This removes the useless and dangerous level of indirection. This also makes the election more direct, which co-opts part of the appeal of a "popular election."
2) The Electoral "Points" of a state MUST be awarded to candidates in proportion to the percentage of votes they won in that state. Only whole points would be awarded, and in the case of ties, any "odd" points would be discarded.
Example #1: Florida would have 25 electoral points. Assuming the following vote percentages ( Nader 20%; Bush 40%; Gore 40% ) the electoral points would be awarded as: Nader 5; Bush 20; Gore 20.
Example #2: In the case of a tie ( Bush 50%; Gore 50% ) the electoral points would be awarded as: Bush 12; Gore 12, with the remaining point being discarded.
Dividing points, allows for a more accurate reflection of the public's "will." Discarding the "odd point" in the case of a tie, and rounding to the nearest whole point, should also eliminate all the problems we've seen in the case where the margin of difference is so small.
Nader 2%; Bush 49%; Gore 49% would yield an awarding of Nader 0; Bush 12; Gore 12, with the remaining point discarded.
There would be no "hand recounts" because the percentage would not be changed enough to swing a point in any one direction. And because the points are divided ( in proportion to the popular vote within the state ), each candidate would not be so desperate for every last vote to be "counted."
Conclusion
This compromise system retains the correct granularity for the architecture of government we currently live under, yet provides a more direct and fair representation of "the will of the people."
Slashdot Mirror
The way that most of us would use the Actiontec is to plug it into our wired/wireless router/switch, just as we would our cable/dsl modem. This would use one 100Mbps ethernet port. This leaves one unused 100Mbps ethernet port.
Items that have not yet been mentioned:
1) One could connect the second 100Mbps ethernet port to a cable/dsl modem and, by modifying the Actiontec's software, use the 56k modem as a fallback internet connection. If the Actiontec notices that the connected cable/dsl modem has become unresponsive, it could dial-up an ISP using it's own 56k modem.
2) One could also daisy-chain N Actiontec's and (with software modifications) have an N * 56k connection. ( One will also need N distinct phone lines.)
Item #1 is probably the most interesting to most of us, but item #2 is not a bad feature either and would likely use similar code. If anyone out there explores either of these ideas, I'd like to hear more about it.
In this situation ( a legacy system ) its always best to make as few changes as possible, since we can't accurately predict how the changes will affect the performance of the rest of the system.
The Electoral College has some flaws in it, but it has a valid use.
We live in a Federal Republic. A federation of 50 states. 50 seperate / parallel / distributed "countries," joined by a federal government.
Within this architecture, it is most appropriate for states to elect the President.
A direct ( popular ) election would clearly re-inforce the dominance of states with the largest populations, and furthermore lead to the dominance of the densest cities within those states.
Current Flaws
1) Electors that add a useless level of indirection, and are even dangerous in that they can vote in whatever manner they please; including opposing the underlying population.
2) A "winner takes all" approach to awarding electoral votes of a state to candidates.
Simple Solution
1) Electors MUST be replaced by "points." A state would have as many "Electoral Points" as it now has Electoral Votes.
When a candidate is awarded a point, it acts as the equivalent of an "automatic electoral vote."
This removes the useless and dangerous level of indirection. This also makes the election more direct, which co-opts part of the appeal of a "popular election."
2) The Electoral "Points" of a state MUST be awarded to candidates in proportion to the percentage of votes they won in that state. Only whole points would be awarded, and in the case of ties, any "odd" points would be discarded.
Example #1: Florida would have 25 electoral points. Assuming the following vote percentages ( Nader 20%; Bush 40%; Gore 40% ) the electoral points would be awarded as: Nader 5; Bush 20; Gore 20.
Example #2: In the case of a tie ( Bush 50%; Gore 50% ) the electoral points would be awarded as: Bush 12; Gore 12, with the remaining point being discarded.
Dividing points, allows for a more accurate reflection of the public's "will." Discarding the "odd point" in the case of a tie, and rounding to the nearest whole point, should also eliminate all the problems we've seen in the case where the margin of difference is so small.
Nader 2%; Bush 49%; Gore 49% would yield an awarding of Nader 0; Bush 12; Gore 12, with the remaining point discarded.
There would be no "hand recounts" because the percentage would not be changed enough to swing a point in any one direction. And because the points are divided ( in proportion to the popular vote within the state ), each candidate would not be so desperate for every last vote to be "counted."
Conclusion
This compromise system retains the correct granularity for the architecture of government we currently live under, yet provides a more direct and fair representation of "the will of the people."
Does anyone want to start a petition?