We are a republic of individual states. The Electoral College system makes sure that those states still have power. In a popular vote system, presidential candidates would only have to campaign in LA, Chicago, and NYC. The first two caucuses that can give a candidate enormous momentum are in Iowa and New Hampshire. How amazing is that? We had presidential elections turn on the outcomes of voting in Florida and Ohio. For me that's evidence that the Electoral College system works.
So, on the one hand, it's bad if the entire election hinges on LA, Chicago, and NYC... But, on the other hand, it's good if the entire election hinges on Florida and Ohio?
From my perspective as a citizen of Georgia, it's not at all evidence that the system works that the entire election hinges on one set of places that I don't live in instead of another.
Also, I dispute you assertion that elections would only hinge on both parties pandering to the big cities. A cursory look at any by-district map of the past several elections will reveal a general trend -- high population areas vote Democrat; low-population areas vote Republican. In other words, Republicans would see no advantage in pandering to big city liberals that they've demonized for so many decades.
Instead, elections would be a battle between who could rally their base the best, kind of like primaries are right now. Can you turn out more city dwellers or more suburbanites and country dwellers? Republicans would hit up places like Texas, Utah, and the South while Democrats would hit up the East and West coasts. The central and plains states might lose out a little, but except for Ohio, they're already pretty much losing out. Some attention would have to be paid the entire nation, though.
While I'm not sure that this would be an improvement for politics over the insincere move to the center that most candidate do after the primary, it certainly is at least more fair that letting a person from Rhode Island have nearly 3X the voting power of a person from California. I also maintain that there should never be a person that doesn't have a plurality of Americans getting into office over someone who does. That's neither democratic in a majoritarian nor a proportional manner.
Now you have to scan your card again to get out as well. So they're (and by they're I mean at least Atlanta City Gov, perhaps passing on to FBI/Feds) mining my traveling habits (I ride MARTA daily so I don't like this).
Privacy-minded as I am, I don't really have a problem with this for two reasons: A) The data is useful for route optimization. B) There is no way of identifying who you are. (I buy my MARTA card with cash; don't you?)
Guess what -- in countries with fully functioning public transit systems (like Japan) they actually (*gasp*) charge you different rates depending on how far you travel. Your card actually has a record (encoded on it) of all your starting and stopping points, including bus routes (though not necessarily individual stops), which is necessary for properly billing you.
This actually makes sure that people who want to travel a short distance are not discouraged from doing so by having to pay the average price of everyone using the system and ensures that heavy users are charged appropriately. It also lets the transit authorities know (en masse) what routes need additional trains and buses and which ones can be reduced at different times of the day. This is very important to lowering costs and improving quality of service.
Again, I'd have a BIG problem with this if you could identify me from my card, but you can't, so what's the big deal?
I call nonsense. Find me an example of a EULA that could be construed to bar checksums of installed software.
Comparing checksums is a common element of anti-virus and intrusion detection tools. Such clauses would cause a public stink because they'd make the use of such products a violation of your license, and I can't find any articles suggesting this has ever been considered a problem before.
I'm sorry -- did you just argue that checksumming an application -- an act that reduces the information present to a handful of bytes -- is equivalent to reverse engineering? That's a pretty new definition of reverse engineering to me!
I was always of the opinion that reverse engineering was more about determining how a program works, which checksumming is pretty darned useless for.
Probably because most Slashdotters had the same exact reaction I did: "I'll bet their best customers will be high-ranking, low-technical knowledge PHBs looking to eliminate any non-MS solutions in their shop that techies might've installed behind the backs of upper management."
Basically, the only people who will want to buy a tool to ferret out unknown FOSS apps (and not any commercial apps) are the kind of people who are afraid of their presence lurking in their enterprise. If it was a general purpose inventory tool that recognized both commercial and FOSS software, there'd be less to worry about, but targetted to only find a category of software that some would consider "dangerous."
Under the terms of the license, these products will now bear Immersion's Feel The Game TouchSense Technology logo,' reads the press release from which the news emanated.
Oh, great. 'Cause we all know that the reason why third party controllers are all so attractive is the delightfully gaudy logos that enhance their aesthetic appeal.
Seriously, though, this is part of why I really don't like third party controllers. They all look seriously tasteless compared to the standard controllers that most console companies come up with. (That and the shapes are always awkward feeling in comparison. Mad Catz, I'm looking at you.)
[T]he SG serves the people at the pleasure of the President (Executive).
Out of curiosity, since this seems to be the current right-wing talking point... Are there any executive branch positions that are not meant to serve at the pleasure of the President and which are *not* meant to partisan, in your eyes?
Of course they do. Didn't you know conservatives opposed the Americans with Disabilities Act as unfair government meddling with business? Much like any other minority, conservatives would be happier if they were simply swept under the rug and were forced to deal with a world built for the majority.
It's a combination of Social Darwinism from the libertarian side of the party and a desire to see crippled people more dependent on private organizations (i.e. churches) from the religious right side. (Another reason why, as a Christian, I can't stand the religious right.)
Wizards of the Coast got their start by putting out a multi-system compatible game called, "The Primal Order" in 1990. Part of the system included rules for converting characters to and from its system and the system used in games by Palladium Books. Palladium Books went nuts and sued WotC over violation of their intellectual property.
After 3 years, WotC ended up settling with PB for an undisclosed sum and an agreement not to mention their games again. (This is ironic considering that most of PB's claims were rejected by the judge in the case.) You can read a summary of the events here.
In retrospect, it's not surprising that WotC came up with the Open Gaming License.
Personally, the whole thing left such a bad taste in many gamers' mouths, that we chose never to do business with Palladium again in spite of WotC asking people not to boycott them (apparently something PB had demanded as part of the settlement). Like most people, I didn't really even care about WotC at the time, I was just angry at PB.
On a side note, I happened to see the publishers of Manhunter (the only game to actually license conversion rules from PB) at a con one year, and I asked, "Well, how'd you manage that?" only to get chewed out by Kevin Siembieda's wife who was staffing the PB booth next door. Being a teenager and not informed at all about IP law, I was kind of flabbergasted and didn't know what to say.
Besides the syntax comment the other poster said, it could've also been that the school implemented per-user process limits on the machine. Linux has had this capability for years and years; most people just don't bother setting it, but universities hosting machines for programming students pretty much have to set it for exactly this sort of thing, whether it be accidental or malicious.
Someone didn't preview and doesn't know how to use < and >. Also, what's the deal with that empty block in between the "while (1)" and the "{fork ();}"? Geez, if you're going to critique someone else's code, do a double-check on your own first.
You have some evidence, I assume, to back up your claim that nicotine gum makes people more susceptible to stroke and heart attacks?...
Looks like some advice I got from my grandmother's doctor years ago was wrong. Even though chewing tobacco doubles the risk of heart disease, apparently nicotine patches and gum have not been shown to significantly raise the risk of heart disease. I always assumed that was the fault of stimulant abuse, but it seems that patch-delivered nicotine does not raise the risk in spite of causing blood vessel constriction.
Her doctor may have not been grossly misinformed -- studies in the early 90s pointed to a link, but follow-up studies has disproved it. However, all "direct from the tobacco" methods of delivery still do raise the risk, so my main point about the development of nicotine-derived drugs not making smoking safe still holds.
,,,but breathing in tar and particulate matter does not. And even if they find some beneficial uses for nicotene, its use must still be weighed against its effects as an addictive stimulant, including constricting the arteries and making people more susceptible to stroke and heart attacks.
No matter what uses they find for nicotene, you're not going to suddenly make smoking healthy, so it wouldn't matter even if the tobacco industry was funding this.
I drive a Jetta, and I don't think I could throw a rock out my window and NOT hit a car that looks exactly like mine. Hyperbole aside, I literally run into cars that look just like mine at about 20% of the places I go. I've actually found my car numerous times by trying to use my keychain to unlock a different car. It shouldn't be that hard to pick a very common make and model of car and then steal a tag that looks just like it.
Heck, just get one of those generic white American utility vans, and you have your choice of business to steal a tag from.
If you don't mind, could you tell me how much was unacceptable and what general area you live in? The *only* thing keeping me from switching to cable is fears that my BitTorrent usage will get me slapped.
I mean, the *only* thing. I have a list of reasons to boot AT&T as long as my arm, and I'm still stuck with them.
Wouldn't Carl Sagan spinning in his grave be direct proof of life (of at least intelligence) after death as well as a mystic force capable of moving physical objects in unnatural ways with said mind?
I'm just saying, it's pretty ironic if you think about it. Maybe he's spinning in his grave because he's spinning in his grave?
There were none, because if a pub banned smoking, it would go bust, because people want to smoke, and the people who don't smoke want to hang around the people who do.
Heck, I have some friends who hang out in bars over here in America. They like to go to play trivia, and I've been a couple of times, but I don't go regularly because of the smoke. I'm not alone. Several of my friends also don't go to trivia with them because they can't stand the smoke. You gain some business with smoking, but you lose others.
That said, if the law does cause pubs and bars to start closing due to smokers deciding to go drink alone rather than not light up, then so what? If an entire industry is a public health hazard because of how economics work under the current legal regime, why bend over backwards to preserve it? Adapt or die. If your business relies on hurting people to be profitable, then your business shouldn't exist. End of story.
Find me a smoke-free pub, pre-ban. The government by passing or not passing the law gives one essentially two choices:
1) Be forced to associate with smokers if you go into a pub. 2) Be forced not to smoke if you go into a pub.
Again, why should the balance of the law be weighed in favor of smokers? Given that smoking causes harm to others, why should smokers be allowed to smoke around anyone who isn't themselves a smoker? People shouldn't have to be forced to choose between a drink with friends and their health.
Yeah, that makes sense. What confuses me is why did you pick a fight, then prove my point? Your information and opinion was valuable and interesting, which is why I posed the question. Why the offensive posture?
Sorry if I misunderstood, but it seemed that your post was saying, "Most everybody's doing it, so I'd like to see some proof that there's any sort of correlation." It seemed like you were trying to challenge the idea that there was a correlation between the two.
I guess I read a defensive tone where there was none. I can now kind of see the tone you say you intended, so mea culpa. I spend so much time dealing with combative partisans on the internet that it looks like I made myself into one. How embarrassing...
Since most politicians supported the illegal wiretapping, that's probably true.
That's a just not true, and you know it. Support and opposition for the wiretapping program has been a strongly partisan issue.
The 2006 bill in support of the program (H R 5825) passed the House only under the most partisan of votes back when the Republicans were still in control. The bill had the support of 214 Republicans and 18 Democrats and only 13 Republicans crossed the isle to join with 177 Democrats in opposition. It pretty much died in committee in the Senate.
Since then, with the Democrats in control, we've actually started seeing investigations.
Wiretapping is as much of a partisan issue as gun control. Because of this, the pattern of correlation between who the NRA endorses and gives money to and who supports broad government wiretapping policies is pretty strong.
My lifestyle doesn't give people cancer. Smokers do.
Why should you be able to force your smoking on others? Why should people not doing negligent harm to others have to rearrange their lives around those who are? What in your mind gives a smoker the superior rights when the right to enjoy yourself and the right to not be harmed by others come into conflict?
If smoking only harmed the smoker, then it wouldn't be anyone else's business, but that's not the case, and you know it.
Now, for step 2, how are you going to prove before the court that the government actually wiretapped you? That's the crux of this decision; you can't sue if you can't prove you're a victim, and who's a victim is protected by the nebulous modern legal construct of "state secrets."
Slashdot Mirror
We are a republic of individual states. The Electoral College system makes sure that those states still have power. In a popular vote system, presidential candidates would only have to campaign in LA, Chicago, and NYC. The first two caucuses that can give a candidate enormous momentum are in Iowa and New Hampshire. How amazing is that? We had presidential elections turn on the outcomes of voting in Florida and Ohio. For me that's evidence that the Electoral College system works.
So, on the one hand, it's bad if the entire election hinges on LA, Chicago, and NYC...
But, on the other hand, it's good if the entire election hinges on Florida and Ohio?
From my perspective as a citizen of Georgia, it's not at all evidence that the system works that the entire election hinges on one set of places that I don't live in instead of another.
Also, I dispute you assertion that elections would only hinge on both parties pandering to the big cities. A cursory look at any by-district map of the past several elections will reveal a general trend -- high population areas vote Democrat; low-population areas vote Republican. In other words, Republicans would see no advantage in pandering to big city liberals that they've demonized for so many decades.
Instead, elections would be a battle between who could rally their base the best, kind of like primaries are right now. Can you turn out more city dwellers or more suburbanites and country dwellers? Republicans would hit up places like Texas, Utah, and the South while Democrats would hit up the East and West coasts. The central and plains states might lose out a little, but except for Ohio, they're already pretty much losing out. Some attention would have to be paid the entire nation, though.
While I'm not sure that this would be an improvement for politics over the insincere move to the center that most candidate do after the primary, it certainly is at least more fair that letting a person from Rhode Island have nearly 3X the voting power of a person from California. I also maintain that there should never be a person that doesn't have a plurality of Americans getting into office over someone who does. That's neither democratic in a majoritarian nor a proportional manner.
Now you have to scan your card again to get out as well. So they're (and by they're I mean at least Atlanta City Gov, perhaps passing on to FBI/Feds) mining my traveling habits (I ride MARTA daily so I don't like this).
Privacy-minded as I am, I don't really have a problem with this for two reasons:
A) The data is useful for route optimization.
B) There is no way of identifying who you are. (I buy my MARTA card with cash; don't you?)
Guess what -- in countries with fully functioning public transit systems (like Japan) they actually (*gasp*) charge you different rates depending on how far you travel. Your card actually has a record (encoded on it) of all your starting and stopping points, including bus routes (though not necessarily individual stops), which is necessary for properly billing you.
This actually makes sure that people who want to travel a short distance are not discouraged from doing so by having to pay the average price of everyone using the system and ensures that heavy users are charged appropriately. It also lets the transit authorities know (en masse) what routes need additional trains and buses and which ones can be reduced at different times of the day. This is very important to lowering costs and improving quality of service.
Again, I'd have a BIG problem with this if you could identify me from my card, but you can't, so what's the big deal?
I call nonsense. Find me an example of a EULA that could be construed to bar checksums of installed software.
Comparing checksums is a common element of anti-virus and intrusion detection tools. Such clauses would cause a public stink because they'd make the use of such products a violation of your license, and I can't find any articles suggesting this has ever been considered a problem before.
I'm sorry -- did you just argue that checksumming an application -- an act that reduces the information present to a handful of bytes -- is equivalent to reverse engineering? That's a pretty new definition of reverse engineering to me!
I was always of the opinion that reverse engineering was more about determining how a program works, which checksumming is pretty darned useless for.
Probably because most Slashdotters had the same exact reaction I did:
"I'll bet their best customers will be high-ranking, low-technical knowledge PHBs looking to eliminate any non-MS solutions in their shop that techies might've installed behind the backs of upper management."
Basically, the only people who will want to buy a tool to ferret out unknown FOSS apps (and not any commercial apps) are the kind of people who are afraid of their presence lurking in their enterprise. If it was a general purpose inventory tool that recognized both commercial and FOSS software, there'd be less to worry about, but targetted to only find a category of software that some would consider "dangerous."
Under the terms of the license, these products will now bear Immersion's Feel The Game TouchSense Technology logo,' reads the press release from which the news emanated.
Oh, great. 'Cause we all know that the reason why third party controllers are all so attractive is the delightfully gaudy logos that enhance their aesthetic appeal.
Seriously, though, this is part of why I really don't like third party controllers. They all look seriously tasteless compared to the standard controllers that most console companies come up with. (That and the shapes are always awkward feeling in comparison. Mad Catz, I'm looking at you.)
[T]he SG serves the people at the pleasure of the President (Executive).
Out of curiosity, since this seems to be the current right-wing talking point... Are there any executive branch positions that are not meant to serve at the pleasure of the President and which are *not* meant to partisan, in your eyes?
Of course they do. Didn't you know conservatives opposed the Americans with Disabilities Act as unfair government meddling with business? Much like any other minority, conservatives would be happier if they were simply swept under the rug and were forced to deal with a world built for the majority.
It's a combination of Social Darwinism from the libertarian side of the party and a desire to see crippled people more dependent on private organizations (i.e. churches) from the religious right side. (Another reason why, as a Christian, I can't stand the religious right.)
Wizards of the Coast got their start by putting out a multi-system compatible game called, "The Primal Order" in 1990. Part of the system included rules for converting characters to and from its system and the system used in games by Palladium Books. Palladium Books went nuts and sued WotC over violation of their intellectual property.
After 3 years, WotC ended up settling with PB for an undisclosed sum and an agreement not to mention their games again. (This is ironic considering that most of PB's claims were rejected by the judge in the case.) You can read a summary of the events here.
In retrospect, it's not surprising that WotC came up with the Open Gaming License.
Personally, the whole thing left such a bad taste in many gamers' mouths, that we chose never to do business with Palladium again in spite of WotC asking people not to boycott them (apparently something PB had demanded as part of the settlement). Like most people, I didn't really even care about WotC at the time, I was just angry at PB.
On a side note, I happened to see the publishers of Manhunter (the only game to actually license conversion rules from PB) at a con one year, and I asked, "Well, how'd you manage that?" only to get chewed out by Kevin Siembieda's wife who was staffing the PB booth next door. Being a teenager and not informed at all about IP law, I was kind of flabbergasted and didn't know what to say.
Heh. If only I could go back in time...
Besides the syntax comment the other poster said, it could've also been that the school implemented per-user process limits on the machine. Linux has had this capability for years and years; most people just don't bother setting it, but universities hosting machines for programming students pretty much have to set it for exactly this sort of thing, whether it be accidental or malicious.
Someone didn't preview and doesn't know how to use < and >.
Also, what's the deal with that empty block in between the "while (1)" and the "{fork ();}"?
Geez, if you're going to critique someone else's code, do a double-check on your own first.
You have some evidence, I assume, to back up your claim that nicotine gum makes people more susceptible to stroke and heart attacks? ...
Looks like some advice I got from my grandmother's doctor years ago was wrong. Even though chewing tobacco doubles the risk of heart disease, apparently nicotine patches and gum have not been shown to significantly raise the risk of heart disease. I always assumed that was the fault of stimulant abuse, but it seems that patch-delivered nicotine does not raise the risk in spite of causing blood vessel constriction.
Her doctor may have not been grossly misinformed -- studies in the early 90s pointed to a link, but follow-up studies has disproved it. However, all "direct from the tobacco" methods of delivery still do raise the risk, so my main point about the development of nicotine-derived drugs not making smoking safe still holds.
,,,but breathing in tar and particulate matter does not. And even if they find some beneficial uses for nicotene, its use must still be weighed against its effects as an addictive stimulant, including constricting the arteries and making people more susceptible to stroke and heart attacks.
No matter what uses they find for nicotene, you're not going to suddenly make smoking healthy, so it wouldn't matter even if the tobacco industry was funding this.
Well, my knees do give my problems sometimes, but I wouldn't call those repair bills per se.
I drive a Jetta, and I don't think I could throw a rock out my window and NOT hit a car that looks exactly like mine. Hyperbole aside, I literally run into cars that look just like mine at about 20% of the places I go. I've actually found my car numerous times by trying to use my keychain to unlock a different car. It shouldn't be that hard to pick a very common make and model of car and then steal a tag that looks just like it.
Heck, just get one of those generic white American utility vans, and you have your choice of business to steal a tag from.
If you don't mind, could you tell me how much was unacceptable and what general area you live in?
The *only* thing keeping me from switching to cable is fears that my BitTorrent usage will get me slapped.
I mean, the *only* thing. I have a list of reasons to boot AT&T as long as my arm, and I'm still stuck with them.
Wouldn't Carl Sagan spinning in his grave be direct proof of life (of at least intelligence) after death as well as a mystic force capable of moving physical objects in unnatural ways with said mind?
I'm just saying, it's pretty ironic if you think about it. Maybe he's spinning in his grave because he's spinning in his grave?
There were none, because if a pub banned smoking, it would go bust, because people want to smoke, and the people who don't smoke want to hang around the people who do.
Heck, I have some friends who hang out in bars over here in America. They like to go to play trivia, and I've been a couple of times, but I don't go regularly because of the smoke. I'm not alone. Several of my friends also don't go to trivia with them because they can't stand the smoke. You gain some business with smoking, but you lose others.
That said, if the law does cause pubs and bars to start closing due to smokers deciding to go drink alone rather than not light up, then so what? If an entire industry is a public health hazard because of how economics work under the current legal regime, why bend over backwards to preserve it? Adapt or die. If your business relies on hurting people to be profitable, then your business shouldn't exist. End of story.
Find me a smoke-free pub, pre-ban. The government by passing or not passing the law gives one essentially two choices:
1) Be forced to associate with smokers if you go into a pub.
2) Be forced not to smoke if you go into a pub.
Again, why should the balance of the law be weighed in favor of smokers? Given that smoking causes harm to others, why should smokers be allowed to smoke around anyone who isn't themselves a smoker? People shouldn't have to be forced to choose between a drink with friends and their health.
Yeah, that makes sense. What confuses me is why did you pick a fight, then prove my point? Your information and opinion was valuable and interesting, which is why I posed the question. Why the offensive posture?
Sorry if I misunderstood, but it seemed that your post was saying, "Most everybody's doing it, so I'd like to see some proof that there's any sort of correlation." It seemed like you were trying to challenge the idea that there was a correlation between the two.
I guess I read a defensive tone where there was none. I can now kind of see the tone you say you intended, so mea culpa. I spend so much time dealing with combative partisans on the internet that it looks like I made myself into one. How embarrassing...
Since most politicians supported the illegal wiretapping, that's probably true.
That's a just not true, and you know it. Support and opposition for the wiretapping program has been a strongly partisan issue.
The 2006 bill in support of the program (H R 5825) passed the House only under the most partisan of votes back when the Republicans were still in control. The bill had the support of 214 Republicans and 18 Democrats and only 13 Republicans crossed the isle to join with 177 Democrats in opposition. It pretty much died in committee in the Senate.
Since then, with the Democrats in control, we've actually started seeing investigations.
Wiretapping is as much of a partisan issue as gun control. Because of this, the pattern of correlation between who the NRA endorses and gives money to and who supports broad government wiretapping policies is pretty strong.
My lifestyle doesn't give people cancer. Smokers do.
Why should you be able to force your smoking on others? Why should people not doing negligent harm to others have to rearrange their lives around those who are? What in your mind gives a smoker the superior rights when the right to enjoy yourself and the right to not be harmed by others come into conflict?
If smoking only harmed the smoker, then it wouldn't be anyone else's business, but that's not the case, and you know it.
Well, that's a nice step 1.
Now, for step 2, how are you going to prove before the court that the government actually wiretapped you? That's the crux of this decision; you can't sue if you can't prove you're a victim, and who's a victim is protected by the nebulous modern legal construct of "state secrets."
The NRA tends to support politicians that supported the illegal wiretapping.
Eventually all there'll be left is trendy inner-city wine bars, and another great tradition will be lost to the politically-correct brigade.
Why is tradition more important that human life in your eyes?