in such a way that third party candidates hurt their own causes by running (by taking away votes from the candidates who are most similar to them in the eyes of voters), why do you think your running is worth the risk of helping the worst candidate to win?
Are you interested in election reform to eliminate the spoiler effect (through such things as condorcet election methods), or would you prefer pretend the problem is not there, and not worry what damage is caused by your running for office?
Your vote will have an outcome on the election, in a statistical sense -- it is just a very small one. In florida in 2000 it got to something around 1/500 that you could change the outcome, but usually it is much, much, much smaller. Especially in non-swing states.
The question is whether you want to make it a whole lot smaller by voting for someone whose chance of winning is miniscule. I say no, if I am going to bother to vote, I'd rather it have as much impact as possible.
It's not in your interest to vote, at least not from a game theory perspective. Voting takes effort, and the benefit you recieve directly from your act of voting is insignificantly small comparatively. If you want to say "but what if everybody didn't vote?", hit wikipedia for some game theory background first...
(and before you mod me down for discouraging voting...i vote and don't expect anyone not to based on this argument....but I'd just like to see a good countering argument)
Who said it wasn't science fiction? I just said it didn't seem to be simply the future, and what I meant was the future relative to when it was made. H.G.Wells stuff (as will as Orwell's) was more standard future-oriented sci-fi, because it was a reasonable best guess of the author at what the future might be like. Do you think Terry Gilliam seriously thought that one day we would use standard typewriters connected to bare CRT's with fresnel lenses?
Brazil is one of my favorite movies, partly for the weirdness of it being sort of a parallel universe rather than just a simple leap into the future.
people will alter their behavior if they are being charged this way. Just as you will use less electricity if it is being metered rather than an "all you can eat" plan.
Film uses RGB. Although negative film has cmy....red light causes cyan dye, green light causes magenta dye, blue light causes yellow dye...but the colors that it is sensitive to, and that it ultimately represents in a print, are red green and blue.
For instance, is it rational to buy a share of google for $300, if there is a 90% chance that it will be going for $400 tomorrow? I'd say yes, regardless of their fundamentals.
If it doesn't use real money, that seems to defeat the purpose. The whole reason these things are so accurate is because people are betting real money, which tends to bring out the people who have the best information.
By what logic does that cost them nothing? They are giving away a couple percent of the company. Also, the stock does already have a market value, see tradesports.com where its value is determined by an active market.
Just because they are not paying cash does not make it any less real.
I thought spyware generally meant a completely unrelated thing, software like Gator that spies on the user that installed it, and gives the information to the company that makes it. As opposed to software that allows one person to spy on another person.
Well that doesn't explain why animated movies are more likely to be kid oriented that other movies. After all Lord or the Rings and the Matrix etc made a lot of money too, and I doubt they would have made more money if they somehow made them more "little kid friendly". If making family fare was really a safer business model, you'd see a lot more live action family oriented movies than you do.
Personally I think there is something about animation -- especially non-realistic looking animation -- that appeals to kids more than it does to adults. However, the lines are blurring between animation and live action. Many movies (new Star Wars movies, Lord of the Rings, the Matrix, etc) are heaviliy CG to the point that soon nothing but the actors will be live action (or, in the case of Dinosaur, nothing but the backgrounds). And while Final Fantasy was probably before its time, soon photorealtic humans will be possible, allowing fully animated movies that don't "look" animated. As that happens, I think you will see a lot more adult fare that is fully animated.
Slashdot Mirror
in such a way that third party candidates hurt their own causes by running (by taking away votes from the candidates who are most similar to them in the eyes of voters), why do you think your running is worth the risk of helping the worst candidate to win?
Are you interested in election reform to eliminate the spoiler effect (through such things as condorcet election methods), or would you prefer pretend the problem is not there, and not worry what damage is caused by your running for office?
People will vote for the two party duoploly as long as we have a plurality election system. See Duverger's Law.
If you don't view yourself as the whole and only a part of one massive whole and understand your duty to that whole
And anyone who claims such an altruistic view, but has two shirts when someone else in the world has none,* is a hypocrite.
*borrowed from Lenny Bruce's "anyone who has two shirts when someone has none is not a christian"
Your vote will have an outcome on the election, in a statistical sense -- it is just a very small one. In florida in 2000 it got to something around 1/500 that you could change the outcome, but usually it is much, much, much smaller. Especially in non-swing states.
The question is whether you want to make it a whole lot smaller by voting for someone whose chance of winning is miniscule. I say no, if I am going to bother to vote, I'd rather it have as much impact as possible.
It's not in your interest to vote, at least not from a game theory perspective. Voting takes effort, and the benefit you recieve directly from your act of voting is insignificantly small comparatively. If you want to say "but what if everybody didn't vote?", hit wikipedia for some game theory background first...
(and before you mod me down for discouraging voting...i vote and don't expect anyone not to based on this argument....but I'd just like to see a good countering argument)
Who said it wasn't science fiction? I just said it didn't seem to be simply the future, and what I meant was the future relative to when it was made. H.G.Wells stuff (as will as Orwell's) was more standard future-oriented sci-fi, because it was a reasonable best guess of the author at what the future might be like. Do you think Terry Gilliam seriously thought that one day we would use standard typewriters connected to bare CRT's with fresnel lenses?
Brazil is one of my favorite movies, partly for the weirdness of it being sort of a parallel universe rather than just a simple leap into the future.
Is it really the future though? It looks to me like what they might have predicted the 70's might look like, back in the 20's. (but yeah, great film)
If you make a wrong turn into opposing traffic, your insurance will go up as well. And?
And what if the amount of damage is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars? How is a court going to force them to pay money they don't have?
As for smashing into a tree, that is collision insurance, which is optional. Liability is what is required.
people will alter their behavior if they are being charged this way. Just as you will use less electricity if it is being metered rather than an "all you can eat" plan.
Film uses RGB. Although negative film has cmy....red light causes cyan dye, green light causes magenta dye, blue light causes yellow dye...but the colors that it is sensitive to, and that it ultimately represents in a print, are red green and blue.
600 page views a second at peak hours (and 1 billion a month) according to craigs blog.
Define rational please....
For instance, is it rational to buy a share of google for $300, if there is a 90% chance that it will be going for $400 tomorrow? I'd say yes, regardless of their fundamentals.
If it doesn't use real money, that seems to defeat the purpose. The whole reason these things are so accurate is because people are betting real money, which tends to bring out the people who have the best information.
By what logic does that cost them nothing? They are giving away a couple percent of the company. Also, the stock does already have a market value, see tradesports.com where its value is determined by an active market.
Just because they are not paying cash does not make it any less real.
And what, I'm supposed to believe that they won't put them back in when its convenient to them? I don't think so.
Why don't you wait till they do, and stop using it then?
As it is, you are providing them no incentive to correct their past mistakes.
So rubber grommets are software?
I thought spyware generally meant a completely unrelated thing, software like Gator that spies on the user that installed it, and gives the information to the company that makes it. As opposed to software that allows one person to spy on another person.
For one thing, when it "sets out to prove it once and for all", it is obviously going to get a skewed sample.
to fix the grammer before posting a story?
How can it be prior art? It happened in the future. Dummy.
what the hell does that mean?
All animation isn't dubbed. The voice is recorded first, and the animation done afterwards to match it. Huge difference.
Well that doesn't explain why animated movies are more likely to be kid oriented that other movies. After all Lord or the Rings and the Matrix etc made a lot of money too, and I doubt they would have made more money if they somehow made them more "little kid friendly". If making family fare was really a safer business model, you'd see a lot more live action family oriented movies than you do.
Personally I think there is something about animation -- especially non-realistic looking animation -- that appeals to kids more than it does to adults. However, the lines are blurring between animation and live action. Many movies (new Star Wars movies, Lord of the Rings, the Matrix, etc) are heaviliy CG to the point that soon nothing but the actors will be live action (or, in the case of Dinosaur, nothing but the backgrounds). And while Final Fantasy was probably before its time, soon photorealtic humans will be possible, allowing fully animated movies that don't "look" animated. As that happens, I think you will see a lot more adult fare that is fully animated.
You are saying that it was an hour between the time the photo was shot and it was "seen all over the world"? I'm calling BS.