I'm not familiar with the specifics of Condorcet voting, so here's my question:
Do you need to rank *all* candidates? Can you rank the ones you like, then stop, or do you have to keep voting until you're through the list?
I can understand the urge to change voting, but can you imagine the delays at the voting booths as some little old ladies try to determine whether they prefer the Communist party or the Socialist party as their 15th vote?
One leading staffer from the Kerry campaign has even threated future government suppression of first Amendment rights, saying "they had better hope we don't win," implying that the cost of publically criticizing Kerry will be considerable should he ever come to power.
I also saw a Kerry campaign man saying this, on Dayside (Fox News, please don't mod me down because of it). I think you may want to include the fact he said it with a grin and a half-chuckle.
You are taking a joke and making it sound like an official Kerry position. Stop, please.
Or would you care to deny that in the current system, a citizen of Illinois has more Presidential voting power than one from Utah?
In Illinois (2003 population 12.6 million), there is 1 electoral vote for every 600,000. In Utah (Pop. 2.3 million), there is 1 electoral vote for every 460,000.
Therefore, since your vote corresponds to 1/460,000 of an electoral vote in Utah and only 1/600,000 in Illinois, I would like to deny that a citizen of Illinois has more Presidential voting power than one from Utah.
Warning the BBC that a horde of geeks will be connecting to listen to this series is like warning the Pope that a lot of people will be going to the Christmas mass.
The trailer's OK, but I really prefer the teaser. Beyond the great choice of background music, the footage seems better selected. The trailer tells you more, but doesn't give you the same goosebumps as the teaser.
Re:The really scary part of Doom 3
on
Life After Doom
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Oh, come on! How could you forget "Super Mario Bros.", featuring Bob Hoskins AND John Leguizamo!
If you allow for enough windows in the surface of the Dyson sphere and can control the degree/timing of their opening, you get a force that could be used to correct your distance or compensate for any other external force.
One side moving too close? Simply open the other side. Solar winds push the closed area, moving it away.
Pro sports invokes a number of base emotions, and hence its popularity. To the geek who does not care I would suggest this: why not try following a team, such as the Packers, the Steelers, or the Raiders...
Evolution doesn't need a guiding hand, since it can act (only) along reproductive lines. If it doesn't affect your reproductive state, evolution says you're OK. If you've passed on your genes successfully but live so long that you become a major burden to those you've passed the genes onto (decreasing their efficiency), evolution says "Well done!" and gives you a cookie before kicking you out of the gene pool. Therefore, we fall apart after we lose reproductive prowess (men) or the ability to help with rearing (women). Designed by evolution means that defined evolutionary forces made us better breeders at the expense of things that could be better later in life.
The closest I could come to what the parent said was an article that matched the second description and a picture which matched the first description at CNN. I'm not sure if the poster was confused, CNN corrected or what happened.
It seems obvious that part of the licensing deal would stipulate that HP cannot undercut Apple's pricing.
But, if the license is similar to the one regular Apple retailers adhere to, then there could be bundling implications. I mean, a normal retailer is only able to bundle $20 accessories with their iPod, but HP could bundle these desktop thingies that they like to sell with their knock-off. Imagine the implications of being able to buy a 600 dollar PC for 800 or less with a knock-off iPod. It could even manifest as a rebate on the PC, so HP wouldn't be breaking any rules. The undercut is much more severe than just potential iPod buyers, since you could end up pulling some of the iPod-wanting potential switchers away from the Apple brand.
the gist of the argument is that random selection of base pairs won't result in life, except under the most exceptionally lucky circumstances.
OK, so we could be lucky. Of course, the timeframe allows for a lot of chances, and maybe lucky starts to approach inevitable. That doesn't argue for any divine intervention.
there's a mechanism by which complex strings may be built from simpler ones,
Evolution, natural process which involves absolutely no divine intervention...
it suggests that the origin of life was not merely a fortunate accident. Rather, it was the result of design
This is where the logic jumps a ridiculous distance. Because simple can become complex, it may, nay... It MUST be designed that way. There's not even a word to describe the magnitude of that leap.
whether or not that design was instrumented by a higher power may be left for debate. Oh, come on. This is just absurd. The argument "we're not saying it's necessarily God..." is just trying to be cutesy.
But it does much damage to the atheistic worldview if it can be shown that no life can result from purely random events.
Only if you can actually show it.
But the basic gist of it is this: given what we know, to build the smallest useful DNA chain by random trial and error would require more atoms than the entire universe contains.
Assuming, of course, that all of these hypothetical DNA molecules had to exist simultaneously. Mutagenesis is the key behind all evolution, even at the very small scales.
Beyond that, the argument is using the current standard. You can't simply argue that now we need 4000 base pairs, and 4000 base pairs can't be made randomly, therefore we couldn't have happened randomly. The first precursors to life were probably RNA-based, something along the lines of self-replicating ribozymes. The catalytic sites of these enzymes is all that is really required; we're moving down in to the tens of bases, rather than thousands. This moved into proteins and DNA (or vice versa), which required a code and expanded the necessary length of sequence.
Slashdot Mirror
refuses to the let the voter finish without ranking each candidate.
Great... Now to vote, I'll have to figure out if I prefer the Communist, Socialist, or Prohibition Party.
But then how will the DNC get the coveted vampire vote?
I'm not familiar with the specifics of Condorcet voting, so here's my question:
Do you need to rank *all* candidates? Can you rank the ones you like, then stop, or do you have to keep voting until you're through the list?
I can understand the urge to change voting, but can you imagine the delays at the voting booths as some little old ladies try to determine whether they prefer the Communist party or the Socialist party as their 15th vote?
One leading staffer from the Kerry campaign has even threated future government suppression of first Amendment rights, saying "they had better hope we don't win," implying that the cost of publically criticizing Kerry will be considerable should he ever come to power.
I also saw a Kerry campaign man saying this, on Dayside (Fox News, please don't mod me down because of it). I think you may want to include the fact he said it with a grin and a half-chuckle.
You are taking a joke and making it sound like an official Kerry position. Stop, please.
SlashDot Readers != 18-24 year olds. I resent that implication.
We're just saying you look good for your age, that's all.
Or would you care to deny that in the current system, a citizen of Illinois has more Presidential voting power than one from Utah?
In Illinois (2003 population 12.6 million), there is 1 electoral vote for every 600,000. In Utah (Pop. 2.3 million), there is 1 electoral vote for every 460,000.
Therefore, since your vote corresponds to 1/460,000 of an electoral vote in Utah and only 1/600,000 in Illinois, I would like to deny that a citizen of Illinois has more Presidential voting power than one from Utah.
Sources:
Electoral Votes
PDF of population estimates for 2003
Has anyone thought to warn them?
Warning the BBC that a horde of geeks will be connecting to listen to this series is like warning the Pope that a lot of people will be going to the Christmas mass.
No, just WinFS.
The trailer's OK, but I really prefer the teaser. Beyond the great choice of background music, the footage seems better selected. The trailer tells you more, but doesn't give you the same goosebumps as the teaser.
Oh, come on! How could you forget "Super Mario Bros.", featuring Bob Hoskins AND John Leguizamo!
If you allow for enough windows in the surface of the Dyson sphere and can control the degree/timing of their opening, you get a force that could be used to correct your distance or compensate for any other external force.
One side moving too close? Simply open the other side. Solar winds push the closed area, moving it away.
Pro sports invokes a number of base emotions, and hence its popularity. To the geek who does not care I would suggest this: why not try following a team, such as the Packers, the Steelers, or the Raiders...
You forgot the Patriots! Die, heathen scum!
The perfect time (in the government's eyes) for you to die is at age 6x and 1/2...
Oh, God! What's the value of X? My 24th birthday was a month and a half ago, will I live to see another Halloween???
Evolution doesn't need a guiding hand, since it can act (only) along reproductive lines. If it doesn't affect your reproductive state, evolution says you're OK. If you've passed on your genes successfully but live so long that you become a major burden to those you've passed the genes onto (decreasing their efficiency), evolution says "Well done!" and gives you a cookie before kicking you out of the gene pool. Therefore, we fall apart after we lose reproductive prowess (men) or the ability to help with rearing (women). Designed by evolution means that defined evolutionary forces made us better breeders at the expense of things that could be better later in life.
I don't know a single soul that watches that show.
That's because we sold them to get the Farscape mini-series.
The closest I could come to what the parent said was an article that matched the second description and a picture which matched the first description at CNN. I'm not sure if the poster was confused, CNN corrected or what happened.
It seems obvious that part of the licensing deal would stipulate that HP cannot undercut Apple's pricing.
But, if the license is similar to the one regular Apple retailers adhere to, then there could be bundling implications. I mean, a normal retailer is only able to bundle $20 accessories with their iPod, but HP could bundle these desktop thingies that they like to sell with their knock-off. Imagine the implications of being able to buy a 600 dollar PC for 800 or less with a knock-off iPod. It could even manifest as a rebate on the PC, so HP wouldn't be breaking any rules. The undercut is much more severe than just potential iPod buyers, since you could end up pulling some of the iPod-wanting potential switchers away from the Apple brand.
*Rolls up newspaper*
NO! Bad logic, BAD!
the gist of the argument is that random selection of base pairs won't result in life, except under the most exceptionally lucky circumstances.
OK, so we could be lucky. Of course, the timeframe allows for a lot of chances, and maybe lucky starts to approach inevitable. That doesn't argue for any divine intervention.
there's a mechanism by which complex strings may be built from simpler ones,
Evolution, natural process which involves absolutely no divine intervention...
it suggests that the origin of life was not merely a fortunate accident. Rather, it was the result of design
This is where the logic jumps a ridiculous distance. Because simple can become complex, it may, nay... It MUST be designed that way. There's not even a word to describe the magnitude of that leap.
whether or not that design was instrumented by a higher power may be left for debate.
Oh, come on. This is just absurd. The argument "we're not saying it's necessarily God..." is just trying to be cutesy.
But it does much damage to the atheistic worldview if it can be shown that no life can result from purely random events.
Only if you can actually show it.
But the basic gist of it is this: given what we know, to build the smallest useful DNA chain by random trial and error would require more atoms than the entire universe contains.
Assuming, of course, that all of these hypothetical DNA molecules had to exist simultaneously. Mutagenesis is the key behind all evolution, even at the very small scales.
Beyond that, the argument is using the current standard. You can't simply argue that now we need 4000 base pairs, and 4000 base pairs can't be made randomly, therefore we couldn't have happened randomly. The first precursors to life were probably RNA-based, something along the lines of self-replicating ribozymes. The catalytic sites of these enzymes is all that is really required; we're moving down in to the tens of bases, rather than thousands. This moved into proteins and DNA (or vice versa), which required a code and expanded the necessary length of sequence.
It's TWIKI, not twiggy. You gotta be careful in this crowd. We take our obscure science fiction references very seriously.
To get hits on your site legitimately, participate in electronic discussion boards such as Slashdot, and link your sig to your site.
Getting his server slashdotted might not be the best way to bring in new business, though...
Maybe lizard ranching could be a growth industry!
Finally, a practical application for Pavlov's experiment!
What can be produced from a dead whale that doesn't have a better alternative in-use already?
Placebos.
I would think it would be possible to build a plastic maze with slowly shifting walls.
Right, because the way to make sure the cooped-up mice don't go crazy is to literally have the walls closing in on them.
"America's Army", now 99% subliminal message free!