There's nothing even mildly interesting in the linked article. It reads like an advertisement for King Kong.
There are an awful lot of "articles" nowadays that happen to coincide with a movie or DVD release.:( It's reassuring that I'm not the only one who has noticed this.
As a general rule the "little person" in Australia with their iPod doesn't get much attention, but bigger places tend to be targets.
For example, at one of the local Australian universities the policy is "no mp3s". Doesn't matter if they are rips of your personal legally-owned CDs, you can't have them. I was asked to enforce this when I started doing some IT work for the Uni, and me being me, I immediately questioned why. Turns out the Uni lawyer(s) checked up on the laws, and the Uni can be stung for it. Hence the ban. Here's hoping the change in laws fixes this little problem, so I just have to ask if they are legally ripped mp3s and can move on if they are, rather than having to explain why they can't be kept on the Uni IT equipment.
These aren't new. I remember reading about them a couple of years ago, when they were a new startup like they are now (huh?). I remember the many, many comments about exactly where the model placed her hands on the toys.
It's a shame they are _still_ searching for someone to mass-market them. Even worse that you _still_ can't buy them. I think they have a really, really neat idea there.
There's more than one valid way to cast and count votes, and many systems do a better job than ours of approximating what voters really want. The current system forces you to vote *against* your second choice if you vote for your first choice. Imagine if two candidates are running against Cthulhu and the opinion you want to express at the polls is "no more Cthulhu!" You can't moderate Cthulhu -1, so you're forced to vote for the more popular of the opponents.
Browse Wikipedia for terms like "Condorcet" or "instant runoff" to see some of the fun alternatives.
First-past-the-post is a terrible, terrible system. If two parties get entrenched it is hard to break their stranglehold. Instant runoff is leaps and bounds ahead of first-past though, and lets you vote for your favourite candidate whilst still being able to decide between the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately it is possible for a vote for your candidate to actually count against them in some circumstances; I have some trouble explaining the details myself, but some info can be found here. That link is mostly for the benefit of anyone else reading, since you mention Condorcet, I presume you've got a bit of background or are well read. As for Condorcet, and I have to admit I found it a bit confusing, but the theory behind it is seems strong.
And on the subject of Cthulu, can you imagine a situation where one of the main two parties put up Cthulu as one candidate, and the other put up Satan as theirs? Would people still vote for the lesser of the two evils?;)
I'm very curious about this. Could I trouble you for an email (can be found on my site fairly easily) or a few more terms that I could google for to fill in the missing pieces?
Absolutely. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Someone else might be ok with that on their conscience, but not me.
Well, I'd have to day conscience plays a part in voting for me, but it is more of an influencing factor, rather than a primary one.
The main thing for me is to make it really clear that I will only vote for a good party or candidate. I'm not interested in what someone says about the other candidate, or other people placing a value on my vote. I know what it is worth, and I'll vote for a good candidate. I convince others to do the same as well. Want my vote and the votes of people who have my ear? Be a good representative. That's the only way.
The second thing is to aim for the best long-term solution. Two-party duopolies don't bother me so long as both of the parties are good. If they aren't good, just entrenched, I'll do what I can to break their hold. That includes voting for a better candidate that won't win over and over, so it is crystal clear that there is support for another candidate beyond the big two. And maybe one say my contribution will lead to change.
Like in France: a first stage to vote for who you want a second stage (with the two or three best of the first stage) to eliminate the one you want least. Not perfect, but the first stage allows a better view of the range of preferences.
I had no idea it worked like this in France! That sounds really interesting. Of course, it's not the most ideal political system, but it is certainly much better than first-past-the-post.:) How are the two or three decided?
No, the reason we are stuck electing "Republicrats" every election is that our system is at equilibrium only when there are two parties.
I'm wondering if you could define equilibrium for me in this context as I am not sure I am completely following it.
Yes, I am, but I have no other choice.
But you do. You have just convinced yourself that you must vote for the lesser of two evils rather than who you want. You're looking at the result of the next election only and deducing that since the two incumbents are probably going to win, you should vote for the one that screws you over the least. This is somewhat myopic. Today, I worked a full day for the local Uni and got nothing apart from the loss of eight hours of my time. Same as the day before. However, I do it as I know in a few days time, I'll receive payment for it. You can get a payoff for voting sincerely, it just might not be at the next election. When candidate X gets 1% at the next election, 2% at the one after, and 8% at the next one, people are going to start paying attention to that candidate, as well as others. And if enough people went with what they believed, it wouldn't take so many election cycles. Do you want to perpetuate the problem or contribute to its solution?
The time for you Nader-ites to make a difference is before the election.
Interesting that you consider me a Nader-ite. I haven't revealed my political cards, though I guess I'd rather be mistaken as a Nader-ite above a Bush-ite or Kerry-ite. My position is simply to allow people to be able to realistically vote for the party they actually want, and to get better political candidates out of it in the process. This means a lot of voting reform, and it won't be an easy process or a quick one. It will also be much nicer if this is achieved through peaceful elections rather than through a violent civil war after the continually encroaching government takes things just a little too far one day.
Convince the Dems (your closest allies) to pick the most liberal candidate they can. Once the die is cast, once the public sees the choice is Dem A or Rep B, then all you can do is siphon votes from the only party that will give you even the slightest chance of getting your way.
Why should I be interested in the Dems? They show as much interest as listening to the people as the Repubs. How about I vote for the people who are most willing to represent me. I don't think I can count the Dems or Repubs as allies. Not at all.
Look, I believe doors should work like on Star Trek. But if I pretend like doors work that way, I'll just smash my nose everywhere (except the grocery store, I suppose). An intelligent person would accept the fact that reality trumps ideology.
Your analogy isn't. The situation discussed is analogous to a hopeless cause, which I agree with. But to imply that the political situation is hopeless and it isn't worth trying is defeatist. How about doing what I'm doing, and trying to convince people to take the steps they need to solve this horrid problem? It would make my day, week, and whole freaking month if you looked at what I've said and thought, hey, maybe I can make a difference, stopped with the "it's hopeless" and "wasted vote" mindset and spent some time convincing your friends that you can make a difference. If enough people can be convinced, the problem can be solved, and we'll all be much better off.
If you want doors to work like on Star Trek, get out there and do something about it, but when you walk up to a door that's not automatic, treat it as such.
I'd rather spend my time convincing people to break the duopoly deadlock both before elections and at elections, rather than fighting for a cause and then doing something contrary to it when it matters the most.
But since Star Trek doors are cool, let's talk doors.
Suppose doorways became a matter of national significance. Almost everyone wants to invest in research to get the cool Star Trek doors. A few do
This is one of those "I wish you could mod a comment up to +6, Insightful" comments.
Cheers.:)
Its stupid to what lengths people will go to defend their viewpoint that a vote that isn't for one of the 2 main parties is a wasted vote. In its current form of people being convinced that is the case, it isn't really democracy at all.
At the moment I'd say the US does not resemble a democracy at all. Hence my comments about the choice between two fratboys. It wouldn't be so bad if it was a choice between the two most capable candidates in the US, but the roster is rarely anything resembling that. I wonder why people don't question the process by which the "main" candidates are selected. Would you even put any of the last batch of candidates for the last US election in the top 1% of most suitable people to lead the US? If not, there are close to three million people more suited to the position! Don't people have just a little problem with this?
I would say only 2 types of votes are wasted - those not cast, and those cast without sincerity. Voting for the lesser of too evils is a waste - democracy isn't about "winning", its about the composition of the government reflecting the views of the population.
I'd say that a vote for a candidate that the voter doesn't really want is worse than no vote at all. All such a vote does is make it harder for a legitimate candidate to get in. Thus the "a third party vote is a wasted vote" comment is a very, very dangerous one for a representative democracy.
Also, for ANYONE of the mentality of "its just one vote, it doesn't matter", you do not understand democracy at all. If 50 million people say the same thing, thats about 1/3 of your voters NOT voting for who they agree with (based on the population of the US).
Exactly. One vote on its own doesn't do a lot, but 50 million people with just one vote do matter.
Exactly. Reassuring to see someone armed and ready with this one.:) For some similar relevant quotes, try The Simpsons ("Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos") and Futurama, where the two opposing candidates are "John Jackson" and "Jack Johnson", and are clones. I think South Park had something similar as well, but I'm not as familiar with it.
Nope. A vote cast on a rigged machine with no audit trail is equally wasted.
Indeed. A most excellent exception, I stand corrected. Please mod parent up. This is another incredibly important thing in any kind of real representative democracy, ensuring that the process of voting and counting itself is fair. Lots of relevant stuff here.
I'm running late for work so it'll be a while before I can get back to this thread. Longer reply coming at the end of the day. I beg to differ on the "have no other choice" comment but I'll elaborate on that later.
Massively offtopic, but this issue really ticks me off.
Reality is that in most cases, a vote for an independent candidate is a wasted vote.
Oh cut it out. This line of thought is why the US is stuck electing Republicrats every election. The only wasted vote is one that isn't cast.
Sure, vote for someone outside of the major two parties and you won't "win" in the present loaded system. But you do throw your weight behind the numbers who have indicated that they aren't happy with Red and Blue but want someone else in. More importantly, you've thrown your weight behind a particular party or ideology, and as the numbers grow, more people can shake the "I must vote for one of the two main parties" mentality and vote for another viable party. Sure, it won't happen in one election, but if people vote for who they want rather than following the catchy "you're throwing your vote away" mentality, then the country as a whole will be much better off and it'll finally elect a capable representative leader.
The whole logic of saying that because you won't "win" in one election you should vote for the best of the worst two is not only counterintuitive but is entrenching the present political stranglehold. All I can say is stop it. Stop repeating the "third party is a wasted vote" lie because gullible people keep believing it, and you keep getting rubbish government as a result. Don't you think you deserve better than the best of the worst two? Aren't you all sick of electing one of two fratboys offered up each election?
I'm glad you like the games.:) And there are certainly a lot of good indie games floating around out there. Do be sure to check them out.:) And I'd encourage everyone to support small indie game developers. Even if E.V.E. Paradox isn't your cup of tea, look around until you find something that is... there are a lot of good games out there!
As for Introversion's games, I didn't go for Darwinia myself, but I definitely went for Uplink (bought it within a day of playing the demo). Uplink was an inspiration for me. It showed me that a game with an unconventional focus (a cracking sim) made by a small group could still sell and do well. If it wasn't for Uplink, I may have never given E.V.E. Paradox a go.
Thanks for your thoughts and for checking out the games.:)
Very, very offtopic, so I'll self-mod down, but hey.;)
That EULA clause on multiple installations should only be in the paid editions, there should be no such clause in the Free one. The clause is a little more convoluted so that you can do more things than "normal". For example, it makes it clear you can have a paid copy on your laptop and both boots of a dual-boot Linux-Windows system and do a quick install/uninstall on a friends machine to show them the game, all without being in breach of the agreement. Many EULAs will just say "one copy, period", where I think it's fairer to say "one copy at a time". I don't think you should have to choose one OS or machine to play the game on if you've actually got two (or more). I know people will do it anyway, and I'd rather people know that I'm completely cool with it.
Having said that, there are no such restrictions on the Free Edition, so everyone can run their own copy; think of the Free Edition as the limited spawn-only copies of various multiplayer games, except the Free Edition will have much more functionality than your typical spawn-copy and nobody has to have a paid edition if they don't want to.:) Oh- and no multiplayer in E.V.E. Paradox yet, but I desperately want to add it...
The other clause you quote relates to Created Content, which basically means created levels, for when I get the Level Editor cleaned up for release. It restricts you from creating levels and either selling them or restricting access to them. Basically if you use the tool to create levels, everyone (with the right Edition) should be able to play them for free. If someone wants to sell levels for profit, they can negotiate something separate with me.;)
Feel free to drop me a line if I can help out further, email in profile and all over my site.:)
Hey there Tom. Read a whole bunch of your posts over the years on Slashdot and I'd have to say I've enjoyed many of your posts.
The examples you ask for are provided in my original post. Both happened to me. In the first, the truck didn't see me and pulled into my lane (I was in the slow lane) while I was still there at 80km/h. Car up rear not paying attention meaning I couldn't brake. You are hearing my story today because I was able to plant my foot and break the speed limit for about five seconds to avoid being crushed or rammed into telephone poles at that speed. Heck, I'd gladly pay the fine if I was hit by a radar during those five seconds because doing so meant I am still alive today. I'll leave the second example to another day.
I agree with your example _in general_. I've never been in that particular situation before- I hope you're not assuming my situation was such- but bear in mind some people will _accelerate_ when you try to overtake them because they don't want their pride wounded, thus creating a very dangerous situation when oncoming traffic is involved. I rarely overtake into an oncoming lane for precisely this reason.
I'll have to respectfully disagree with the blanket assertion with your post; unless I can amend your assertion to "very rarely". I've given examples as to where the speed helps prevent an accident, as have others. They are definitely the exception rather than the rule, but I feel it may be negligent to ignore such exceptions due to the potential lethality. Having said that, I believe we feel quite similarly in principle.
I don't drive as much nowadays as I used to, but a few years back I lived an hour from my work and racked up ten hours plus driving weekly, much of it at high speed.
I've been in enough situations where I needed a burst of speed to come out of the situation in one piece, and the last thing I'd need in such a scenario is my car fighting me. When a truck pulls into your lane whilst you are still in it at 80km/h and you have a car behind you, the last thing you need is something retarding your acceleration. When a driver who is willing to let you die by running you into the back of a parked car because their ego can't take the blow of you passing them, you need good brakes or good acceleration and the ability to use them fast. If they finally figure out the situation and make the wrong call by slowing down, that acceleration is going to be the difference between you being a statistic and making it home that night.
And before anyone says it, preventative driving is the key. But if you're on the road enough, you or another will eventually make a mistake that puts you in a bad situation.
Now GPS isn't always the most accurate of things, and the last thing I want is for the accelerator to require different amounts of pressure to achieve the same results based on GPS whims.
Having said all of that, replace messing with the car with an audible signal and you've got a winner.
Try and substitute each of the following words in the headline and article text in place of the word "teenager". Some additional creative liberty may be needed to make it fit, but the idea should be the same. Of each of these words, which outcomes are acceptable to you?
I was a teenager once (okay, quite some time ago!), as were many of you. I hated how I was treated then, both by my "peers" and the "responsible adults". True, there are bad apples, but that's the case at every age (think some CEOs, lawyers, politicos).
Why is it acceptable to give teenagers a hard time, because of a few bad apples?
Ah, congratulations, how delightful! I *loved* code generators. Ya bring back memories... at my first really good gig, management just stood out of the way while I wrote a mainframe BASIC program that generated COBOL reporting programs as fast as they could think of new stuff they wanted out of their data; the reports were basically the same anyway except for the sort, select, summarization and output. So the generator wasn't really as hard as it might sound.
My current project (E.V.E. Paradox) uses a fair amount of automatic code generation. Basically as I add a new game and object to a game, it creates the code to let you edit it in the Editor GUI, base code to load and save it in various formats, the basic game code, doco, and all of the annoying little hooks required. It's a neat little Ruby program, and it produces reasonably readable C++. It's not perfect, but reduces the amount of copy/paste for common code. It reduces errors due to simple typos dramatically; I haven't looked at some of this code for quite some time, it just works.
The downside is that it is hard to maintain and can get a bit bulky. I can think of a few improvements that I could have made to use more generics and a bit less automatic codegen, but shoestring budget and all...
Of course, this was in a commercially competitive environment where we were rewarded by results, not by metrics.
Those gigs are getting harder and harder to find.:(
I worked at a company that had let it slip that they were taking metrics on number of lines of code submitted to the revision control system. This was a directive from the higher-ups, so of course against all logic the next line of management down from them (and above me) went along with it blindly. I tried to argue about the uselessness of such metrics to deaf ears. So, being me, I decided to have a little fun with this.
One section of the code consisted of a number of modules that were basic copies of each other with small local customisations. Think hundreds or thousands of lines in common. No, I didn't write them, but I had to maintain them. So I took these, pulled out some code into common libraries, and wrote a code generator to produce much of the rest from input files. I was also careful to work on non-coding tasks for the remainder of that week; essential stuff but the sort that had been put off for a while. My net code contribution that week: Negative several hundred lines of code. The code also became infinitely more maintainable, and I fixed countless copy/paste bugs in the process.
No doubt someone fudged my negative figure upwards when it went back up through the management chain to avoid rocking the boat, no doubt to a nice small number of positive line chances to ensure I looked bad. But, if only to myself, I had proved my point.
As of recently a whole bunch of Slashdot IDs that I've personally never heard of start posting heavily about how Google could do something evil with one of their recent actions, and thus deducing that they are evil. Then people start talking as if it were some kind of Slashdot consensus. The whole thing smells of a deliberate smear campaign, sort of a reverse astroturf. How about we give them a chance to commit evil before we condemn them for it, eh? Why not focus on a few organisations that have had the chance to commit evil acts, and chosen them almost every single time?
Maybe one day Google will become a horribly abusive monopoly who abuse their staff, customers, and local governments in an effort to squeeze them for every cent they have. But... and how about this... perhaps we should wait until they actually show signs of having any intention of doing this sort of thing? Perhaps it is worth focusing on organisations who are _already_ doing this, rather than ones who show all signs of not being inclined in this way at all?
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing even mildly interesting in the linked article. It reads like an advertisement for King Kong.
:( It's reassuring that I'm not the only one who has noticed this.
There are an awful lot of "articles" nowadays that happen to coincide with a movie or DVD release.
As a general rule the "little person" in Australia with their iPod doesn't get much attention, but bigger places tend to be targets.
For example, at one of the local Australian universities the policy is "no mp3s". Doesn't matter if they are rips of your personal legally-owned CDs, you can't have them. I was asked to enforce this when I started doing some IT work for the Uni, and me being me, I immediately questioned why. Turns out the Uni lawyer(s) checked up on the laws, and the Uni can be stung for it. Hence the ban. Here's hoping the change in laws fixes this little problem, so I just have to ask if they are legally ripped mp3s and can move on if they are, rather than having to explain why they can't be kept on the Uni IT equipment.
Well, I had a good laugh, and I'm Australian. Strangely I hadn't heard that one before.
Well, I hope they do well. They are the sort of toys that I'd buy if they caught me at a time with decent disposable income.
;)
And I hope they are hackable to some degree, I mean, soft toys that can speak and communicate amongst themselves... some possibilities there...
These aren't new. I remember reading about them a couple of years ago, when they were a new startup like they are now (huh?). I remember the many, many comments about exactly where the model placed her hands on the toys.
It's a shame they are _still_ searching for someone to mass-market them. Even worse that you _still_ can't buy them. I think they have a really, really neat idea there.
Thank you! That needed to be said.
;)
No probs!
There's more than one valid way to cast and count votes, and many systems do a better job than ours of approximating what voters really want. The current system forces you to vote *against* your second choice if you vote for your first choice. Imagine if two candidates are running against Cthulhu and the opinion you want to express at the polls is "no more Cthulhu!" You can't moderate Cthulhu -1, so you're forced to vote for the more popular of the opponents.
Browse Wikipedia for terms like "Condorcet" or "instant runoff" to see some of the fun alternatives.
First-past-the-post is a terrible, terrible system. If two parties get entrenched it is hard to break their stranglehold. Instant runoff is leaps and bounds ahead of first-past though, and lets you vote for your favourite candidate whilst still being able to decide between the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately it is possible for a vote for your candidate to actually count against them in some circumstances; I have some trouble explaining the details myself, but some info can be found here. That link is mostly for the benefit of anyone else reading, since you mention Condorcet, I presume you've got a bit of background or are well read. As for Condorcet, and I have to admit I found it a bit confusing, but the theory behind it is seems strong.
And on the subject of Cthulu, can you imagine a situation where one of the main two parties put up Cthulu as one candidate, and the other put up Satan as theirs? Would people still vote for the lesser of the two evils?
I'm very curious about this. Could I trouble you for an email (can be found on my site fairly easily) or a few more terms that I could google for to fill in the missing pieces?
Absolutely. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Someone else might be ok with that on their conscience, but not me.
Well, I'd have to day conscience plays a part in voting for me, but it is more of an influencing factor, rather than a primary one.
The main thing for me is to make it really clear that I will only vote for a good party or candidate. I'm not interested in what someone says about the other candidate, or other people placing a value on my vote. I know what it is worth, and I'll vote for a good candidate. I convince others to do the same as well. Want my vote and the votes of people who have my ear? Be a good representative. That's the only way.
The second thing is to aim for the best long-term solution. Two-party duopolies don't bother me so long as both of the parties are good. If they aren't good, just entrenched, I'll do what I can to break their hold. That includes voting for a better candidate that won't win over and over, so it is crystal clear that there is support for another candidate beyond the big two. And maybe one say my contribution will lead to change.
Like in France:
:) How are the two or three decided?
a first stage to vote for who you want
a second stage (with the two or three best of the first stage) to eliminate the one you want least.
Not perfect, but the first stage allows a better view of the range of preferences.
I had no idea it worked like this in France! That sounds really interesting. Of course, it's not the most ideal political system, but it is certainly much better than first-past-the-post.
No, the reason we are stuck electing "Republicrats" every election is that our system is at equilibrium only when there are two parties.
I'm wondering if you could define equilibrium for me in this context as I am not sure I am completely following it.
Yes, I am, but I have no other choice.
But you do. You have just convinced yourself that you must vote for the lesser of two evils rather than who you want. You're looking at the result of the next election only and deducing that since the two incumbents are probably going to win, you should vote for the one that screws you over the least. This is somewhat myopic. Today, I worked a full day for the local Uni and got nothing apart from the loss of eight hours of my time. Same as the day before. However, I do it as I know in a few days time, I'll receive payment for it. You can get a payoff for voting sincerely, it just might not be at the next election. When candidate X gets 1% at the next election, 2% at the one after, and 8% at the next one, people are going to start paying attention to that candidate, as well as others. And if enough people went with what they believed, it wouldn't take so many election cycles. Do you want to perpetuate the problem or contribute to its solution?
The time for you Nader-ites to make a difference is before the election.
Interesting that you consider me a Nader-ite. I haven't revealed my political cards, though I guess I'd rather be mistaken as a Nader-ite above a Bush-ite or Kerry-ite. My position is simply to allow people to be able to realistically vote for the party they actually want, and to get better political candidates out of it in the process. This means a lot of voting reform, and it won't be an easy process or a quick one. It will also be much nicer if this is achieved through peaceful elections rather than through a violent civil war after the continually encroaching government takes things just a little too far one day.
Convince the Dems (your closest allies) to pick the most liberal candidate they can. Once the die is cast, once the public sees the choice is Dem A or Rep B, then all you can do is siphon votes from the only party that will give you even the slightest chance of getting your way.
Why should I be interested in the Dems? They show as much interest as listening to the people as the Repubs. How about I vote for the people who are most willing to represent me. I don't think I can count the Dems or Repubs as allies. Not at all.
Look, I believe doors should work like on Star Trek. But if I pretend like doors work that way, I'll just smash my nose everywhere (except the grocery store, I suppose). An intelligent person would accept the fact that reality trumps ideology.
Your analogy isn't. The situation discussed is analogous to a hopeless cause, which I agree with. But to imply that the political situation is hopeless and it isn't worth trying is defeatist. How about doing what I'm doing, and trying to convince people to take the steps they need to solve this horrid problem? It would make my day, week, and whole freaking month if you looked at what I've said and thought, hey, maybe I can make a difference, stopped with the "it's hopeless" and "wasted vote" mindset and spent some time convincing your friends that you can make a difference. If enough people can be convinced, the problem can be solved, and we'll all be much better off.
If you want doors to work like on Star Trek, get out there and do something about it, but when you walk up to a door that's not automatic, treat it as such.
I'd rather spend my time convincing people to break the duopoly deadlock both before elections and at elections, rather than fighting for a cause and then doing something contrary to it when it matters the most.
But since Star Trek doors are cool, let's talk doors.
Suppose doorways became a matter of national significance. Almost everyone wants to invest in research to get the cool Star Trek doors. A few do
This is one of those "I wish you could mod a comment up to +6, Insightful" comments.
:)
Cheers.
Its stupid to what lengths people will go to defend their viewpoint that a vote that isn't for one of the 2 main parties is a wasted vote. In its current form of people being convinced that is the case, it isn't really democracy at all.
At the moment I'd say the US does not resemble a democracy at all. Hence my comments about the choice between two fratboys. It wouldn't be so bad if it was a choice between the two most capable candidates in the US, but the roster is rarely anything resembling that. I wonder why people don't question the process by which the "main" candidates are selected. Would you even put any of the last batch of candidates for the last US election in the top 1% of most suitable people to lead the US? If not, there are close to three million people more suited to the position! Don't people have just a little problem with this?
I would say only 2 types of votes are wasted - those not cast, and those cast without sincerity. Voting for the lesser of too evils is a waste - democracy isn't about "winning", its about the composition of the government reflecting the views of the population.
I'd say that a vote for a candidate that the voter doesn't really want is worse than no vote at all. All such a vote does is make it harder for a legitimate candidate to get in. Thus the "a third party vote is a wasted vote" comment is a very, very dangerous one for a representative democracy.
Also, for ANYONE of the mentality of "its just one vote, it doesn't matter", you do not understand democracy at all. If 50 million people say the same thing, thats about 1/3 of your voters NOT voting for who they agree with (based on the population of the US).
Exactly. One vote on its own doesn't do a lot, but 50 million people with just one vote do matter.
... Douglas Adams quotation ...
:) For some similar relevant quotes, try The Simpsons ("Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos") and Futurama, where the two opposing candidates are "John Jackson" and "Jack Johnson", and are clones. I think South Park had something similar as well, but I'm not as familiar with it.
Exactly. Reassuring to see someone armed and ready with this one.
Nope. A vote cast on a rigged machine with no audit trail is equally wasted.
Indeed. A most excellent exception, I stand corrected. Please mod parent up. This is another incredibly important thing in any kind of real representative democracy, ensuring that the process of voting and counting itself is fair. Lots of relevant stuff here.
I'm running late for work so it'll be a while before I can get back to this thread. Longer reply coming at the end of the day. I beg to differ on the "have no other choice" comment but I'll elaborate on that later.
Massively offtopic, but this issue really ticks me off.
Reality is that in most cases, a vote for an independent candidate is a wasted vote.
Oh cut it out. This line of thought is why the US is stuck electing Republicrats every election. The only wasted vote is one that isn't cast.
Sure, vote for someone outside of the major two parties and you won't "win" in the present loaded system. But you do throw your weight behind the numbers who have indicated that they aren't happy with Red and Blue but want someone else in. More importantly, you've thrown your weight behind a particular party or ideology, and as the numbers grow, more people can shake the "I must vote for one of the two main parties" mentality and vote for another viable party. Sure, it won't happen in one election, but if people vote for who they want rather than following the catchy "you're throwing your vote away" mentality, then the country as a whole will be much better off and it'll finally elect a capable representative leader.
The whole logic of saying that because you won't "win" in one election you should vote for the best of the worst two is not only counterintuitive but is entrenching the present political stranglehold. All I can say is stop it. Stop repeating the "third party is a wasted vote" lie because gullible people keep believing it, and you keep getting rubbish government as a result. Don't you think you deserve better than the best of the worst two? Aren't you all sick of electing one of two fratboys offered up each election?
No probs!
:) And there are certainly a lot of good indie games floating around out there. Do be sure to check them out. :) And I'd encourage everyone to support small indie game developers. Even if E.V.E. Paradox isn't your cup of tea, look around until you find something that is... there are a lot of good games out there!
:)
I'm glad you like the games.
As for Introversion's games, I didn't go for Darwinia myself, but I definitely went for Uplink (bought it within a day of playing the demo). Uplink was an inspiration for me. It showed me that a game with an unconventional focus (a cracking sim) made by a small group could still sell and do well. If it wasn't for Uplink, I may have never given E.V.E. Paradox a go.
Thanks for your thoughts and for checking out the games.
Very, very offtopic, so I'll self-mod down, but hey. ;)
:) Oh- and no multiplayer in E.V.E. Paradox yet, but I desperately want to add it...
;)
:)
That EULA clause on multiple installations should only be in the paid editions, there should be no such clause in the Free one. The clause is a little more convoluted so that you can do more things than "normal". For example, it makes it clear you can have a paid copy on your laptop and both boots of a dual-boot Linux-Windows system and do a quick install/uninstall on a friends machine to show them the game, all without being in breach of the agreement. Many EULAs will just say "one copy, period", where I think it's fairer to say "one copy at a time". I don't think you should have to choose one OS or machine to play the game on if you've actually got two (or more). I know people will do it anyway, and I'd rather people know that I'm completely cool with it.
Having said that, there are no such restrictions on the Free Edition, so everyone can run their own copy; think of the Free Edition as the limited spawn-only copies of various multiplayer games, except the Free Edition will have much more functionality than your typical spawn-copy and nobody has to have a paid edition if they don't want to.
The other clause you quote relates to Created Content, which basically means created levels, for when I get the Level Editor cleaned up for release. It restricts you from creating levels and either selling them or restricting access to them. Basically if you use the tool to create levels, everyone (with the right Edition) should be able to play them for free. If someone wants to sell levels for profit, they can negotiate something separate with me.
Feel free to drop me a line if I can help out further, email in profile and all over my site.
Hey there Tom. Read a whole bunch of your posts over the years on Slashdot and I'd have to say I've enjoyed many of your posts.
The examples you ask for are provided in my original post. Both happened to me. In the first, the truck didn't see me and pulled into my lane (I was in the slow lane) while I was still there at 80km/h. Car up rear not paying attention meaning I couldn't brake. You are hearing my story today because I was able to plant my foot and break the speed limit for about five seconds to avoid being crushed or rammed into telephone poles at that speed. Heck, I'd gladly pay the fine if I was hit by a radar during those five seconds because doing so meant I am still alive today. I'll leave the second example to another day.
I agree with your example _in general_. I've never been in that particular situation before- I hope you're not assuming my situation was such- but bear in mind some people will _accelerate_ when you try to overtake them because they don't want their pride wounded, thus creating a very dangerous situation when oncoming traffic is involved. I rarely overtake into an oncoming lane for precisely this reason.
I'll have to respectfully disagree with the blanket assertion with your post; unless I can amend your assertion to "very rarely". I've given examples as to where the speed helps prevent an accident, as have others. They are definitely the exception rather than the rule, but I feel it may be negligent to ignore such exceptions due to the potential lethality. Having said that, I believe we feel quite similarly in principle.
What a terrible idea.
I don't drive as much nowadays as I used to, but a few years back I lived an hour from my work and racked up ten hours plus driving weekly, much of it at high speed.
I've been in enough situations where I needed a burst of speed to come out of the situation in one piece, and the last thing I'd need in such a scenario is my car fighting me. When a truck pulls into your lane whilst you are still in it at 80km/h and you have a car behind you, the last thing you need is something retarding your acceleration. When a driver who is willing to let you die by running you into the back of a parked car because their ego can't take the blow of you passing them, you need good brakes or good acceleration and the ability to use them fast. If they finally figure out the situation and make the wrong call by slowing down, that acceleration is going to be the difference between you being a statistic and making it home that night.
And before anyone says it, preventative driving is the key. But if you're on the road enough, you or another will eventually make a mistake that puts you in a bad situation.
Now GPS isn't always the most accurate of things, and the last thing I want is for the accelerator to require different amounts of pressure to achieve the same results based on GPS whims.
Having said all of that, replace messing with the car with an audible signal and you've got a winner.
Try and substitute each of the following words in the headline and article text in place of the word "teenager". Some additional creative liberty may be needed to make it fit, but the idea should be the same. Of each of these words, which outcomes are acceptable to you?
- Female (or Male)
- Black (or White, or...)
- Homosexual
- Poor
I was a teenager once (okay, quite some time ago!), as were many of you. I hated how I was treated then, both by my "peers" and the "responsible adults". True, there are bad apples, but that's the case at every age (think some CEOs, lawyers, politicos).
Why is it acceptable to give teenagers a hard time, because of a few bad apples?
Ah, congratulations, how delightful! I *loved* code generators. Ya bring back memories ... at my first really good gig, management just stood out of the way while I wrote a mainframe BASIC program that generated COBOL reporting programs as fast as they could think of new stuff they wanted out of their data; the reports were basically the same anyway except for the sort, select, summarization and output. So the generator wasn't really as hard as it might sound.
:(
My current project (E.V.E. Paradox) uses a fair amount of automatic code generation. Basically as I add a new game and object to a game, it creates the code to let you edit it in the Editor GUI, base code to load and save it in various formats, the basic game code, doco, and all of the annoying little hooks required. It's a neat little Ruby program, and it produces reasonably readable C++. It's not perfect, but reduces the amount of copy/paste for common code. It reduces errors due to simple typos dramatically; I haven't looked at some of this code for quite some time, it just works.
The downside is that it is hard to maintain and can get a bit bulky. I can think of a few improvements that I could have made to use more generics and a bit less automatic codegen, but shoestring budget and all...
Of course, this was in a commercially competitive environment where we were rewarded by results, not by metrics.
Those gigs are getting harder and harder to find.
I worked at a company that had let it slip that they were taking metrics on number of lines of code submitted to the revision control system. This was a directive from the higher-ups, so of course against all logic the next line of management down from them (and above me) went along with it blindly. I tried to argue about the uselessness of such metrics to deaf ears. So, being me, I decided to have a little fun with this.
One section of the code consisted of a number of modules that were basic copies of each other with small local customisations. Think hundreds or thousands of lines in common. No, I didn't write them, but I had to maintain them. So I took these, pulled out some code into common libraries, and wrote a code generator to produce much of the rest from input files. I was also careful to work on non-coding tasks for the remainder of that week; essential stuff but the sort that had been put off for a while. My net code contribution that week: Negative several hundred lines of code. The code also became infinitely more maintainable, and I fixed countless copy/paste bugs in the process.
No doubt someone fudged my negative figure upwards when it went back up through the management chain to avoid rocking the boat, no doubt to a nice small number of positive line chances to ensure I looked bad. But, if only to myself, I had proved my point.
losing your job when your game crashes and burns in the market
You forgot: losing your job when your game does really well in the market. The games industy isn't always the nicest of places...
I have to agree.
As of recently a whole bunch of Slashdot IDs that I've personally never heard of start posting heavily about how Google could do something evil with one of their recent actions, and thus deducing that they are evil. Then people start talking as if it were some kind of Slashdot consensus. The whole thing smells of a deliberate smear campaign, sort of a reverse astroturf. How about we give them a chance to commit evil before we condemn them for it, eh? Why not focus on a few organisations that have had the chance to commit evil acts, and chosen them almost every single time?
Maybe one day Google will become a horribly abusive monopoly who abuse their staff, customers, and local governments in an effort to squeeze them for every cent they have. But... and how about this... perhaps we should wait until they actually show signs of having any intention of doing this sort of thing? Perhaps it is worth focusing on organisations who are _already_ doing this, rather than ones who show all signs of not being inclined in this way at all?
Okay, who turned their spam filter up to 11? Out with it.
(Aisle seat, please)