Personally, I think the country is happier with the Supreme Court making a de facto decision* on the president than turning it over to the House of Representatives. The Republican majority in the House would have resulted in the same decision, and everybody would be left scratching their heads at how we would have chosen our head of government exactly the same way most other democracies do it. Most incumbents in the House would have been kicked out last year, no matter their vote for president, simply because the presidential election would draw a lot of voter interest to them.
And the new group of people in the House, being politicians themselves and knowing that having the undivided attention of the voters isn't always a good thing for one's political career, would probably work hard to push through a constitutional amendment taking both the Electoral College and the House of Representatives out of the decision making process (before you disagree with me, consider how and why Congress passed the buck by adopting the War Powers Act), whether there was truly popular demand for the idea or not. And then the President of the United States would be chosen not because of this or that issue, or eventhis or that alliegence to a particular political party, but solely on his or her ability to work a crowd. And I'm sure it wouldn't be long before TV viewers could call in their votes over the telephone in the middle of prime time. Do we really want a Chavez or a Berlusconi in the White House?
The problem isn't the Supreme Court, who was constitutionally bound to let Florida shoot itself in the foot. The problem isn't even the Electoral College itself. The problem is that the Electoral College isn't allowed to do its job. Their one and only job is to vote for somebody for president. No need for forming political alliances or back room politics or hose trading or any of the other nonsense we see in legislatures because they only have one and only one thing to do. But we have allowed political parties to tie their hands and take away that decision from them.
Who's served by these "winner takes all" laws, or even any law that "requires" the electors to vote for a particular candidate? It's certainly not the voters, because it's obvious that 49.9% of them can be disenfranchised with the stroke of a pen, for better or for worse (is there any wonder at today's voter apathy?). It's not the potential candidates, because the system requires them to be politicians, who need to spend billions to convince tens of millions of voters instead of 538. The only ones that benefit are the political parties themselves (and their donors, of course), because silencing the Electoral College ensures that any and all realistic presidential candidates must join one party or another, leaving us (voters, candidates, everyone) with the same Hobson's Choice that all too many other democracies have. There hasn't been a party-independent president in over 200 years.
If we were actually able to vote for electors, not just this party's or that party's slate but actual people who are mentally and legally able to make the one and only decision they'd have to make, things might actually turn out better.
Of course, I'm one of maybe three people on the planet that feel this way...
With the current batch of state-mandated monopolies abusing their customers with captive-audience pricing, I'd rather not see the cable industry saved, thank you very much...
"In fact since significant energy is lost to efficiency when you change its form,"
Actually, going from fossil fuel to electrical energy is more efficient (and more managable) than going from fossil fuel to mechanical energy. This is why most diesel locomotives today are actually diesel-electric and why commercial shipbuilders are dabbling with the concept.
"Apparently you've never ridden a bike 5 miles in 90 degree weather. You tend to get sweaty and smelly."
Yes, I have, and I also know that the same happens just from standing around in that kind of weather. And I doubt you get much more sweaty riding a bicycle at 20 MPH for 15 minutes than you would standing on a Segway for 30. Certainly not a $4500 difference.
"This kid has some valid reasons for getting a Segway instead of a car."
From what I've seen they're relatively misguided. He claims that it's better for the environment, but a bicycle doesn't use electricity from coal-fired plants. He claims that you can take a Segway on a train when bicycles are forbidden, but as we've seen before in other cities, that's mostly because city officials haven't gotten around to either making a new law or clarifying existing ones. He mentioned that it's easier to carry a load on a Segway than a bicycle, but even if you keep all the load on your back, leaning forward while riding a bicycle lessens the compression on the rider's spine. He mentioned scenery he could see from a Segway that is just as viewable from either a bicycle or on foot.
About the only vaguely "valid" reason he seems to have for owning a Segway (if I'm reading it correctly) is that it makes him feel like he looks cool (apparently a more important reason in his mind than environmental concerns, as seen by both the wording of his post and his apparent ignorance on where electricity comes from). Whether or not he actually looks cool is debatable (and of no real concern to me), but I see no reason to applaud his decision to spend $4500+ on nothing but vanity.
"You're the one your coworkers refer to as the "stinky guy in the last cubicle", aren't you?"
If by "skinny" you mean "weighs over 230 lb," then yes. But just because I'm overweight and out-of-shape doesn't mean I can't walk the five miles to class in the same "unbearable" weather our original poster finds himself trying to cope with.
"It says that I'm not an ignorant peon who realizes the folly of using 100-year old technology to move from point A to point B at the cost of our environment."
Century-old internal combustion engines weren't anywhere near as efficient as they are today
What exactly produces the electricity you use to charge your Segway?
"Above all, it's an opportunity for me to gain simple independence and unique standing at the benefit of my own mind."
Is it just me, or did you just say that the most important reason you had one was that it made you look cool?
"Do you for some strange reason think that a bike would resolve my transportation issues, or that of anyone else?"
What could a Segway do to solve someone's transportation problems that a bicycle could not?
"As a matter of fact, bicycles aren't allowed on the Metro during rush-hour, and as such, I wouldn't be able to use it for my commute if I wanted to."
And Segways are? You're one of those people that believes that Segway users are still somehow pedestrians, aren't you? I suspect the only reason that Segway's are "allowed" on the train is that a city employee hasn't taken you to task on it yet.
"I carry about 30-40 pounds of stuff on a daily basis between my laptop, backpack, and any other gear I may have with me."
How is it better to wear all that on your back than to distribute it between your back and saddle bags?
"Bikes are not only less safe, but they are more of an inconvenience and less rugged than the HT for my purposes."
Like how, exactly? I somehow don't see a Segway doing much off-road...
"I can't bike to school every day in khakis and a decent shirt and show up in proper condition in 90F weather with 80-95% humidity and sunshine."
Why not? It's the very same weather you Segway your way to school in, and a bicycle can move faster than a Segway, shortening your time outside.
"how embarrassing it will be when the news outlets get ahold of the story of them FIRING an employee for doing the right thing."
They get around it by firing them for something completely unrelated. "We didn't fire Joe because he told the police about our child-molesting employee, we fired him because he was stealing paper clips" or "Joe was taking breaks that were too long" or "Joe showed up to work three minutes late" or any other offence that is technically against company policy but is usually ignored.
What you're referring to is the "US survey foot," which is a dinosaur from the nineteenth century. But even then, it's defined by a metric unit multiplied by a rational number, with a survey foot being defined as (1200/3937) meters. You're still able to convert with infinite precision.
In the 1950's the US changed the definition of "foot" and "yard" and such to come into line with other countries that used the same units. They adopted the "international foot," which is defined as 0.3048 meters. The only people who use the "survey foot" nowadays are essentially surveyors who work with figures recorded over a hundred years ago.
Of course, there's little reason to get quite that picky. The "international foot" is 0.999998 "survey feet" exactly (do the math yourself if you don't believe me), which means a difference of exactly 0.0002%.
There would be no rounding errors; US units are defined by metric units. An inch is defined as 2.54 centimeters, which means a foot is exactly as 0.3048 meters and a mile is exactly 1.609344 kilometers. And if normal gravitation acceleration is defined as 9.80665 m/s^2, a pound is defined as 4.4482216152605 Newtons. Everything else can be extrapolated to infinite precision.
"consider that no cars = greatly increased public safety."
That's a little myopic. If there were fewer cars, then more people would have to live in the city. As urban crowding goes up, violent crime generally goes up exponentially. I'd rather be driving through a bad neighborhood than walking, and you don't get mugged as often in your own car as you do in public transport.
New York is probably a hassle to get around compared to Atlanta because New York didn't have General Sherman encouraging them to try the whole "urban design" thing all over again.
I'd rather live in a car-clogged city than a people-clogged building. Cities are clogged with cars because nobody actually wants to live in the city, just go there from time to time to work and play.
Re:Now if only it had a decent name
on
Ogg Now An RFC
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
"MP3 is better" "what? We're talking about music, not whatever that is..." "MP3 is about music. It's a file format, like MID or MOD, only better." "Okay, dude, I'm sorry, I just keep missing the first thing you're saying" "It's MP3. M - P - 3." "Dude, that is the most retarded name I've ever heard of... let's play some Tekken on my PlayStation!!!"
It's almost as if you believe that the presidential debates have some sort of validity without Jim Leher. First off, consider who was paying for and hosing the debate, the very same "evil corporations" you seem to dislike. Leher's position in the debates was as a simple figurehead, asking questions both parties pre-approved as both candidates gave their rehearsed answers (what, you think Gore's little hissy fit was spontaneous?)
"Unfortunately, the US government runs its own elections, rather than a truely impartial third party."
Well, maybe if they didn't have to pander to whatever party is in control of Congress to get most of their funding...
Slashdot Mirror
"You can't *really* make electricity from these magnets."
Yes you can, you just need to cut the magnet into two monopoles and...
Personally, I think the country is happier with the Supreme Court making a de facto decision* on the president than turning it over to the House of Representatives. The Republican majority in the House would have resulted in the same decision, and everybody would be left scratching their heads at how we would have chosen our head of government exactly the same way most other democracies do it. Most incumbents in the House would have been kicked out last year, no matter their vote for president, simply because the presidential election would draw a lot of voter interest to them.
And the new group of people in the House, being politicians themselves and knowing that having the undivided attention of the voters isn't always a good thing for one's political career, would probably work hard to push through a constitutional amendment taking both the Electoral College and the House of Representatives out of the decision making process (before you disagree with me, consider how and why Congress passed the buck by adopting the War Powers Act), whether there was truly popular demand for the idea or not. And then the President of the United States would be chosen not because of this or that issue, or eventhis or that alliegence to a particular political party, but solely on his or her ability to work a crowd. And I'm sure it wouldn't be long before TV viewers could call in their votes over the telephone in the middle of prime time. Do we really want a Chavez or a Berlusconi in the White House?
The problem isn't the Supreme Court, who was constitutionally bound to let Florida shoot itself in the foot. The problem isn't even the Electoral College itself. The problem is that the Electoral College isn't allowed to do its job. Their one and only job is to vote for somebody for president. No need for forming political alliances or back room politics or hose trading or any of the other nonsense we see in legislatures because they only have one and only one thing to do. But we have allowed political parties to tie their hands and take away that decision from them.
Who's served by these "winner takes all" laws, or even any law that "requires" the electors to vote for a particular candidate? It's certainly not the voters, because it's obvious that 49.9% of them can be disenfranchised with the stroke of a pen, for better or for worse (is there any wonder at today's voter apathy?). It's not the potential candidates, because the system requires them to be politicians, who need to spend billions to convince tens of millions of voters instead of 538. The only ones that benefit are the political parties themselves (and their donors, of course), because silencing the Electoral College ensures that any and all realistic presidential candidates must join one party or another, leaving us (voters, candidates, everyone) with the same Hobson's Choice that all too many other democracies have. There hasn't been a party-independent president in over 200 years.
If we were actually able to vote for electors, not just this party's or that party's slate but actual people who are mentally and legally able to make the one and only decision they'd have to make, things might actually turn out better.
Of course, I'm one of maybe three people on the planet that feel this way...
"And I don't care what kind of copy protection they mandate. There's always a way through the analogue hole."
Brave words for someone who doesn't seem to live here.
"Spoken like a true flat-lander."
The original poster lives in Miami. Florida isn't exactly known for its mountainous terrain.
"Students Use 802.11g To Save Cable Industry"
With the current batch of state-mandated monopolies abusing their customers with captive-audience pricing, I'd rather not see the cable industry saved, thank you very much...
"In fact since significant energy is lost to efficiency when you change its form,"
Actually, going from fossil fuel to electrical energy is more efficient (and more managable) than going from fossil fuel to mechanical energy. This is why most diesel locomotives today are actually diesel-electric and why commercial shipbuilders are dabbling with the concept.
"Apparently you've never ridden a bike 5 miles in 90 degree weather. You tend to get sweaty and smelly."
Yes, I have, and I also know that the same happens just from standing around in that kind of weather. And I doubt you get much more sweaty riding a bicycle at 20 MPH for 15 minutes than you would standing on a Segway for 30. Certainly not a $4500 difference.
"This kid has some valid reasons for getting a Segway instead of a car."
From what I've seen they're relatively misguided. He claims that it's better for the environment, but a bicycle doesn't use electricity from coal-fired plants. He claims that you can take a Segway on a train when bicycles are forbidden, but as we've seen before in other cities, that's mostly because city officials haven't gotten around to either making a new law or clarifying existing ones. He mentioned that it's easier to carry a load on a Segway than a bicycle, but even if you keep all the load on your back, leaning forward while riding a bicycle lessens the compression on the rider's spine. He mentioned scenery he could see from a Segway that is just as viewable from either a bicycle or on foot.
About the only vaguely "valid" reason he seems to have for owning a Segway (if I'm reading it correctly) is that it makes him feel like he looks cool (apparently a more important reason in his mind than environmental concerns, as seen by both the wording of his post and his apparent ignorance on where electricity comes from). Whether or not he actually looks cool is debatable (and of no real concern to me), but I see no reason to applaud his decision to spend $4500+ on nothing but vanity.
"You're the one your coworkers refer to as the "stinky guy in the last cubicle", aren't you?"
If by "skinny" you mean "weighs over 230 lb," then yes. But just because I'm overweight and out-of-shape doesn't mean I can't walk the five miles to class in the same "unbearable" weather our original poster finds himself trying to cope with.
- Century-old internal combustion engines weren't anywhere near as efficient as they are today
- What exactly produces the electricity you use to charge your Segway?
"Above all, it's an opportunity for me to gain simple independence and unique standing at the benefit of my own mind."Is it just me, or did you just say that the most important reason you had one was that it made you look cool?
"Do you for some strange reason think that a bike would resolve my transportation issues, or that of anyone else?"
What could a Segway do to solve someone's transportation problems that a bicycle could not?
"As a matter of fact, bicycles aren't allowed on the Metro during rush-hour, and as such, I wouldn't be able to use it for my commute if I wanted to."
And Segways are? You're one of those people that believes that Segway users are still somehow pedestrians, aren't you? I suspect the only reason that Segway's are "allowed" on the train is that a city employee hasn't taken you to task on it yet.
"I carry about 30-40 pounds of stuff on a daily basis between my laptop, backpack, and any other gear I may have with me."
How is it better to wear all that on your back than to distribute it between your back and saddle bags?
"Bikes are not only less safe, but they are more of an inconvenience and less rugged than the HT for my purposes."
Like how, exactly? I somehow don't see a Segway doing much off-road...
"I can't bike to school every day in khakis and a decent shirt and show up in proper condition in 90F weather with 80-95% humidity and sunshine."
Why not? It's the very same weather you Segway your way to school in, and a bicycle can move faster than a Segway, shortening your time outside.
"Other farmers have been afflicted with cross-pollinated GMO crap too, rendering crops unsaleable to the EU, for example."
Europe passes a ban on selling genetically-modified food (something the US may soon be taken up with the WTO), and it's Monsanto's fault?
I've heard of fuzzy logic, but come on!
"how embarrassing it will be when the news outlets get ahold of the story of them FIRING an employee for doing the right thing."
They get around it by firing them for something completely unrelated. "We didn't fire Joe because he told the police about our child-molesting employee, we fired him because he was stealing paper clips" or "Joe was taking breaks that were too long" or "Joe showed up to work three minutes late" or any other offence that is technically against company policy but is usually ignored.
"A foot is 0.3048006096012(...) meters."
What you're referring to is the "US survey foot," which is a dinosaur from the nineteenth century. But even then, it's defined by a metric unit multiplied by a rational number, with a survey foot being defined as (1200/3937) meters. You're still able to convert with infinite precision.
In the 1950's the US changed the definition of "foot" and "yard" and such to come into line with other countries that used the same units. They adopted the "international foot," which is defined as 0.3048 meters. The only people who use the "survey foot" nowadays are essentially surveyors who work with figures recorded over a hundred years ago.
Of course, there's little reason to get quite that picky. The "international foot" is 0.999998 "survey feet" exactly (do the math yourself if you don't believe me), which means a difference of exactly 0.0002%.
I mean, they should know by now that "EZ-:D" will be the name of the new video format clogging up KaZaa in two or three years.
For some unexplicable reason, I have the urge to wait until I can get a robotic Kirby instead.
"Careful of any rounding errors."
There would be no rounding errors; US units are defined by metric units. An inch is defined as 2.54 centimeters, which means a foot is exactly as 0.3048 meters and a mile is exactly 1.609344 kilometers. And if normal gravitation acceleration is defined as 9.80665 m/s^2, a pound is defined as 4.4482216152605 Newtons. Everything else can be extrapolated to infinite precision.
Nobody can make an idiot out of me like I can. This is where I smile and wave to all the folks who are about to point out my error.
Change the * to a / and multiply your conversion factor by 10 and you'll be correct.
Would you, by any chance, be a Lockheed-Martin employee?
"Lessig is predicting that the days of the Commons of the Internet are over,"
Many of us old-timers would say that happened the day AOL connected to the internet.
"consider that no cars = greatly increased public safety."
That's a little myopic. If there were fewer cars, then more people would have to live in the city. As urban crowding goes up, violent crime generally goes up exponentially. I'd rather be driving through a bad neighborhood than walking, and you don't get mugged as often in your own car as you do in public transport.
Cars are cheaper to own and maintain than midtown/downtown apartments.
New York is probably a hassle to get around compared to Atlanta because New York didn't have General Sherman encouraging them to try the whole "urban design" thing all over again.
I'd rather live in a car-clogged city than a people-clogged building. Cities are clogged with cars because nobody actually wants to live in the city, just go there from time to time to work and play.
"MP3 is better"
"what? We're talking about music, not whatever that is..."
"MP3 is about music. It's a file format, like MID or MOD, only better."
"Okay, dude, I'm sorry, I just keep missing the first thing you're saying"
"It's MP3. M - P - 3."
"Dude, that is the most retarded name I've ever heard of... let's play some Tekken on my PlayStation!!!"
Am I the only one here who finds the way most posts say "females" instead of "women" mildly disturbing?
It's almost as if you believe that the presidential debates have some sort of validity without Jim Leher. First off, consider who was paying for and hosing the debate, the very same "evil corporations" you seem to dislike. Leher's position in the debates was as a simple figurehead, asking questions both parties pre-approved as both candidates gave their rehearsed answers (what, you think Gore's little hissy fit was spontaneous?)
"Unfortunately, the US government runs its own elections, rather than a truely impartial third party."
Well, maybe if they didn't have to pander to whatever party is in control of Congress to get most of their funding...