I was a TA an ancient history class at the college level for a couple of semesters. It was an intro class and we didn't expect the students to solve the mysteries of the ancients; it was mainly a course for them to learn how historians read sources and think about the past. I had a few near-identical conversations with kids at the beginning of the semester that went like this:
Student: So, I've come to your office hours today to find out what I need to do to get a B or better in this class. Me: Well, you need to do the assigned readings, and you need to show me, in class discussion or in your essays, that you've thought about the readings. Student: [Blind look of panic]
My one case of plagarism was from one of these guys. The problem is that we wanted to class to teach them how to read and how to think. They thought of it as a component of their GPA to help them get into business school. I can see the same mentality leading someone in CS to try to buy homework online.
I think there's a difference between using GPL'd code that's available to the programming community at large to solve a problem and hiring someone to do your homework. The first requires you to understand what the problem is and what sort of code would solve it. The second is just punting the problem on to someone else.
I used to live in the SF area and commute on BART. I always dreaded the moments when the train would come out of the tunnel because half of the passengers would whip our their cell phones and start desperately dialing. "Hey, it's me... I'm at West Oakland... be home in 20 miniutes... OK, bye!" Then, 10 MINUTES LATER, we'd come out of the tunnel again and they'd do the SAME DAMN THING. "Hey, it's me... I'm at Macarthur... be home in 10 minutes... OK, bye!" I hated them all so much. So glad not to have to be there when they can do the inane blow-by-blow of their commute IN the tunnels too.
Public school districts are institutions of local governments, and their regulations have the force of law for students (i.e. the rules have the force of the government behind them and students can be punished for breaking them).
Preventing a student from praying -- silently in class, or on his own time at recess or outside of class -- obviously is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" as well as "abridging the freedom of speech." So is failing to make reasonable accommodations for private religious practice.
School officials (who are government appointees) giving a student a microphone and having them pray in front of a school assembly is a whole different kettle of fish. You're essentially saying "This student's beliefs are the beliefs of the school district," which means that the local government is declaring one religion or set of beliefs to be true. That is also obviously in contradiction with the 1st Amendment.
Why do so many Christians seem to feel that they are being "repressed" if Christianity isn't given offical state-funded recongition?
Um, there used to be coerced prayer in public schools all over the U.S. Christian prayers, it goes without saying. The reason they don't exist anymore is because groups like the ACLU sued to get rid of them. If the ACLU were to set up a Saudi chapter (SCLU?), I think it would be a good thing.
The reason there's no push for this is that for most people, making code open source doesn't actually improve their access to it. For 99.999 percent of the US population (and, I'd wager, a solid majority of Slashdot readers), an open source breathalyzer is still a mysterious box. The only difference is that you could get a computer scientist who doesn't work for the manufacturer to explain it. Now I do think that this is important (especially when it comes to voting machines) but for most people it probably doesn't come across as a great blow for openness and freedom.
The government of Taiwan views itself as the "Republic of China," the legitimate government of all of China, of which Taiwan is a part. Officially, they too view Taiwan as a province of China -- the only province under the control of the legitimate Chinese government, as it happens. What exactly is the problem here?
Actually, there are plenty of Latin nouns that end in o in the nominative; they are in the third declension. Leo (lion) is a good example. Lots of English word that ends in "-tion" are derived from a Latin word ending in "-tio" in the nominative (i.e. obligatio)
If eggo were a Latin noun, it's nominative would be eggonis.
Good the hear from you -- I think we've met in the flesh once or twice.
Anyway, I didn't know that about Sys-Con's model. I think this incident illustrates a big flaw in that volunteer-editorial model: you don't have that much leverage over your people if they choose to quit in a snit.
Also, it raises an interesting question: if Maureen O'G. wasn't being paid to stalk PJ by Sys-Con, why did she do it?
LinuxWorld *used* to be a Web magazine put out by an arm of IDG. I worked for that group in the late 90s-early 00s as a copy editor when it put out JavaWorld (still around), SunWorld (which became UnixInsider and then went away) and WindowsTechEdge (which flopped). It was then run by Nick Petreley, if that name means anything to you.
The San Francisco-based group was merged by our parent company into a division called "ITworld," the main site for which still exists. But then came the dot-com crash and all the west coast sites were eliminated ('cept JavaWorld). LinuxWorld was taken over briefly by IDG.net, but eventually was sold to Sys-Con. Don't know much of what happened after that...
I'm not unaware of this -- I have read both Old and New Testaments -- but not being a Christian or a religious Jew, I don't feel bound by either. But the people you see picketing the funerals of people who have died of AIDS and such always seem to pick the Leviticus citation to put under "GOD HATES FAGS" in their signs.
Honestly, my point still stands: people who claim to be driven by religious motives to change government policies are much more fervant in their moves to ban things that they themselves know they'll never do. For instance, the NT is staggeringly specific on the issue of divorce. In Matt. 19:9, Jesus said, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." To the best of my knowledge, of the major Christian denominations in the US today, only the Catholic Church follows this particular verse to the letter, and even the Catholics have not anytime recently tried to remove divorce as a legal avenue for dissolving a civil marriage in this country. Yet the number of civil divorces is I'm sure an order of magnitude greater than the potential number of gay marriages. So why is exactly zero serious effort Christian being put into banning civil divorce? (Note that I'm talking about civil marriage and civil divorce. Any religious denomination is free to withhold religious approval from any marriage it doesn't approve of, as the Catholics routinely do for second marriages where the divorced spouse is still living.)
The Old Testament, especially the The Law or pentateuch, are considered to be of value only for historical reasons: they applied only to prepare the Chosen people for the coming of Christ. So the story, for example, of Abraham and creation were preperations for the coming of Christ. This is why, for example, even devout Christians do not keep kosher while devout Jews do: the period of preperation and sacrifice ended when Christ was recognized as the saviour.
Except for the gays, though, right? Boy howdy, all that stuff in Leviticus about unnatural sex sure does still apply!
Note that I'm not saying that the parent poster believes this, just that many Christians seem to have a finely tune ability to say that Old Testament bans on things they like to do (like eat shrimp and bacon) no longer apply, but bans on things that they don't like to do (like have sex with members of their own gender) are still in full force.
Can anyone explain to me the best way to upgrade Firefox? Updating from 1.0 to 1.0.1 seemed to leave two instances of Mozilla on my desktop. Should I uninstall the old before installing the new? I don't want to lose all my settings/bookmarks/etc.
Not only is it headless, but it's handless... as near as I can tell from the marketing copy on Apple's site, it doesn't come with a keyboard or mouse.
This isn't that big a deal -- you can get a USB keyboard/mouse combo for less than $50 -- but I think it just goes to show that this is aimed squarely at the whiners on Slashdot who always say, "just give me a sub-$500 Mac, man!" and whose dingy apartments are littered with dozens of abandonned Cheeto-encrusted keyboards.
In 1999, I was still using a relatively old-ish version of Quicken for Mac (from 1995 or so) to maintain my finances. I had upgraded my computer in that time, but never had reason to upgrade to a newer version of Quicken. Well, when I fired it up on January 1 to do a little first-of-the-month bookkeeping, lo and behold! It wouldn't accept any dates after 1999 as valid. I was horrified yet amused.
The horror became more pronounced when I discovered that my version was old enough to be considered "unsupported" by Intuit and thus wasn't eligable for a free Y2K-fix upgrade. If I were made of stronger stuff, I would have shunned Intuit from then on and gone with some other accounting software, but the thought of losing or having to struggle to access my years of carefully entered Quicken data resulted in me caving in and paying full price for the upgrade.
To toot my own horn a wee bit -- I'm writing a series of contest articles for the IBM developerWorks Power Architecture zone. This month's contest involves the most creative use of locator (GPS, RFID, etc.) chips. Come on over and send us some entries!
That's the part I never quite understood about companies that want to be built in downtown areas. The commute sucks cause everyone has to drive to a subway station first. Then take a subway as the 2nd part of commute.
And THAT'S why oil costs so damn much and Americans are so damn fat, everybody!
Hey, you know those buildings that the subway passes by on its way downtown? The ones that are within walking distance of the subway stops? People live in those buildings, and they don't need to drive to the subway station. In fact, often they don't need to own a car at all!
Does the phrase "transit-oriented development" mean anything to you? No, I didn't think it did.
(on the previous post, NY and CA do not have wildy different political profiles, especially when you factor in the abundant influences of their cities - which is what the article author is aiming for - giving population centers more influence)
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. NY and CA as currently constituted do have similar political profiles. I meant that regions *within* each state have very different profiles from one another. Many people outside of CA think of liberal, urban SF and LA as the epitome of the state's political culture, but there's also convservative urban areas (Orange County) and conservative rural areas (San Joaquin Valley). Ditto New York -- Liberal NYC and conservative rural/suburban upstate and western NY areas are very different. The fact that Rochester and Westchester, or San Francisco and San Diego, share a state is a result of a decisions made centuries ago. It makes no moden sense to lump them together in a voting block for the president.
David is from NY, a state with a number of large cities and he feels underrepresented, but consider the point of view of farmers and ranchers. We can have raging debates ad nausea for example about whether the federal government does too much or too little to assist farmers and ranchers, but the fact of the matter is that if it were not for the systems in place to grant disproportionate weight to rural areas, there would indeed be less aid.
Actually, there are a lot of rural areas on New York State. California, another state probably thought of as "urban" by people who haven't lived there, has one of the largest agricultural industries in the U.S. The EC effectively disenfranchises these rural areas because they happen to be in the same state as large cities; thus, unlike, say, Iowa, rural interests don't have a majority in that state. Is that fair, in your model?
You can talk about rural-vs.-urban or small-state-vs.-large-state all you want, but the elephant in the living room of the electoral college is that the current shape and populations of U.S. states is the result of historic accident, not logical planning. It's not like all the farmers are in one state and all the city-dwellers in another. You can discuss general categories of "farming states" or "manufacturing states", but the truth is that every state has at least a little of every category; as a result, any model where you try to break influence down into actual social categories breaks down because of all the exceptions, and you just end up with the truth, which is that certain particular states have more voting power than certain other particular states.
Under a one-person-one-vote system, farmers in California and Wyoming have equal voting power. City-dwellers in Texas and D.C. have equal voting power. Period.
Also, is there really a surprise that cities tend Democratic and rural areas Republican? Again this seems to be sour grapes from David based on his comments.
Gosh, and I don't suppose any Republican is really supporting the EC for this exact same reason, do you?
Here's an interesting question for you all. What do you think it would take to get enough political willpower in the U.S. to scrap this system?
Four years ago, I would have said "Have someone lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote." Obviously I was wrong. But 2000 was a special case -- all the controversy swirling around Florida meant that by the time things were finally settled, no one wanted to think or hear about presidential elections anymore. In fact, there are any number of both Bush and Gore supporters from 2000 who probably don't even know, or quickly forgot, that Gore came in first in the popular vote overall.
So, what if this year the same thing happens, but the parties reverse -- Kerry wins the Electoral College (and the presidency), Bush wins the popular vote? Would the two parties see the last two elections as enough impetus to change or scrap the EC? Even if the national parties agreed, could they enforce party discipline on the state level to push the necessary constitutional changes through the state legislatures?
For my personal opinion -- I say scrap it, or at least modify it so that the whole country does a proportional or by-congressional-district apportionment like Maine and Nebraska. I know all the arguments about federalism -- I just don't find them that persuasive or relevant. The bottom line is that the Presidency and the U.S. central government are now so powerful, and so intrusive in people's lives, that to give some U.S. citizens extra voting power just because of where they happen to live extremely undemocratic. And yes, with modern American mobility, it *is* a matter of "where they happen to live" -- people move across state lines all the time, and I don't think loyalty to one's home state is anywhere near what it used to be.
In addition, several of the founding concepts of the system seem to be to flawed or no longer relevant. States of a similar size don't necessarily have similar interestes -- compare D.C. and Wyoming (3 EVs), Maryland and Arizona (10 EVs), New York and Texas (31-34 EVs). And states don't necessarily have monolithic interests -- New York and California both contains regions with wildly different demographic and political profiles.
Slashdot Mirror
I was a TA an ancient history class at the college level for a couple of semesters. It was an intro class and we didn't expect the students to solve the mysteries of the ancients; it was mainly a course for them to learn how historians read sources and think about the past. I had a few near-identical conversations with kids at the beginning of the semester that went like this:
Student: So, I've come to your office hours today to find out what I need to do to get a B or better in this class.
Me: Well, you need to do the assigned readings, and you need to show me, in class discussion or in your essays, that you've thought about the readings.
Student: [Blind look of panic]
My one case of plagarism was from one of these guys. The problem is that we wanted to class to teach them how to read and how to think. They thought of it as a component of their GPA to help them get into business school. I can see the same mentality leading someone in CS to try to buy homework online.
jf
I think there's a difference between using GPL'd code that's available to the programming community at large to solve a problem and hiring someone to do your homework. The first requires you to understand what the problem is and what sort of code would solve it. The second is just punting the problem on to someone else.
jf
dude, did you, like, read the rest of the thing I submitted. I was being sarcastic. As the thrust of the story indicates.
jf
I used to live in the SF area and commute on BART. I always dreaded the moments when the train would come out of the tunnel because half of the passengers would whip our their cell phones and start desperately dialing. "Hey, it's me ... I'm at West Oakland ... be home in 20 miniutes ... OK, bye!" Then, 10 MINUTES LATER, we'd come out of the tunnel again and they'd do the SAME DAMN THING. "Hey, it's me ... I'm at Macarthur ... be home in 10 minutes ... OK, bye!" I hated them all so much. So glad not to have to be there when they can do the inane blow-by-blow of their commute IN the tunnels too.
jf
Public school districts are institutions of local governments, and their regulations have the force of law for students (i.e. the rules have the force of the government behind them and students can be punished for breaking them).
Preventing a student from praying -- silently in class, or on his own time at recess or outside of class -- obviously is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" as well as "abridging the freedom of speech." So is failing to make reasonable accommodations for private religious practice.
School officials (who are government appointees) giving a student a microphone and having them pray in front of a school assembly is a whole different kettle of fish. You're essentially saying "This student's beliefs are the beliefs of the school district," which means that the local government is declaring one religion or set of beliefs to be true. That is also obviously in contradiction with the 1st Amendment.
Why do so many Christians seem to feel that they are being "repressed" if Christianity isn't given offical state-funded recongition?
jf
Um, there used to be coerced prayer in public schools all over the U.S. Christian prayers, it goes without saying. The reason they don't exist anymore is because groups like the ACLU sued to get rid of them. If the ACLU were to set up a Saudi chapter (SCLU?), I think it would be a good thing.
jf
The reason there's no push for this is that for most people, making code open source doesn't actually improve their access to it. For 99.999 percent of the US population (and, I'd wager, a solid majority of Slashdot readers), an open source breathalyzer is still a mysterious box. The only difference is that you could get a computer scientist who doesn't work for the manufacturer to explain it. Now I do think that this is important (especially when it comes to voting machines) but for most people it probably doesn't come across as a great blow for openness and freedom.
jf
The government of Taiwan views itself as the "Republic of China," the legitimate government of all of China, of which Taiwan is a part. Officially, they too view Taiwan as a province of China -- the only province under the control of the legitimate Chinese government, as it happens. What exactly is the problem here?
jf
Out of curiosity, how can you tell what a site's page rank is?
jf
Er, I meant to say that its genitive would be eggonis. Darn my insufficiantly pedantic pedantry!
Actually, there are plenty of Latin nouns that end in o in the nominative; they are in the third declension. Leo (lion) is a good example. Lots of English word that ends in "-tion" are derived from a Latin word ending in "-tio" in the nominative (i.e. obligatio)
If eggo were a Latin noun, it's nominative would be eggonis.
Hey Mark-
Good the hear from you -- I think we've met in the flesh once or twice.
Anyway, I didn't know that about Sys-Con's model. I think this incident illustrates a big flaw in that volunteer-editorial model: you don't have that much leverage over your people if they choose to quit in a snit.
Also, it raises an interesting question: if Maureen O'G. wasn't being paid to stalk PJ by Sys-Con, why did she do it?
jf
LinuxWorld *used* to be a Web magazine put out by an arm of IDG. I worked for that group in the late 90s-early 00s as a copy editor when it put out JavaWorld (still around), SunWorld (which became UnixInsider and then went away) and WindowsTechEdge (which flopped). It was then run by Nick Petreley, if that name means anything to you.
The San Francisco-based group was merged by our parent company into a division called "ITworld," the main site for which still exists. But then came the dot-com crash and all the west coast sites were eliminated ('cept JavaWorld). LinuxWorld was taken over briefly by IDG.net, but eventually was sold to Sys-Con. Don't know much of what happened after that...
I'm not unaware of this -- I have read both Old and New Testaments -- but not being a Christian or a religious Jew, I don't feel bound by either. But the people you see picketing the funerals of people who have died of AIDS and such always seem to pick the Leviticus citation to put under "GOD HATES FAGS" in their signs.
Honestly, my point still stands: people who claim to be driven by religious motives to change government policies are much more fervant in their moves to ban things that they themselves know they'll never do. For instance, the NT is staggeringly specific on the issue of divorce. In Matt. 19:9, Jesus said, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." To the best of my knowledge, of the major Christian denominations in the US today, only the Catholic Church follows this particular verse to the letter, and even the Catholics have not anytime recently tried to remove divorce as a legal avenue for dissolving a civil marriage in this country. Yet the number of civil divorces is I'm sure an order of magnitude greater than the potential number of gay marriages. So why is exactly zero serious effort Christian being put into banning civil divorce? (Note that I'm talking about civil marriage and civil divorce. Any religious denomination is free to withhold religious approval from any marriage it doesn't approve of, as the Catholics routinely do for second marriages where the divorced spouse is still living.)
jf
The Old Testament, especially the The Law or pentateuch, are considered to be of value only for historical reasons: they applied only to prepare the Chosen people for the coming of Christ. So the story, for example, of Abraham and creation were preperations for the coming of Christ. This is why, for example, even devout Christians do not keep kosher while devout Jews do: the period of preperation and sacrifice ended when Christ was recognized as the saviour.
Except for the gays, though, right? Boy howdy, all that stuff in Leviticus about unnatural sex sure does still apply!
Note that I'm not saying that the parent poster believes this, just that many Christians seem to have a finely tune ability to say that Old Testament bans on things they like to do (like eat shrimp and bacon) no longer apply, but bans on things that they don't like to do (like have sex with members of their own gender) are still in full force.
jf
Can anyone explain to me the best way to upgrade Firefox? Updating from 1.0 to 1.0.1 seemed to leave two instances of Mozilla on my desktop. Should I uninstall the old before installing the new? I don't want to lose all my settings/bookmarks/etc.
jf
Not only is it headless, but it's handless ... as near as I can tell from the marketing copy on Apple's site, it doesn't come with a keyboard or mouse.
This isn't that big a deal -- you can get a USB keyboard/mouse combo for less than $50 -- but I think it just goes to show that this is aimed squarely at the whiners on Slashdot who always say, "just give me a sub-$500 Mac, man!" and whose dingy apartments are littered with dozens of abandonned Cheeto-encrusted keyboards.
jf
I live on Abell Avenue, and one of my neighbors has an access point named ABELLHIZZY. I don't think it's Snoop Dogg, though.
It does have WEP protection, too. Snoop says: Stay the hizell out of my access pizzoint, muthafucka.
jf
In 1999, I was still using a relatively old-ish version of Quicken for Mac (from 1995 or so) to maintain my finances. I had upgraded my computer in that time, but never had reason to upgrade to a newer version of Quicken. Well, when I fired it up on January 1 to do a little first-of-the-month bookkeeping, lo and behold! It wouldn't accept any dates after 1999 as valid. I was horrified yet amused.
The horror became more pronounced when I discovered that my version was old enough to be considered "unsupported" by Intuit and thus wasn't eligable for a free Y2K-fix upgrade. If I were made of stronger stuff, I would have shunned Intuit from then on and gone with some other accounting software, but the thought of losing or having to struggle to access my years of carefully entered Quicken data resulted in me caving in and paying full price for the upgrade.
jf
To toot my own horn a wee bit -- I'm writing a series of contest articles for the IBM developerWorks Power Architecture zone. This month's contest involves the most creative use of locator (GPS, RFID, etc.) chips. Come on over and send us some entries!
c hipschall2.html
The link is:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/pa-
That's the part I never quite understood about companies that want to be built in downtown areas. The commute sucks cause everyone has to drive to a subway station first. Then take a subway as the 2nd part of commute.
And THAT'S why oil costs so damn much and Americans are so damn fat, everybody!
Hey, you know those buildings that the subway passes by on its way downtown? The ones that are within walking distance of the subway stops? People live in those buildings, and they don't need to drive to the subway station. In fact, often they don't need to own a car at all!
Does the phrase "transit-oriented development" mean anything to you? No, I didn't think it did.
jf
Hilariously, there's just a Weight Watchers banner ad up there right now.
jf
(on the previous post, NY and CA do not have wildy different political profiles, especially when you factor in the abundant influences of their cities - which is what the article author is aiming for - giving population centers more influence)
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. NY and CA as currently constituted do have similar political profiles. I meant that regions *within* each state have very different profiles from one another. Many people outside of CA think of liberal, urban SF and LA as the epitome of the state's political culture, but there's also convservative urban areas (Orange County) and conservative rural areas (San Joaquin Valley). Ditto New York -- Liberal NYC and conservative rural/suburban upstate and western NY areas are very different. The fact that Rochester and Westchester, or San Francisco and San Diego, share a state is a result of a decisions made centuries ago. It makes no moden sense to lump them together in a voting block for the president.
jf
David is from NY, a state with a number of large cities and he feels underrepresented, but consider the point of view of farmers and ranchers. We can have raging debates ad nausea for example about whether the federal government does too much or too little to assist farmers and ranchers, but the fact of the matter is that if it were not for the systems in place to grant disproportionate weight to rural areas, there would indeed be less aid.
Actually, there are a lot of rural areas on New York State. California, another state probably thought of as "urban" by people who haven't lived there, has one of the largest agricultural industries in the U.S. The EC effectively disenfranchises these rural areas because they happen to be in the same state as large cities; thus, unlike, say, Iowa, rural interests don't have a majority in that state. Is that fair, in your model?
You can talk about rural-vs.-urban or small-state-vs.-large-state all you want, but the elephant in the living room of the electoral college is that the current shape and populations of U.S. states is the result of historic accident, not logical planning. It's not like all the farmers are in one state and all the city-dwellers in another. You can discuss general categories of "farming states" or "manufacturing states", but the truth is that every state has at least a little of every category; as a result, any model where you try to break influence down into actual social categories breaks down because of all the exceptions, and you just end up with the truth, which is that certain particular states have more voting power than certain other particular states.
Under a one-person-one-vote system, farmers in California and Wyoming have equal voting power. City-dwellers in Texas and D.C. have equal voting power. Period.
Also, is there really a surprise that cities tend Democratic and rural areas Republican? Again this seems to be sour grapes from David based on his comments.
Gosh, and I don't suppose any Republican is really supporting the EC for this exact same reason, do you?
jf
Here's an interesting question for you all. What do you think it would take to get enough political willpower in the U.S. to scrap this system?
Four years ago, I would have said "Have someone lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote." Obviously I was wrong. But 2000 was a special case -- all the controversy swirling around Florida meant that by the time things were finally settled, no one wanted to think or hear about presidential elections anymore. In fact, there are any number of both Bush and Gore supporters from 2000 who probably don't even know, or quickly forgot, that Gore came in first in the popular vote overall.
So, what if this year the same thing happens, but the parties reverse -- Kerry wins the Electoral College (and the presidency), Bush wins the popular vote? Would the two parties see the last two elections as enough impetus to change or scrap the EC? Even if the national parties agreed, could they enforce party discipline on the state level to push the necessary constitutional changes through the state legislatures?
For my personal opinion -- I say scrap it, or at least modify it so that the whole country does a proportional or by-congressional-district apportionment like Maine and Nebraska. I know all the arguments about federalism -- I just don't find them that persuasive or relevant. The bottom line is that the Presidency and the U.S. central government are now so powerful, and so intrusive in people's lives, that to give some U.S. citizens extra voting power just because of where they happen to live extremely undemocratic. And yes, with modern American mobility, it *is* a matter of "where they happen to live" -- people move across state lines all the time, and I don't think loyalty to one's home state is anywhere near what it used to be.
In addition, several of the founding concepts of the system seem to be to flawed or no longer relevant. States of a similar size don't necessarily have similar interestes -- compare D.C. and Wyoming (3 EVs), Maryland and Arizona (10 EVs), New York and Texas (31-34 EVs). And states don't necessarily have monolithic interests -- New York and California both contains regions with wildly different demographic and political profiles.
jf