Mules run on partly celulosic biofuels, which they convert directly into mechanical energy at the point it's needed. They include advanced elastic shock-absorbers which actually return energy for the power stroke. They have autonomous capabilities and vision systems that put any robot to shame.
Robotics is trying to imitate all of these aspects, and is probably making great strides. But if I want to carry something over a mountain pass, give me today's mule over the 8-years-from-now robotic mule any day. Wheels, propellors, jet engines, are a way to beat nature, because evolution isn't very good at those things. But four-legged travel has been optimized by nature (and slightly reoptimized by human breeding to carry burdens). You won't beat it with any foreseeable technology, and you won't make the unforeseeable come any faster with research in this area.
Abandoning gears has been obvious for some time - for instance, there's no support in the linux version of Chrome. However, the question is, when willl existing google services based on Gears move to HTML5? The most important one of these being, of course, offline gmail. Google has demonstrated a mobile offline gmail prototype using HTML5 around the beginning of 2009, so the delay is hard to justify on a technical basis.
One wonders if they haven't made a policy decision not to support offline gmail - to force you to use the online, ad-containing version. If that is true, it would be yet another straw on the back of the "don't be evil" camel.
I use Mozilla myself and wouldn't touch hotmail with a 10 foot pole on my own account. But I have to leave an IE icon on my desktop for my friends to use hotmail. Hotmail gets more hits from my computer than all other IE-only sites combined, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's normal.
So, can anyone answer the question? If the answer is "yes", I'm switching in a heartbeat.
"The total number of American deaths from nuclear power is incredibly small compared to that of coal/oil/natural gas and their related activities (such as coal mining)."
Totally revolting. American deaths are all that matter? If you had really just wanted to rule out deaths in cases like Chernobyl, you could have said "American nuclear power" rather than "American deaths".
It is fair to rule out Chernobyl, where a propaganda-centered media* let decision-makers buy their own lies about safety far more than they would have in the US. But the very phrase "fewer american deaths" is repulsive.
*a media that was marketing its consumers minds to a monolithic government, rather than to a varied set of advertisers like most US media.
I want my next laptop to have no big honking LCD, just an LED-based HUD. I don't mind ugly wires because I'm not looking for wearable, just to save the biggest power hog (not to mention space, weight, and $) in the entire laptop (imagine: without a screen, and with some clever keyboard design, the whole notebook could be built to fold in half, making a much more carryable object). I know that micro-LED arrays, on a single chip and suitable for HUD, are much easier to build than a full-sized screen and I think they're already on the market. Are my tastes just too unusual for such a device to make it to market from a reliable manufacturer? Do people really need the ability for two pairs of eyes to share a monitor that much that they can't wait 'til they find an old CRT to plug into?
goes without saying: such a device could start to really benefit from lower-power processors.
These days they're called "activists". And, contrary to what you may assume, they do win victories and make real changes. If you study social history (that is, the history of what freedoms average people have throughout history, including the freedoms that come from having something in your wallet) without the blinders of "progress" or its opposite, you'll see that freedoms go up and down, and that they tend to go up only when large groups of people spend real energy getting together and holding the leaders accountable. A vote is only the first baby step in that direction - you need to develop your own media so that people can keep track of EXACTLY when their representatives stab them in the back; and your own networks, united by some actual common interests and non-politicizing activities to promote those interests, but able to be mobilized into protest when necessary. This is no easier or harder today than it was for the labor movement or the civil rights movement or (hmmm... a right-wing example to balance things out...) the Cristeros in Mexico in the 30s (that's probably BS, I hardly know anything about them...).
... and we'd have a system so that as many people as possible could have a representative that they had voted for (proportional representation, possible not only with todays technology but with simple paper. It works because you forego the fact that 51% of people in an arbitrary gerrymandered district have the right to a local representative, and pool the similar voters across wider areas. In a state with 9 reps, in the current system, 49% of the people can end up fundamentally disagreeing with "their" rep; under PR, no more than 10% wouldn't have a rep they'd helped to choose.)...
... and we'd keep the power to switch our vote whenever we felt like it if the representative started doing important things we really didn't like (easy with today's technology)...
... and we'd keep our power to cast our own miniscule individual vote on the issues that we really cared about enough to have an opinion seperate from our representative (also possible)...
... and we'd make sure that the representatives were getting paid by the voters, that they didn't become dependent (either personally or politically) on sources of money that don't represent the interests of their constituents...
Oh, wait, doesn't look so very much like the current system anymore, does it? But it IS possible. You could even do a lot of this without changing the constitution.
OK, well obviously ClearChannel doesn't have a monopoly, you can easily tune to a non-clearchannel station. But the point is that as more and more media get owned by fewer and fewer bigger companies, not only do everyone's choices diminish (duh) but even within those diminished choices you still have will be fundamentally _less_ open to pesky unprofitables such as journalistic or DJ ethics. These guys are in it for the bucks - not selling music to listeners, but selling listeners to the even-more-lovable music publishing industry.
The solution is therefore not to squawk at ClearChannel but to push for anti-monopoly measures such as real antitrust and community low-power radio. In other words, hee hee, ITS MICROSOFT'S FAULT.
it's called "copyright" but it really should be called "copyproperty". It establishes not an inalienable right but a saleable piece of IP. In this case, strengthening copyright may have temporary, minor edge effects in the individual authors vs. megacorps battle, but in the long run it makes no difference here. In the long run, this matters more in the (intellectual) producers vs. consumers terrain, which IMHO is already skewed way towards producers to the point where the public interest is all on the consumer side.
Race is a fiction. Knowing that someone is "caucasian looking" or whatever tells you very little about history. If you want to really get a historical understanding of large-scale movements and dominations and where breakthrough technologies came from and how they spread, you should look to linguistics (For instance, it's especially clear in Africa, where linguistic communities still overlap geographically sometimes more than they do technologically). But whoops, sorry, that's just a bunch of "soft" inferences, not a "hard" science like genetics.
However, "Condorcet" is not a descriptive name for a voting system. Call it "Instant Pairwise Runoff Voting". That way it sounds more palatable to IRV supporters. It also emphasizes that the two are related improvements on the current system.
Both are ranked ballot methods. Unlike the Borda count, neither one rewards partisan tactical voting (favoring your favorite candidate by lying about your less favored candidates). However, IRV rewards defensive tactical voting (disfavoring a hated candidate by lying about preferred candidates), whereas IPRV/Condorcet does not.
Also, IPRV can deal better with "spoiled" ballots and recounts. Each ballot can be counted in any pairwise race where it's unambiguous. The matrixes of pairwise preferences can be hand-counted and added precinct-by-precinct. Ballots with X's instead of numbers, or duplicate numbers, or indecipherable numbers can still be counted as a matrix, simply put a 0 wherever it's ambiguous. This is not so for IRV.
We need a TLD for parody, vitriol, and critique. A TLD where the owner of a trademark is the only entity who is guaranteed NOT to own the corresponding domain. A place for virtual picket lines, so we aren't forced to sink to virtual graffiti. SUPPORT THE.NOT TLD
Who's throwing away those votes? In my view, it is not the people who cast them, but the people who count them. This result points out more clearly than ever the need for ranked ballots, where nobody's vote would get thrown away.
(The best-known ranked ballot system is IRV, which is indeed far superior to the current plurality system. However, I'm disappointed that more/.ers don't see the geeky reasons why Condorcet voting is even better.)
(As a response to your "I hope you're happy" flamebait: I am happy. Democracy means you don't get to second-guess anybody else's vote, but since you asked, I'll tell you about my vote. I think Gore is better than Bush by a razor-thin margin, although on several issues (encryption, military interventionism) Bush is actually better. But far more important than the tiny differences between Bush and Gore - far more important even than any message my Nader vote may have sent on issues such as fair trade and military spending - is the long-term health of our democracy. If this election leads to electoral reform, it will be easily worth it. I respect your reasons for your vote, I respect the supporters of Bush and Brown and Buchanan, now how about we stop pointing fingers and fix what's broken.)
Electors do have the right to change their minds. But electors are chosen from committed party members of the winning party (they are NOT chosen before the election). That is why fewer than 1 in 1000 electors votes "faithlessly". It is also why "faithless" electors always vote for a MORE RADICAL candidate instead of switching sides (in this case, analagous to Bush electors going for Buchanan). And all 4 of the 20th century faithless electors have admitted under oath before congress that they would not have switched their vote if the election hinged on it.
"It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet."--Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000
But it takes more than such bloopers to fail the turing test. It's longer quotes, like the extended quote in this article that make it totally clear that he's nothing but a markov engine.
This is a hoax! (Now mod this up, like the other 15 messages)
Seriously, something has gone wrong when the only modded up responses to a serious piece of satire are "this is satire". Possible solutions:
1. You can't underestimate the intelligence of a mob, even a/. mob. When you're posting a satire news story, even when it should be blindingly obvious that it is satire, SAY SO IN THE HEADLINE.
2. In the "preview" screen, put all the posts that have been posted since the user started typing the comment. That way if you're saying something obvious you can double check to see if someone else was thinking the same thing at the same time.
3. When a comment has hit 5, change its moderation box: add a (+1, Vital information). If it gets 2 or 3 of these points, add it to the story itself, so people don't have to read the comments to get something that changes the whole impact of the story.
Until that msg, I supported IRV over Condorcet. "Sure it's not as good", I rationalized, "But it's easier to explain and easier to recount by hand in case of suspected fraud. Also, it has more momentum." Now I realize it is more subject to fraud, and that they are really about the same difficulty to explain.
But I still think either one is a lot better than what we have. OK, IRV preserves the 2 major party/many minor parties split, but not as violently. Major parties would have to at least pay real attention to the minors in order to give those voters a reason to vote defensively/strategically. And most importantly, the media couldn't ignore the minors, and they would get their issues before the public (perhaps even in their terms!).
If you know any IRV supporters, try to explain why Condorcet is better. But please, don't turn off to IRV just because it's imperfect. Either is worlds better than plurality.
This is the deal they made when they signed on to the constitution. Unfair, but not drastically so. Arguably these "minorities" (esp. Alaskans, who really do have a different set of interests than mainlanders) need the protection. IMO not worth fighting over.
Extra weight for people who happen to be in the majority in their state.
This mostly sucks. The only reasonable argument in favor is that it makes things more unpredictable, makes polling harder, and thus motivates candidates not to rest on a small lead. However, on the whole, the same candidate still wins the popular and electoral races, so IMO this is not the huge deal people make of it.
Extra weight for weaker majorities as opposed to strong ones.
This is actually a good thing, as it gives broader national candidates an edge over purely regional candidates, as it did for Hayes in 1888.
Decentralizes control over voting methods
It is only because of this state-by-state system that we can realistically talk about moving to a better system (Condorcet or IRV, discussed elsewhere). Statewide initiatives or laws currently have a real chance in Alaska, New Mexico, Washington, and Vermont.
Yes, the electoral college distorts the popular vote by a few percent every 80 years or so. But it allows the real possibility for change in the plurality voting system (The reason Clinton won with a minority in '92). The chance to change that system (which routinely throws away all 3rd party votes, silencing at least 10% and forcing the majority to choose the $-sanctioned alternative they hate the least) makes the electoral college a good thing in my book.
ObOnTopic:... and that's why I'm not trading away my Nader vote. A good kick in the pants may convince the Dems to support Condorcet or IRV in my state (WA).
You say Arrow's theorem proves you can't trust bureaucracy. But it applies equally to non-centralized means of decision-making such as markets.
(Actually, it doesn't entirely apply in either situation. Arrow's theorem only proves that no system can be perfect only by using ordinal information. Cardinal systems that take into account the strength of people's preferences can still be optimal.
This means that you can't run a society only by voting, because once you're inside the ballot booth there is nothing to stop you from tactically exaggerating the strength of your preferences. Systems that allow lobbying allow rich people to make monetary sacrifices to emphasize the strength of their preferences, and thus can be optimal for rich people. Systems that allow activism allow people without overriding commitments to make sacrifices of time and sometimes freedom to emphasize the strength of their preferences, and thus can be optimal for young people, raging grannies, and zealots. In either case, voting systems are a necessary counterbalance.
No cardinal system has yet been invented that can encompass everyone, but that doesn't mean one is impossible.)
Who on the web will publish early exit polls so we can carry out this strategy effectively?
(Of course, if Alaska or New Mexico (or Washington or Vermont) starts a state-by-state stampede to instant-runoff voting or other non-plurality system, we won't have to rely on such contorted tactics.)
Slashdot Mirror
Mules run on partly celulosic biofuels, which they convert directly into mechanical energy at the point it's needed. They include advanced elastic shock-absorbers which actually return energy for the power stroke. They have autonomous capabilities and vision systems that put any robot to shame.
Robotics is trying to imitate all of these aspects, and is probably making great strides. But if I want to carry something over a mountain pass, give me today's mule over the 8-years-from-now robotic mule any day. Wheels, propellors, jet engines, are a way to beat nature, because evolution isn't very good at those things. But four-legged travel has been optimized by nature (and slightly reoptimized by human breeding to carry burdens). You won't beat it with any foreseeable technology, and you won't make the unforeseeable come any faster with research in this area.
Ordoñez, with an ñ.
Abandoning gears has been obvious for some time - for instance, there's no support in the linux version of Chrome. However, the question is, when willl existing google services based on Gears move to HTML5? The most important one of these being, of course, offline gmail. Google has demonstrated a mobile offline gmail prototype using HTML5 around the beginning of 2009, so the delay is hard to justify on a technical basis.
One wonders if they haven't made a policy decision not to support offline gmail - to force you to use the online, ad-containing version. If that is true, it would be yet another straw on the back of the "don't be evil" camel.
... no, I'm serious.
I use Mozilla myself and wouldn't touch hotmail with a 10 foot pole on my own account. But I have to leave an IE icon on my desktop for my friends to use hotmail. Hotmail gets more hits from my computer than all other IE-only sites combined, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's normal.
So, can anyone answer the question? If the answer is "yes", I'm switching in a heartbeat.
"The total number of American deaths from nuclear power is incredibly small compared to that of coal/oil/natural gas and their related activities (such as coal mining)."
Totally revolting. American deaths are all that matter? If you had really just wanted to rule out deaths in cases like Chernobyl, you could have said "American nuclear power" rather than "American deaths".
It is fair to rule out Chernobyl, where a propaganda-centered media* let decision-makers buy their own lies about safety far more than they would have in the US. But the very phrase "fewer american deaths" is repulsive.
*a media that was marketing its consumers minds to a monolithic government, rather than to a varied set of advertisers like most US media.
I want my next laptop to have no big honking LCD, just an LED-based HUD. I don't mind ugly wires because I'm not looking for wearable, just to save the biggest power hog (not to mention space, weight, and $) in the entire laptop (imagine: without a screen, and with some clever keyboard design, the whole notebook could be built to fold in half, making a much more carryable object). I know that micro-LED arrays, on a single chip and suitable for HUD, are much easier to build than a full-sized screen and I think they're already on the market. Are my tastes just too unusual for such a device to make it to market from a reliable manufacturer? Do people really need the ability for two pairs of eyes to share a monitor that much that they can't wait 'til they find an old CRT to plug into?
goes without saying: such a device could start to really benefit from lower-power processors.
These days they're called "activists". And, contrary to what you may assume, they do win victories and make real changes. If you study social history (that is, the history of what freedoms average people have throughout history, including the freedoms that come from having something in your wallet) without the blinders of "progress" or its opposite, you'll see that freedoms go up and down, and that they tend to go up only when large groups of people spend real energy getting together and holding the leaders accountable. A vote is only the first baby step in that direction - you need to develop your own media so that people can keep track of EXACTLY when their representatives stab them in the back; and your own networks, united by some actual common interests and non-politicizing activities to promote those interests, but able to be mobilized into protest when necessary. This is no easier or harder today than it was for the labor movement or the civil rights movement or (hmmm... a right-wing example to balance things out...) the Cristeros in Mexico in the 30s (that's probably BS, I hardly know anything about them...).
... and we'd have a system so that as many people as possible could have a representative that they had voted for (proportional representation, possible not only with todays technology but with simple paper. It works because you forego the fact that 51% of people in an arbitrary gerrymandered district have the right to a local representative, and pool the similar voters across wider areas. In a state with 9 reps, in the current system, 49% of the people can end up fundamentally disagreeing with "their" rep; under PR, no more than 10% wouldn't have a rep they'd helped to choose.)...
...
... and we'd keep the power to switch our vote whenever we felt like it if the representative started doing important things we really didn't like (easy with today's technology)...
... and we'd keep our power to cast our own miniscule individual vote on the issues that we really cared about enough to have an opinion seperate from our representative (also possible)
... and we'd make sure that the representatives were getting paid by the voters, that they didn't become dependent (either personally or politically) on sources of money that don't represent the interests of their constituents...
Oh, wait, doesn't look so very much like the current system anymore, does it? But it IS possible. You could even do a lot of this without changing the constitution.
OK, well obviously ClearChannel doesn't have a monopoly, you can easily tune to a non-clearchannel station. But the point is that as more and more media get owned by fewer and fewer bigger companies, not only do everyone's choices diminish (duh) but even within those diminished choices you still have will be fundamentally _less_ open to pesky unprofitables such as journalistic or DJ ethics. These guys are in it for the bucks - not selling music to listeners, but selling listeners to the even-more-lovable music publishing industry.
The solution is therefore not to squawk at ClearChannel but to push for anti-monopoly measures such as real antitrust and community low-power radio. In other words, hee hee, ITS MICROSOFT'S FAULT.
natch
it's called "copyright" but it really should be called "copyproperty". It establishes not an inalienable right but a saleable piece of IP. In this case, strengthening copyright may have temporary, minor edge effects in the individual authors vs. megacorps battle, but in the long run it makes no difference here. In the long run, this matters more in the (intellectual) producers vs. consumers terrain, which IMHO is already skewed way towards producers to the point where the public interest is all on the consumer side.
Race is a fiction. Knowing that someone is "caucasian looking" or whatever tells you very little about history. If you want to really get a historical understanding of large-scale movements and dominations and where breakthrough technologies came from and how they spread, you should look to linguistics (For instance, it's especially clear in Africa, where linguistic communities still overlap geographically sometimes more than they do technologically). But whoops, sorry, that's just a bunch of "soft" inferences, not a "hard" science like genetics.
Mod me down, the Pim up. He's right.
However, "Condorcet" is not a descriptive name for a voting system. Call it "Instant Pairwise Runoff Voting". That way it sounds more palatable to IRV supporters. It also emphasizes that the two are related improvements on the current system.
Both are ranked ballot methods. Unlike the Borda count, neither one rewards partisan tactical voting (favoring your favorite candidate by lying about your less favored candidates). However, IRV rewards defensive tactical voting (disfavoring a hated candidate by lying about preferred candidates), whereas IPRV/Condorcet does not.
Also, IPRV can deal better with "spoiled" ballots and recounts. Each ballot can be counted in any pairwise race where it's unambiguous. The matrixes of pairwise preferences can be hand-counted and added precinct-by-precinct. Ballots with X's instead of numbers, or duplicate numbers, or indecipherable numbers can still be counted as a matrix, simply put a 0 wherever it's ambiguous. This is not so for IRV.
We need a TLD for parody, vitriol, and critique. A TLD where the owner of a trademark is the only entity who is guaranteed NOT to own the corresponding domain. A place for virtual picket lines, so we aren't forced to sink to virtual graffiti. SUPPORT THE .NOT TLD
Who's throwing away those votes? In my view, it is not the people who cast them, but the people who count them. This result points out more clearly than ever the need for ranked ballots, where nobody's vote would get thrown away.
/.ers don't see the geeky reasons why Condorcet voting is even better.)
(The best-known ranked ballot system is IRV, which is indeed far superior to the current plurality system. However, I'm disappointed that more
(As a response to your "I hope you're happy" flamebait: I am happy. Democracy means you don't get to second-guess anybody else's vote, but since you asked, I'll tell you about my vote. I think Gore is better than Bush by a razor-thin margin, although on several issues (encryption, military interventionism) Bush is actually better. But far more important than the tiny differences between Bush and Gore - far more important even than any message my Nader vote may have sent on issues such as fair trade and military spending - is the long-term health of our democracy. If this election leads to electoral reform, it will be easily worth it. I respect your reasons for your vote, I respect the supporters of Bush and Brown and Buchanan, now how about we stop pointing fingers and fix what's broken.)
Electors do have the right to change their minds. But electors are chosen from committed party members of the winning party (they are NOT chosen before the election). That is why fewer than 1 in 1000 electors votes "faithlessly". It is also why "faithless" electors always vote for a MORE RADICAL candidate instead of switching sides (in this case, analagous to Bush electors going for Buchanan). And all 4 of the 20th century faithless electors have admitted under oath before congress that they would not have switched their vote if the election hinged on it.
"It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet."--Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000
But it takes more than such bloopers to fail the turing test. It's longer quotes, like the extended quote in this article that make it totally clear that he's nothing but a markov engine.
This is a hoax! (Now mod this up, like the other 15 messages)
/. mob. When you're posting a satire news story, even when it should be blindingly obvious that it is satire, SAY SO IN THE HEADLINE.
Seriously, something has gone wrong when the only modded up responses to a serious piece of satire are "this is satire". Possible solutions:
1. You can't underestimate the intelligence of a mob, even a
2. In the "preview" screen, put all the posts that have been posted since the user started typing the comment. That way if you're saying something obvious you can double check to see if someone else was thinking the same thing at the same time.
3. When a comment has hit 5, change its moderation box: add a (+1, Vital information). If it gets 2 or 3 of these points, add it to the story itself, so people don't have to read the comments to get something that changes the whole impact of the story.
Until that msg, I supported IRV over Condorcet. "Sure it's not as good", I rationalized, "But it's easier to explain and easier to recount by hand in case of suspected fraud. Also, it has more momentum." Now I realize it is more subject to fraud, and that they are really about the same difficulty to explain.
But I still think either one is a lot better than what we have. OK, IRV preserves the 2 major party/many minor parties split, but not as violently. Major parties would have to at least pay real attention to the minors in order to give those voters a reason to vote defensively/strategically. And most importantly, the media couldn't ignore the minors, and they would get their issues before the public (perhaps even in their terms!).
If you know any IRV supporters, try to explain why Condorcet is better. But please, don't turn off to IRV just because it's imperfect. Either is worlds better than plurality.
Decentralizes control over voting methods
Yes, the electoral college distorts the popular vote by a few percent every 80 years or so. But it allows the real possibility for change in the plurality voting system (The reason Clinton won with a minority in '92). The chance to change that system (which routinely throws away all 3rd party votes, silencing at least 10% and forcing the majority to choose the $-sanctioned alternative they hate the least) makes the electoral college a good thing in my book.
ObOnTopic:... and that's why I'm not trading away my Nader vote. A good kick in the pants may convince the Dems to support Condorcet or IRV in my state (WA).
You say Arrow's theorem proves you can't trust bureaucracy. But it applies equally to non-centralized means of decision-making such as markets.
(Actually, it doesn't entirely apply in either situation. Arrow's theorem only proves that no system can be perfect only by using ordinal information. Cardinal systems that take into account the strength of people's preferences can still be optimal.
This means that you can't run a society only by voting, because once you're inside the ballot booth there is nothing to stop you from tactically exaggerating the strength of your preferences. Systems that allow lobbying allow rich people to make monetary sacrifices to emphasize the strength of their preferences, and thus can be optimal for rich people. Systems that allow activism allow people without overriding commitments to make sacrifices of time and sometimes freedom to emphasize the strength of their preferences, and thus can be optimal for young people, raging grannies, and zealots. In either case, voting systems are a necessary counterbalance.
No cardinal system has yet been invented that can encompass everyone, but that doesn't mean one is impossible.)
or are you honestly endorsing censorship?
Who gets to be the censor?
oops forgot the . Clicking on the words "platform" still works right.
You're probably conflating the socialists and greens based on the Green Party USA platform, which is different from Nader's much saner Association of State Green Parties platform. You can compare the two on the GPUSA website
btw I know the subject line has messed up precedence.
Who on the web will publish early exit polls so we can carry out this strategy effectively?
(Of course, if Alaska or New Mexico (or Washington or Vermont) starts a state-by-state stampede to instant-runoff voting or other non-plurality system, we won't have to rely on such contorted tactics.)