If half of organic wastes are decomposed after twenty years, then you have that much fresh space to re-fill with municipal waste.
What do you think happens in decomposition? Do you think that all that decomposed organic waste evaporates and drifts away on the wind? You still have lots of solid matter left behind. That's what soil is.
Forget Sony, it's Disney that's the kiss of death. Anyone else remember what company was the biggest backer of DIVX? How about the self-oxidizing, disposeable EZ-D format?
Actually, people might be willing to do this, but tax preparation companies' and CPAs' lobbyists aren't willing to let us do it. Welcome to the world of sell-out governance.
Curious question: What's your stance about laws barring concealed carry of firearms in places where alcohol is served? Is that an Unconstitutional violation of 2nd Amendment rights, or a reasonable restriction for public safety?
2. cable routing... run the video cable around the wall.
Then up the wall to the projector where it's mounted in the ceiling? Not me. Do you prefer the projector to be lower where people can walk in front of it? Also not good for my seating arrangement.
3. bulb replacement? in 3 years I've never replaced the bulb in my DLP projector
Cool. I've always just seen that listed as a downside to projectors, but I've never owned one. An LCD screen's backlight is supposed to last for about 10 years.
4. cost... used to be high but projectors now start at under $1000.
Show me a $1000 1080p native resolution DLP -- not a 720p that supports 1080i/p signals. Come on, I double-dog dare you.
5. ambient lighting... true! but i don't couchsurf during the day anyhow - hate to waste daylight. movies are for nighttime!
Unfortunately, my sleep cycle is easily affected by watching bright movies at night. Plus, this is also meant to be my computer screen (which is one reason why 1080p is so important to me).
These are just my reasons, really. They may not be valid for others. My roommate constantly complains about my obsession with hiding wiring and derides my wireless router all the time. To be honest, the system I wanted to get was going to be a 1080p DLP RPTV, but the release date kept getting pushed back, and the price jumped to nearly 5 digits. I almost waited so that I could get the superior DLP constrast ratio. Anyway, all systems involve tradeoffs.
I'll list my reasons for going with Sharp's 45" AQUOS instead of a front projector:
Projectors are noisy and hot as you mentioned.
Cable routing is a problem. I live in an apartment and can't route through my ceiling to hide cables.
Bulb replacements can be expensive and are needed far more frequently than for an LCD.
1080p DLP (and LCoS) projectors are even more expensive than current LCDs (but probably not this monstrosity). A good high-contrast screen is even more money.
Ambient lighting (such as sunlight) can mess with a projector's image quality, and I don't live in a cave.
A 102" Plasma? Why, so your kid can race his Hot Wheels between the pixels on it, or do you just prefer hardware with an expiration date? I don't think my living room's big enough to put enough distance between my chair and that TV to let it look good.
It's the same principle as those ferrite clamps that you put on speaker cables to dampen current spikes and other sudden line noise. If you own a PS2, take a look at the controller cable. That think cylinder near the plug is a noise dampener just like the one I described.
This is the same sort of ad hominem conjecture used against global warming studies. Publicly funded studies get their money from the government. That's what publicly funded MEANS. Private funding typically splits into two broad categories -- industry funded and not. Very little research on this has been done by private non-corporate groups to accuse of having an agenda. Unless you can come up with a good reason for government funded research to be openly and prejudicially biased against the industry, your argument is groundless. Explain what the "agenda" be might that you accuse people studying cell phone radiation of being possibly part of.
Once again, this is the same sort of argument that tobacco supporters used. It's classic technique that I like to call "The Pot Calling the Silverware Black."
There is an entire field of research in industrial chemistry right now to see how microwaves can affect chemical reactions and promote certain reaction paths over others. You don't have to break an molecular bond to have an effect on chemistry. Microwave heating, even at very low levels, can significant speed up certain reactions. Enzymes in particular seem subject to this effect at very low power levels. (Read this, look for a paragraph 2/3 down.)
Futhermore, I remembered some of Lai's more recent research just a few seconds ago. Remember an article several months ago about 50-60 Hz magnetic fields doing DNA damage to rat brains? That was the same guy.
Basically, in his paper, he put forth the theory that an iron-mediated reaction is going wrong when rats are exposed to alternating magnetic fields. Even though the fields are not enough to break covalent bonds, there is an iron-mediated reaction that turn hydrogen peroxide into hydroxyl free radicals that they theorize is affected by the magnetic fields. When they introduced an oxidative free radical chelating agent into the mice, DNA damage from magnetic fields ceased.
I'm a minimalist w/ my cellphone for reasons other than radiation... but seems to me we need something better than "50% of studies say it's an issue."
This is the problem with sound-bytes. If you actually read the article, you'd notice that a lot of the article is about industry tainting of research through a carrot-and-stick approach. Lai notes that if you split up the studies into publicly and industry funded studies, you see that 75% of publicly funded studies show a problem and 80% of industry funded studies show no problem.
In other words, 75% of studies with no obvious pro-industry conflict of interest say that it's an issue. Not that it matters for those who don't want to change their lives; merely 5% of researchers (and a host of people who aren't climate scientists) dissenting has been good enough for people who don't want to act on global warming.
Bah, the other poster's elephants analogy is a better counter-argument anyway.
Be careful: Some headsets are used as antennas for the cell phone. That would contradict the goal you are trying to achieve.
Actually, apparently all headset wires will act as an antenna for cell phone signals, even in models where that's not part of the designed functionality. Studies have shown that using a wired headset can increase your exposure to cell phone radiation by up to 3X. However, clipping a ferrite bead on the wire is suffcient to dampen radio coming off it to negligible levels. These beads are really easy to find online.
Perhaps a bluetooth headset can minimize the energy which your DNA in the brain has to absorb.
A bluetooth headset does use significantly less power than a cell phone. I believe the SAR for a bluetooth headset is less than 0.1 W as opposed to the 0.6-1.2 W for an average digital cell phone.
Umm - why did you decide to exclude the rest of the information?
Because it's just like global warming to him!
People who desperately want the scientists to be wrong will quote bad statistics to support the industry shills who say that everything's really okay and that we can continue living like we are now with no need to inconvenience ourselves.
There is just a certain mentality -- a personality type, if you will -- that will desperately cling to any dissenters from mainstream science as the real bearers of the truth if these "scientists" claim that the person has always been right to do what they've done. Facts, methodology, and improper influence mean nothing compared to conviction in one's way of life. You see this in the global warming "debate," the smoking "debate," the cell-phone driving "debate," and now the cell-phone radiation "debate."
Never mind that the article documents intimidation by the industry against researchers. Never mind that industry funding comes with all sorts of strings to try to ensure pro-industry findings. Never mind that research from non-tainted sources is overwhelmingly in favor of there being a problem while the majority of naysayers are subject to pro-industry conflict of interest and intimidation. It's an even split! Therefore, the science must be inconclusive! Just like all that silly nonsense about cigarettes being bad for your health or humans affecting the planet!
1) Go into joint Baskin-Robins / ToGo's / Dunkin Donuts store. 2) Get your favorite chocolatey ice cream for free. 3) Place in coffee cup. 4) Ask clerk at Duncan Donuts / ToGo's part of store to microwave free ice cream for 2-3 minutes. 5) Pr..! I mean, drink and enjoy.
Tin Roof Sundae Vanilla flavored no sugar added lowfat ice cream with choco peanuts and a nsa chocolate ribbon.
An NSA chocolate ribbon? Holy crap, the feds have infiltrated the HerseyNestleGhiraldi triumvirate and are implanting secret fluoride mind control drugs in our ice cream!
It's time to get our own tin roofs and shield our heads from the mind-control laser satellites that will activate the fluoride encoded commands in our food supply by wrapping a protective high-albedo layer of aluminium foil around our heads!
And, if you don't believe all of this, then you're obviously educated stupid.
There are many applications for which mechanical methods are inherently superior to biological ones due to limitations of biological life. For example, despite its obvious efficiency, why do you think that no life on Earth has evovled wheels? Why are hydraulics not subject to the cube-square rule that limits muscular efficiency? How much food do you think it would take to feed a city of living skyscrapers, and how long would it take to grow them instead of build them? How would you air condition the buildings? What do you do if the buildings catch an incurable disease (say through an act of bioterrorism) and die?
I did a lot of thinking about this when designing a SF setting a long time ago and came to the conclusion that "living everything" is a suboptimal solution unless you come from somewhere with no useable mineral and metal deposits (like a carbon and nitrogen "rich" gas giant). "Cyborg Technology" that uses living systems in the few places where they're better and mechanical systems for structure, propulsion, etc. are much, much more likely.
Sheesh! LCD doesn't have burn-in and makes an excellent PC monitor. I've getting a Sharp 45" AQUOS primary for use with my HTPC.
Sure, it's pricey, but everything with better than 720p resolution is pricey, especially the coming 1080p DLP sets. Then again, if 1280 X 720 is good enough for you, then price becomes a compelling factor as you say.
The more developed ones tend towards more logical thinking and less fanatism. Witness, where Iran, Afghanastan, and the USA is at today vs. more developed countries such as most in the EU, Japan, etc.
I think you need a better grasp of history. Look at the values nations you listed such as Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc. at circa 1890, circa 1940, and circa 2000. You definitely see an oscillation between values that prize reason, adventure, and openness vs. values that prize moral rigidity, fanatical worship, and xenophobia.
Left to right, secular to relgious, etc. swings happen even in Japan and the EU. The current secular dominance of thought in Europe post WW2 cannot fully be considered to be permanent sign of "development" in such a short time when considered against the backdrop of world history.
This is fascinating, but the writeup is pure flamebait. I know most geeks are atheists who don't grock all this "religion", but we'd do better to ignore the religious types who won't have any part in the future anyway. This stuff will just move to Singapore or the like as the backwards people oppose it. I'm studying neuroscience, and I have more problems with rat-rights or monkey-rights people (who may be in a different political party).
Speaking of flamebait... sheesh!
Have you ever taken an ethics class? Saying that other people will commit evil to get ahead is never a justification for doing it yourself. Should we torture prisoners to get information about terrorists? Why not? Many people would object on moral grounds, but would you agree that we should "ignore the religious types who won't have any part in the future anyway?" After all, "this stuff will just move to [Syria] or the like as the backwards people oppose it."
Why don't we experiment on the homeless (or whoever else we decide not to care about currently)? What basis do your ethics have for supporting or rejecting this idea? Are humans special in your philosophy compared to animals? What makes your moral and ethical decision (which is not based on religion) any more valid than that of someone else?
(My stance on these issues is irrelevant to this; I just can't stand a blowhard whether they're a rabid fundamentalist Christian or a rabid fundamentalist Atheist who is convinced that they're views are inherently morally, ethically, and logically superior to everyone else's.)
And why are only these two standpoints ever mentioned? Are there only two parties? What if I'm not satisfied with those two? Am I allowed to start my own party?
The problem with the US's political parties is the existence of the electoral college. The President -- head of the executive branch of government (which is currently arguably the most powerful branch) -- is elected through the electoral college, a system by which each state selects a group of electors to go and cast votes for President on behalf of the people. In 48 out of 50 states, all electors go to whichever candidate gets the most votes in that state. An in-depth history is here.
The country can only support two viable parties as a mathematical consequence. If a third party gains a significant share of the vote (say 5% or more), it will sap strength from the party whose views are closest to theirs in a Presidential like the Reform party did to the Republicans when Clinton was elected and like the Green Party did to the Democrats when Bush was elected. This causes people who may like a third party candidate better to vote with the lesser of two evils instead to prevent the worst-case scenario. As a result, no third party ever gains enough political clout and campaign financing to compete.
The electoral college also has a few other effects on American politics. Since almost all states have an all-or-nothing approach to portioning out votes, there are only a few states in each election that can swing either way, which are called swing states. In 2000, it was said that Bush won by only a few hundred votes (despite losing the national popular vote) by winning that margin in the swing state of Florida. In this past election, Ohio was the deciding state. Republican sentiment typicall has strongest sway in rural and suburban areas while Democratic sentiment has strongest sway in urban and coastal areas. If you're a liberal in Atlanta, Georgia or a conservative in northern California, your vote doesn't mean jack except for your House and state government officials despite the fact that most of your neighbors agree with you. Presidential and Senate votes are going to be dominated by the rest of the state. Also, thanks to the small state-large state compromise behind the way that electoral seats are proportioned out, states with low population density have more say than they would if seats were based purely on population.
Personally, I think the electoral college should be abolished. It promotes political stagnation, unfairly rewards small population states, and is obsolete for many of the purposes it was intended for. Third parties will never stand a chance so long as it exists, which has made both parties corrupt and complacent.
Slashdot Mirror
If half of organic wastes are decomposed after twenty years, then you have that much fresh space to re-fill with municipal waste.
What do you think happens in decomposition? Do you think that all that decomposed organic waste evaporates and drifts away on the wind? You still have lots of solid matter left behind. That's what soil is.
Forget Sony, it's Disney that's the kiss of death.
Anyone else remember what company was the biggest backer of DIVX?
How about the self-oxidizing, disposeable EZ-D format?
Actually, people might be willing to do this, but tax preparation companies' and CPAs' lobbyists aren't willing to let us do it. Welcome to the world of sell-out governance.
Curious question:
What's your stance about laws barring concealed carry of firearms in places where alcohol is served?
Is that an Unconstitutional violation of 2nd Amendment rights, or a reasonable restriction for public safety?
I think this idea falls into the "Ow! Ow! Ow! Stop hitting yourself!" category.
2. cable routing... run the video cable around the wall.
Then up the wall to the projector where it's mounted in the ceiling? Not me.
Do you prefer the projector to be lower where people can walk in front of it? Also not good for my seating arrangement.
3. bulb replacement? in 3 years I've never replaced the bulb in my DLP projector
Cool. I've always just seen that listed as a downside to projectors, but I've never owned one. An LCD screen's backlight is supposed to last for about 10 years.
4. cost... used to be high but projectors now start at under $1000.
Show me a $1000 1080p native resolution DLP -- not a 720p that supports 1080i/p signals.
Come on, I double-dog dare you.
5. ambient lighting... true! but i don't couchsurf during the day anyhow - hate to waste daylight. movies are for nighttime!
Unfortunately, my sleep cycle is easily affected by watching bright movies at night. Plus, this is also meant to be my computer screen (which is one reason why 1080p is so important to me).
These are just my reasons, really. They may not be valid for others. My roommate constantly complains about my obsession with hiding wiring and derides my wireless router all the time. To be honest, the system I wanted to get was going to be a 1080p DLP RPTV, but the release date kept getting pushed back, and the price jumped to nearly 5 digits. I almost waited so that I could get the superior DLP constrast ratio. Anyway, all systems involve tradeoffs.
Meh. I just have a big chip on my shoulder about plasma and was trying (and failing) to be funny.
I'll list my reasons for going with Sharp's 45" AQUOS instead of a front projector:
A 102" Plasma? Why, so your kid can race his Hot Wheels between the pixels on it, or do you just prefer hardware with an expiration date? I don't think my living room's big enough to put enough distance between my chair and that TV to let it look good.
You think that's irritating? Check out this, the Sony Ericsson P910a PDA phone with amazing 262K color screen.
Wow! 262K? That's even better than 256K!
Lord, I @#$%#!* hate marketing.
It's the same principle as those ferrite clamps that you put on speaker cables to dampen current spikes and other sudden line noise. If you own a PS2, take a look at the controller cable. That think cylinder near the plug is a noise dampener just like the one I described.
It isn't magic -- it's basic e-mag.
This is the same sort of ad hominem conjecture used against global warming studies. Publicly funded studies get their money from the government. That's what publicly funded MEANS. Private funding typically splits into two broad categories -- industry funded and not. Very little research on this has been done by private non-corporate groups to accuse of having an agenda. Unless you can come up with a good reason for government funded research to be openly and prejudicially biased against the industry, your argument is groundless. Explain what the "agenda" be might that you accuse people studying cell phone radiation of being possibly part of.
Once again, this is the same sort of argument that tobacco supporters used. It's classic technique that I like to call "The Pot Calling the Silverware Black."
There is an entire field of research in industrial chemistry right now to see how microwaves can affect chemical reactions and promote certain reaction paths over others. You don't have to break an molecular bond to have an effect on chemistry. Microwave heating, even at very low levels, can significant speed up certain reactions. Enzymes in particular seem subject to this effect at very low power levels. (Read this, look for a paragraph 2/3 down.)
Futhermore, I remembered some of Lai's more recent research just a few seconds ago. Remember an article several months ago about 50-60 Hz magnetic fields doing DNA damage to rat brains? That was the same guy.
Basically, in his paper, he put forth the theory that an iron-mediated reaction is going wrong when rats are exposed to alternating magnetic fields. Even though the fields are not enough to break covalent bonds, there is an iron-mediated reaction that turn hydrogen peroxide into hydroxyl free radicals that they theorize is affected by the magnetic fields. When they introduced an oxidative free radical chelating agent into the mice, DNA damage from magnetic fields ceased.
You can read more on it here.
I'm a minimalist w/ my cellphone for reasons other than radiation... but seems to me we need something better than "50% of studies say it's an issue."
This is the problem with sound-bytes. If you actually read the article, you'd notice that a lot of the article is about industry tainting of research through a carrot-and-stick approach. Lai notes that if you split up the studies into publicly and industry funded studies, you see that 75% of publicly funded studies show a problem and 80% of industry funded studies show no problem.
In other words, 75% of studies with no obvious pro-industry conflict of interest say that it's an issue. Not that it matters for those who don't want to change their lives; merely 5% of researchers (and a host of people who aren't climate scientists) dissenting has been good enough for people who don't want to act on global warming.
Bah, the other poster's elephants analogy is a better counter-argument anyway.
Be careful: Some headsets are used as antennas for the cell phone. That would contradict the goal you are trying to achieve.
Actually, apparently all headset wires will act as an antenna for cell phone signals, even in models where that's not part of the designed functionality. Studies have shown that using a wired headset can increase your exposure to cell phone radiation by up to 3X. However, clipping a ferrite bead on the wire is suffcient to dampen radio coming off it to negligible levels. These beads are really easy to find online.
Perhaps a bluetooth headset can minimize the energy which your DNA in the brain has to absorb.
A bluetooth headset does use significantly less
power than a cell phone. I believe the SAR for a bluetooth headset is less than 0.1 W as opposed to the 0.6-1.2 W for an average digital cell phone.
Umm - why did you decide to exclude the rest of the information?
Because it's just like global warming to him!
People who desperately want the scientists to be wrong will quote bad statistics to support the industry shills who say that everything's really okay and that we can continue living like we are now with no need to inconvenience ourselves.
There is just a certain mentality -- a personality type, if you will -- that will desperately cling to any dissenters from mainstream science as the real bearers of the truth if these "scientists" claim that the person has always been right to do what they've done. Facts, methodology, and improper influence mean nothing compared to conviction in one's way of life. You see this in the global warming "debate," the smoking "debate," the cell-phone driving "debate," and now the cell-phone radiation "debate."
Never mind that the article documents intimidation by the industry against researchers. Never mind that industry funding comes with all sorts of strings to try to ensure pro-industry findings. Never mind that research from non-tainted sources is overwhelmingly in favor of there being a problem while the majority of naysayers are subject to pro-industry conflict of interest and intimidation. It's an even split! Therefore, the science must be inconclusive! Just like all that silly nonsense about cigarettes being bad for your health or humans affecting the planet!
1) Go into joint Baskin-Robins / ToGo's / Dunkin Donuts store.
2) Get your favorite chocolatey ice cream for free.
3) Place in coffee cup.
4) Ask clerk at Duncan Donuts / ToGo's part of store to microwave free ice cream for 2-3 minutes.
5) Pr..! I mean, drink and enjoy.
Dude, check this description out!
Tin Roof Sundae
Vanilla flavored no sugar added lowfat ice cream with choco peanuts and a nsa chocolate ribbon.
An NSA chocolate ribbon? Holy crap, the feds have infiltrated the HerseyNestleGhiraldi triumvirate and are implanting secret fluoride mind control drugs in our ice cream!
It's time to get our own tin roofs and shield our heads from the mind-control laser satellites that will activate the fluoride encoded commands in our food supply by wrapping a protective high-albedo layer of aluminium foil around our heads!
And, if you don't believe all of this, then you're obviously educated stupid.
There are many applications for which mechanical methods are inherently superior to biological ones due to limitations of biological life. For example, despite its obvious efficiency, why do you think that no life on Earth has evovled wheels? Why are hydraulics not subject to the cube-square rule that limits muscular efficiency? How much food do you think it would take to feed a city of living skyscrapers, and how long would it take to grow them instead of build them? How would you air condition the buildings? What do you do if the buildings catch an incurable disease (say through an act of bioterrorism) and die?
I did a lot of thinking about this when designing a SF setting a long time ago and came to the conclusion that "living everything" is a suboptimal solution unless you come from somewhere with no useable mineral and metal deposits (like a carbon and nitrogen "rich" gas giant). "Cyborg Technology" that uses living systems in the few places where they're better and mechanical systems for structure, propulsion, etc. are much, much more likely.
Please enumerate, in detail, any and all Fair Use rights that prevent Microsoft from doing what they've done.
I never had to agree to any such license. ...And thus, you have no license to use their service.
Neat how that works, isn't it?
Sheesh! LCD doesn't have burn-in and makes an excellent PC monitor. I've getting a Sharp 45" AQUOS primary for use with my HTPC.
Sure, it's pricey, but everything with better than 720p resolution is pricey, especially the coming 1080p DLP sets. Then again, if 1280 X 720 is good enough for you, then price becomes a compelling factor as you say.
The more developed ones tend towards more logical thinking and less fanatism. Witness, where Iran, Afghanastan, and the USA is at today vs. more developed countries such as most in the EU, Japan, etc.
I think you need a better grasp of history. Look at the values nations you listed such as Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc. at circa 1890, circa 1940, and circa 2000. You definitely see an oscillation between values that prize reason, adventure, and openness vs. values that prize moral rigidity, fanatical worship, and xenophobia.
Left to right, secular to relgious, etc. swings happen even in Japan and the EU. The current secular dominance of thought in Europe post WW2 cannot fully be considered to be permanent sign of "development" in such a short time when considered against the backdrop of world history.
This is fascinating, but the writeup is pure flamebait. I know most geeks are atheists who don't grock all this "religion", but we'd do better to ignore the religious types who won't have any part in the future anyway. This stuff will just move to Singapore or the like as the backwards people oppose it. I'm studying neuroscience, and I have more problems with rat-rights or monkey-rights people (who may be in a different political party).
Speaking of flamebait... sheesh!
Have you ever taken an ethics class? Saying that other people will commit evil to get ahead is never a justification for doing it yourself. Should we torture prisoners to get information about terrorists? Why not? Many people would object on moral grounds, but would you agree that we should "ignore the religious types who won't have any part in the future anyway?" After all, "this stuff will just move to [Syria] or the like as the backwards people oppose it."
Why don't we experiment on the homeless (or whoever else we decide not to care about currently)? What basis do your ethics have for supporting or rejecting this idea? Are humans special in your philosophy compared to animals? What makes your moral and ethical decision (which is not based on religion) any more valid than that of someone else?
(My stance on these issues is irrelevant to this; I just can't stand a blowhard whether they're a rabid fundamentalist Christian or a rabid fundamentalist Atheist who is convinced that they're views are inherently morally, ethically, and logically superior to everyone else's.)
And why are only these two standpoints ever mentioned?
Are there only two parties? What if I'm not satisfied with those two? Am I allowed to start my own party?
The problem with the US's political parties is the existence of the electoral college. The President -- head of the executive branch of government (which is currently arguably the most powerful branch) -- is elected through the electoral college, a system by which each state selects a group of electors to go and cast votes for President on behalf of the people. In 48 out of 50 states, all electors go to whichever candidate gets the most votes in that state. An in-depth history is here.
The country can only support two viable parties as a mathematical consequence. If a third party gains a significant share of the vote (say 5% or more), it will sap strength from the party whose views are closest to theirs in a Presidential like the Reform party did to the Republicans when Clinton was elected and like the Green Party did to the Democrats when Bush was elected. This causes people who may like a third party candidate better to vote with the lesser of two evils instead to prevent the worst-case scenario. As a result, no third party ever gains enough political clout and campaign financing to compete.
There have been few exceptions to this and all have been as a result of the death of one of the two major parties. Here's a nice webpage showing the history of the two major US political parties and how they grew and shifted. Third parties as you can see are pretty ephemeral in the US, and major parties only survive a split by having eliminated the competition or by rejoining.
The electoral college also has a few other effects on American politics. Since almost all states have an all-or-nothing approach to portioning out votes, there are only a few states in each election that can swing either way, which are called swing states. In 2000, it was said that Bush won by only a few hundred votes (despite losing the national popular vote) by winning that margin in the swing state of Florida. In this past election, Ohio was the deciding state. Republican sentiment typicall has strongest sway in rural and suburban areas while Democratic sentiment has strongest sway in urban and coastal areas. If you're a liberal in Atlanta, Georgia or a conservative in northern California, your vote doesn't mean jack except for your House and state government officials despite the fact that most of your neighbors agree with you. Presidential and Senate votes are going to be dominated by the rest of the state. Also, thanks to the small state-large state compromise behind the way that electoral seats are proportioned out, states with low population density have more say than they would if seats were based purely on population.
Personally, I think the electoral college should be abolished. It promotes political stagnation, unfairly rewards small population states, and is obsolete for many of the purposes it was intended for. Third parties will never stand a chance so long as it exists, which has made both parties corrupt and complacent.