You will always be under- or over-represented depending on the trends in your area and how closely you match them. That is always the case, unless you happen to live somewhere where everyone agrees. In which case, why are you having a vote?
Win each district by one vote? You get all the votes, and hence all the states and the election! How stupid is that?
This needs to be stated as clearly as possible, because it is one side of the greatest flaw in first-to-the-finish voting.
The more districts where the votes are aggregated, the less of the popular vote you need to win.
The more (plausible) options there are on a vote, the less of the popular vote you need to win.
Take a second and read that again. Now I'll explain
First, a district example.
Let's say you have only 1 district, two candidates, and a million people in this imaginary nation. You get 500,001 votes, you're the new president. It's pretty straightforward, and you clearly have the popular vote, if only barely.
Now, let's say we still have 1 million people and two candidates, but we have 10 districts of 100,000 each. To win a district, you need 50,001 votes. To become president, you need 6 districts. Do the math and you only need 300,006 votes to win. While you may have the popular vote, it's not necessary to win.
Now, the candidate example.
Let's say you have only 1 district, two candidates, and a million people in this imaginary nation. You get 500,001 votes, you're the new president. It's pretty straightforward, and you clearly have the popular vote, if only barely. (Yes, it's exactly the same as above.)
Now, let's ay we still have 1 district and one million people, but we have 10 candidates. Given an unrealistically tight race, you could win with only 100,001 votes. Practically, you'd need more than that. How much more? Well, that depends on how close the candidates are in popularity.
So there you have it. If you think popular vote is the most reasonable way to choose the president (which is NOT the model the US uses), you want fewer districts and candidates, or you want to stop using first-to-the-finish voting.
Also, if you combine the two elements above, many districts and many candidates, the percentage of the popular vote required to become president becomes even lower. For a handy real-world example, see Canada.
For the conspiracy theory lovers out there, a nation in the state listed above with a lax immigration policy is a ripe target for a peaceful invasion. Immigrate enough people to become a third of the population in a third of the districts, wait until they have voting rights, have them vote for who they want to be in charge, and the government is yours. This may be easier if you make a new party for this purpose as it dilutes the voter power of those who aren't voting in concert to overthrow the current government. That's right, 4 million people, good planning, dedication, and 5 to 10 years, and a nation the size of Canada could have a peaceful revolution. Conspiracists, you may start to spin your tinfoil hats!
As for child neglect, if you were visiting someone with your small child and a teenager was playing with a bunch of magnets, would you immediately think "those are very dangerous, I must keep my child on my lap so that he doesn't pick one of those up"? Of course not. Since you have not seen the package, you have no way of knowing that these particular magnets are much more dangerous than those which you played with as a child.
No, I'd expect the person who owns the (adult) toys to recognize the risk and say, "One second, I have to put these away." Just the same as with a chainsaw or blowtorch.
You weakened your argument by mentioning burglars. At that point, or by the government ignoring legal precedent, whatever happens when your possessions aren't in your immediate control are no different from when they are.
I'm sure you're a troll, but it needs to be said. Once upon a time, when unicorns and fairies roamed the earth, there was a real possibility that copyright would lapse. Nowadays, the possibility is only theoretical, and will only happen when the copyright holders stop bribing the lawmakers.
It sounds like an end-run to get around some unusual sexual behaviour without having to pass some new laws. We can give prior consent to have various organs removed while we're unconscious, but we can't give prior consent to have sex while unconscious? And I imagine that not a single couple who slept in the same bed didn't have sex initiated while one of the partners was asleep (he said sarcastically).
Yes, why on earth would we expect such behavior from people who would regularly stampede herds of bison off of cliffs for food, using only a tiny portion of those maimed or killed? Clearly the white man is the cause of all their bad behavior. Let the self-flagellation begin.
The only caveat I would add is to generally apply these rules to new or irregular partners. If your long-time girlfriend is drunk and interested in sex, I don't see a problem with it. It's still a good idea to talk to her about these things when she's sober, prior to the situation.
In short, almost all of our technology is minimalist, because once a technology is developed into a decent working system, there's not a lot of good in changing it for a more expensive system. I like my manual door locks, as there's a certain amount of skill required to pick one that a skr1pt k1dd13 can't download off of the Internet to use.
Actually, I thought of one. Get rid of the window. Replace it with an array of video cameras and a big viewing screen. Put different color filters on each of the cameras and have a computer system that will turn off one of the cameras if it gets excessive amounts of light.
I didn't say it was an affordable solution.
And what exactly do you think happens to all this expensive equipment when it's painted by a high-power laser? The good news is, the pilot's eyes will be saved.
And technical solutions are cool. And let's charge the guy with aggravated assault or attempted aggravated assault. Between that and a civil suit brought against any idiot who thinks it's funny to risk permanently damaging someone's health (or 'just' crashing an airplane), and a little public education on the side, I think you could curb this.
Seriously, this is no different than cyber-bullying or cyber-stalking. Like those, where we have harassment and stalking laws in place, use the existing laws and make it clear it's not a game just because the people are miles away.
And how does this contradict what the parent and grandparent said in any way. If that possibility is unacceptable to you, don't submit. If they insist on holding the copyright and you're not okay with that, don't submit. If you think what they have is great and want to keep working on it, fork it (appears to be allowed in this case), seek submissions, allow submitters to retain copyright, and move on. It may soon become clear that MakerBot made a terrible choice. Or it may not.
But see, what you're missing is the first half of the statement. None of your response matters if there is no licensing violation. So, is there any evidence of that, or did you just want to whine about how unfair the system is?
Anyone who creates code through their own effort is welcome to keep it closed, if they like. Appropriating the work of others, contributed on the understanding that the project would be open, is another matter altogether.
That entirely depends on what license they submitted the contribution under, doesn't it? Should the user actually think about this before submitting, by definition, the user has then submitted the contribution under terms they're agreeable with.
I think he already made it clear he wasn't going to spend $100/mo to watch one series, and you quibble that he doesn't know that HBO doesn't have commercials? Way to miss the point!
Nobody need panic, the earth's distance from the sun remains just as it was, regardless of whether it's in AUs, meters, or smoots."
I'm more concerned about the fact that the distance changes depending on where we are. That means that the Earth is moving, and I don't believe in that. It's more heliocentric non-sense by the astronomical community. What next; astronomical bodies that aren't perfectly spherical? The madness of the commoners, I tell you.
Clearly, you are an ignoramus, believing that the Earth is the center of the universe. I suppose you think Mercury does that little dance in homage to us, right?
No, what bothers me isn't the idea that we're moving, but that we're not moving in a spherical path. I literally don't know if we're coming or going!
So what you're saying is, nothing has really changed in 40 years. Reminds me of a line I heard someone use about the Canadian Navy: Over a century of tradition, unimpeded by progress.
I keep hearing (perhaps not from you) that if you use an open source project without paying anything you should be grateful for any support you get, and I agree with that.
Now, you're saying that they should provide a special level of support, usually reserved for someone on a partnership agreement, with people who aren't in a partnership agreement? That seems a little absurd, open source or not. But, you say, Acer is in a partnership agreement with Google. And that's correct, as long as Acer keeps their part of the bargain.
Do I think this is a ridiculous contingent of the agreement (Android exclusivity to be a partner at this level)? No, and the reason is simple. It goes something like this: "Hey, I'm trying to use this feature for this application we're working on and I'm having a little trouble...Thanks for the help." And then they put that software on only their Android-derived phone (or maybe both the Android and the Android-derived one). It's one thing to say Acer, and Alibaba, is allowed to shoot Google in the foot, quite another to require that Google help them do so.
Apple seeds have cyanide! Ergo, cyanide isn't poisonous. To put it another way, sometimes quantity has a quality all its own.
And yes, the earth will be around for about 4 billion years (probably - Andromeda is coming!). I'd still like there to be a place for my grandkids to live. They'll be human, not cockroaches.
It's not like the oil just "goes away". It gets transformed into other materials.
And, most importantly, long before the bacteria can do anything with it, the damage to the fish, coral, and everything else is done.
Though, I'm sure some people will say that since these bacteria will eventually clean things up we can spill and not worry about it.
Yeah, I don't get it sometimes. I'm not sure I believe in the whole AGW thing, but stewardship means using what's there responsibly, and making sure resources will be there for the future. Sure, the earth will be fine, someday, and the Gulf will be fine, someday, but that's no excuse for the kind of careless damage done. I think the cliche is "Don't shit where you sleep."
Slashdot Mirror
There are a number of systems, all of which have their benefits and drawbacks. I wasn't proposing a solution, I was defining the problem.
You will always be under- or over-represented depending on the trends in your area and how closely you match them. That is always the case, unless you happen to live somewhere where everyone agrees. In which case, why are you having a vote?
It's as stupid as going with votes by district.
Win each district by one vote? You get all the votes, and hence all the states and the election! How stupid is that?
This needs to be stated as clearly as possible, because it is one side of the greatest flaw in first-to-the-finish voting.
The more districts where the votes are aggregated, the less of the popular vote you need to win.
The more (plausible) options there are on a vote, the less of the popular vote you need to win.
Take a second and read that again. Now I'll explain
First, a district example.
Let's say you have only 1 district, two candidates, and a million people in this imaginary nation. You get 500,001 votes, you're the new president. It's pretty straightforward, and you clearly have the popular vote, if only barely.
Now, let's say we still have 1 million people and two candidates, but we have 10 districts of 100,000 each. To win a district, you need 50,001 votes. To become president, you need 6 districts. Do the math and you only need 300,006 votes to win. While you may have the popular vote, it's not necessary to win.
Now, the candidate example.
Let's say you have only 1 district, two candidates, and a million people in this imaginary nation. You get 500,001 votes, you're the new president. It's pretty straightforward, and you clearly have the popular vote, if only barely. (Yes, it's exactly the same as above.)
Now, let's ay we still have 1 district and one million people, but we have 10 candidates. Given an unrealistically tight race, you could win with only 100,001 votes. Practically, you'd need more than that. How much more? Well, that depends on how close the candidates are in popularity.
So there you have it. If you think popular vote is the most reasonable way to choose the president (which is NOT the model the US uses), you want fewer districts and candidates, or you want to stop using first-to-the-finish voting.
Also, if you combine the two elements above, many districts and many candidates, the percentage of the popular vote required to become president becomes even lower. For a handy real-world example, see Canada.
For the conspiracy theory lovers out there, a nation in the state listed above with a lax immigration policy is a ripe target for a peaceful invasion. Immigrate enough people to become a third of the population in a third of the districts, wait until they have voting rights, have them vote for who they want to be in charge, and the government is yours. This may be easier if you make a new party for this purpose as it dilutes the voter power of those who aren't voting in concert to overthrow the current government. That's right, 4 million people, good planning, dedication, and 5 to 10 years, and a nation the size of Canada could have a peaceful revolution. Conspiracists, you may start to spin your tinfoil hats!
As for child neglect, if you were visiting someone with your small child and a teenager was playing with a bunch of magnets, would you immediately think "those are very dangerous, I must keep my child on my lap so that he doesn't pick one of those up"? Of course not. Since you have not seen the package, you have no way of knowing that these particular magnets are much more dangerous than those which you played with as a child.
No, I'd expect the person who owns the (adult) toys to recognize the risk and say, "One second, I have to put these away." Just the same as with a chainsaw or blowtorch.
There's no law that says you both can't be right.
You weakened your argument by mentioning burglars. At that point, or by the government ignoring legal precedent, whatever happens when your possessions aren't in your immediate control are no different from when they are.
No, what I think he's saying is that if you don't cross-license, you will pay more than if you do. Also, he thinks that 2.25% is fair.
I'm sure you're a troll, but it needs to be said. Once upon a time, when unicorns and fairies roamed the earth, there was a real possibility that copyright would lapse. Nowadays, the possibility is only theoretical, and will only happen when the copyright holders stop bribing the lawmakers.
It sounds like an end-run to get around some unusual sexual behaviour without having to pass some new laws. We can give prior consent to have various organs removed while we're unconscious, but we can't give prior consent to have sex while unconscious? And I imagine that not a single couple who slept in the same bed didn't have sex initiated while one of the partners was asleep (he said sarcastically).
Yes, why on earth would we expect such behavior from people who would regularly stampede herds of bison off of cliffs for food, using only a tiny portion of those maimed or killed? Clearly the white man is the cause of all their bad behavior. Let the self-flagellation begin.
The only caveat I would add is to generally apply these rules to new or irregular partners. If your long-time girlfriend is drunk and interested in sex, I don't see a problem with it. It's still a good idea to talk to her about these things when she's sober, prior to the situation.
In short, almost all of our technology is minimalist, because once a technology is developed into a decent working system, there's not a lot of good in changing it for a more expensive system. I like my manual door locks, as there's a certain amount of skill required to pick one that a skr1pt k1dd13 can't download off of the Internet to use.
Google bump keys.
Metric is for people who are too bad at math to mentally convert from different base systems.
You mean like NASA scientists, right?
Actually, I thought of one. Get rid of the window. Replace it with an array of video cameras and a big viewing screen. Put different color filters on each of the cameras and have a computer system that will turn off one of the cameras if it gets excessive amounts of light.
I didn't say it was an affordable solution.
And what exactly do you think happens to all this expensive equipment when it's painted by a high-power laser? The good news is, the pilot's eyes will be saved.
And technical solutions are cool. And let's charge the guy with aggravated assault or attempted aggravated assault. Between that and a civil suit brought against any idiot who thinks it's funny to risk permanently damaging someone's health (or 'just' crashing an airplane), and a little public education on the side, I think you could curb this.
Seriously, this is no different than cyber-bullying or cyber-stalking. Like those, where we have harassment and stalking laws in place, use the existing laws and make it clear it's not a game just because the people are miles away.
And how does this contradict what the parent and grandparent said in any way. If that possibility is unacceptable to you, don't submit. If they insist on holding the copyright and you're not okay with that, don't submit. If you think what they have is great and want to keep working on it, fork it (appears to be allowed in this case), seek submissions, allow submitters to retain copyright, and move on. It may soon become clear that MakerBot made a terrible choice. Or it may not.
But see, what you're missing is the first half of the statement. None of your response matters if there is no licensing violation. So, is there any evidence of that, or did you just want to whine about how unfair the system is?
Anyone who creates code through their own effort is welcome to keep it closed, if they like. Appropriating the work of others, contributed on the understanding that the project would be open, is another matter altogether.
That entirely depends on what license they submitted the contribution under, doesn't it? Should the user actually think about this before submitting, by definition, the user has then submitted the contribution under terms they're agreeable with.
So if I was ever to meet her, I'd know to stay clear.
Especially if she's driving.
I think he already made it clear he wasn't going to spend $100/mo to watch one series, and you quibble that he doesn't know that HBO doesn't have commercials? Way to miss the point!
Nobody need panic, the earth's distance from the sun remains just as it was, regardless of whether it's in AUs, meters, or smoots."
I'm more concerned about the fact that the distance changes depending on where we are. That means that the Earth is moving, and I don't believe in that. It's more heliocentric non-sense by the astronomical community. What next; astronomical bodies that aren't perfectly spherical? The madness of the commoners, I tell you.
Clearly, you are an ignoramus, believing that the Earth is the center of the universe. I suppose you think Mercury does that little dance in homage to us, right?
No, what bothers me isn't the idea that we're moving, but that we're not moving in a spherical path. I literally don't know if we're coming or going!
So what you're saying is, nothing has really changed in 40 years. Reminds me of a line I heard someone use about the Canadian Navy: Over a century of tradition, unimpeded by progress.
I keep hearing (perhaps not from you) that if you use an open source project without paying anything you should be grateful for any support you get, and I agree with that.
Now, you're saying that they should provide a special level of support, usually reserved for someone on a partnership agreement, with people who aren't in a partnership agreement? That seems a little absurd, open source or not. But, you say, Acer is in a partnership agreement with Google. And that's correct, as long as Acer keeps their part of the bargain.
Do I think this is a ridiculous contingent of the agreement (Android exclusivity to be a partner at this level)? No, and the reason is simple. It goes something like this: "Hey, I'm trying to use this feature for this application we're working on and I'm having a little trouble...Thanks for the help." And then they put that software on only their Android-derived phone (or maybe both the Android and the Android-derived one). It's one thing to say Acer, and Alibaba, is allowed to shoot Google in the foot, quite another to require that Google help them do so.
Apple seeds have cyanide! Ergo, cyanide isn't poisonous. To put it another way, sometimes quantity has a quality all its own.
And yes, the earth will be around for about 4 billion years (probably - Andromeda is coming!). I'd still like there to be a place for my grandkids to live. They'll be human, not cockroaches.
And, most importantly, long before the bacteria can do anything with it, the damage to the fish, coral, and everything else is done.
Though, I'm sure some people will say that since these bacteria will eventually clean things up we can spill and not worry about it.
Yeah, I don't get it sometimes. I'm not sure I believe in the whole AGW thing, but stewardship means using what's there responsibly, and making sure resources will be there for the future. Sure, the earth will be fine, someday, and the Gulf will be fine, someday, but that's no excuse for the kind of careless damage done. I think the cliche is "Don't shit where you sleep."