In addition to standardizing things - improve the standard. Require the ballot to have a short description of each candidate, including who they are and what their platform is.
Most people know the presidential candidates, but who knew the options for their District Court Judge, comptroller, etc?
I agree with you that it should throw things more towards the smaller (and generally more Republican) states, I just find it fascinating that it doesn't seem to have done that historically.
Clinton's margin of victory was large, but I believe most people attribute that to the problems with three realistic choices in a (generally) 2 person race. If the two conservative candidates were squished together, the margins were much smaller. Obviously that doesn't decide elections, but I think the whole data set we are discussing may mean that the USA's population is largely Republican, but that Democrats are "louder", and so are more likely to vote.
What do you think? Are there more silent Democrats, or silent Republicans?
Always nice to check one's viewpoint for realism... Your comment about Clinton made me review the election results more closely, thanks!
I know that no-one will ever read this, but I had to add something to this.
I have seen many posts here talking about how the electoral college nonsense throws the election towards the rural areas, and hence to the Republicans. If you look at history, the truth is very different. No president from the Democrat party in recent history has won the popular vote (achieved more than 50% popular). All recent Democrat Presidents won only through the electoral college.
OK, this is humorous, but we all know how easy it is to forge headers and send mail... I would bet that most of this mail is forged. The real problem is that the public will probably not know that, and believe this "evidence" should be used in court.
I know, but this is a more general answer. Like I said, specific answers always include a "what if," even if it is what if I don't trust your engineering capabilities. Of course the engineers make it as safe as possible. I'm saying that even if someone goes up to the rocket, makes a dirty bomb out of it, and sends it back to Earth it wouldn't be worth the effort. (You can kill a dozen people with a minivan - just ram a crowded bus!)
The real question here is "how safe is a radiactive substance?" People often try to answer this by saying, we have done X so it isn't possible to have the reactor break, etc. (I mean, it is only for use in space, so it really shouldn't ever be near unshielded humans. Space is already a nastly place filled with radiation.) But everyone knows that humans aren't perfect, we can't forsee everything, etc. So, if the thing blows up and dumps radioactive stuff all over, what happens?
Well, first of all note that the Earth we live on is radioactive. We are constantly subjected to a high dose of radiation, and our bodies are relatively immune to it. In the scenario you mentioned where the radioactive substance is spread across a wide area like a continent, its contribution to the radioactivity levels is dwarfed by Earth's natural radiation. The real problem is concentration, for example if the stuff does not burn up but comes down as small chunks. Each small chunk can hurt or kill a person, depending on the size of the chunk and its level of radioactivity. The object in question would hurt you if you were exposed to it directly (like it fell on your house), but wouldn't kill you right out. You would get sick, go to the hospital and be treated. Your neighbors wouldn't get sick, but would be evacuated (and probably lose their house as well).
Summary: A worst case event could hurt or kill a couple dozen people, just like a normal rocket launch.
Also keep in mind that while this is the cheapest launch vehicle per launch, it is the most expensive per kg to LEO. (Possibly excepting the shuttle...)
Yes, but that is true now also - and it is far easier to lie via the media than to lie in person. At least we would get the best out of the group of liars elected, because after the first round knocks out all the non-liars the remaining people still have to narrow down the options. Also, "liars" tend to be good at detecting other "liars," possibly even predicting what they will really do, so it would still be a more informed decision then the current method.
To be fair, while Pegasus is indeed very cool, it is also one of the smallest launchers (500 kg to LEO). It "big brother" Taurus (1350 kg to LEO) went back to ground launch. The Pegasus makes a lot of sense for small stuff (mainly because they could use an existing aircraft, so no new design work needed).
An idea I've been toying with achieves a similar result (adding random elements to election) but still attempts to find the best person for the job. Basically, you divide society up (randomly, but based on location so you can meet your group) into groups of 10 people. Out of that group of people, 1 is selected to represent that group. Then all of the "winners" get together and are randomly divided into groups of ten again, etc. In the USA, you would have 9 levels - and each time people would be choosing the "best" based on personal interaction with the selected person. When the final group of 10 (probably amazingly qualified people) selects 1, that person is president.
The advantages of such a system are:
1. It does not inconvenience the common man much.
2. Each level of group "leaders" is iteratively better, so more chances of eliminating "bad" choices.
3. Incumbants have to go through many levels of possible rejection, and so have a much harder time getting elected based on imcumbancy alone.
4. It preserves the idea from the electoral college of choosing someone that you know will represent the desires of your group.
5. It limits the abilities of powerfull people (such as media) to influence the outcome.
As far as I know, this is original with me. But since everything that could be invented had been by the 1800s, probably not...
A remote root exploit on Linux, in a module that isn't used by anyone is not the same as a remote system exploit on Windows which most people don't even know they're running (or why).
No, it's worse than that - Windows had things like RPC that, even if you do know how dangerous it is, you can't turn it off and still have a working PC!
I can tell Linux to run ssh on a wierd port, and to not run anything else on a public interface. If you try to do that on Windows, unrelated programs fail! For example, I used to have RPC turned off on a Windows box I was using as a firewall/proxy (long story). But then a required update came from my ISP, and suddenly RPC was required to be turned on or the Internet didn't work! (I couldn't change ISP because it is basically a monopoly...)
Even more than this, what else would we do? You can say "we will cure cancer, ease suffering, etc." OK, once all that is done (and we are currently working on that too), what is the point? As in, what is the purpose to life? This type of project gives life meaning to a large number of people (as in a large percentage of humans on Earth). It gives them a challenge to work towards. Think about it! If what we want is to prevent all human suffering, there is an easy way - genocide (We can even make that painless!). Why do humans want to exist, when existance is so painful? Yes this is extreme, but humans need a purpose. This is such a purpose!
I realize that not everyone agrees, but this really does apply to a large enough portion of people that a democracy really should fund such a project. And so it does. Maybe not at the rate some would like, but as many point out there are other priorities as well.
Just a few nits - the Space Shuttle Main Engine has an Isp of ~430, and still throws away a lot of stuff! Most Hydrogen/Oxygen engines have Isp in the 400 range, while the 300 range is typically hydrocarbon such as kerosene. I would have difficulty believing that a 200 Isp engine would make it to orbit, if it hadn't already been done. (Pretty amazing engineering, that!) The mass ratio required goes up exponentially with Isp, and at 200 it is ~90:1 (so for every kg in orbit, you launched with 90 kg!).
As for your other comment, about how high Isp devices seem to always have low thrust, that is because to a first approximation we are limited by the power available. Engine power is proportional to thrust x Isp, so assuming the same power source increasing Isp decreases thrust. Going from a dense power source (chemical fuel) to a non-dense power source (solar panels) only makes that worse!
Actually, that's very close to how current space armour works. First, there is a thin outer layer that is hit by the high speed object. Because of the insane speeds involved, approximately equal masses of the shield and object are turned into a vapor. That vapor is allowed to expand a bit (as in there is a gap between the inner and outer shields), and then it hits the inner sheild. But now the inner sheild only has to stop a rapidly cooling gas, spreading the energy over a much larger area.
Of course, if the rock is big enough, it won't totally vaporize - then you are toast!
Um... that shows that they are effective against a democracy, which I don't think anyone questions. Sanctions are utterly ineffective against a totalitarian government, because by definition the desires of the government do not reflect the needs of the governed. Sanctions against totalitarian governments harm the populace, while the government is supported by smugglers.
Getting one thousand years CO2 in one jump could very well make the climate extremely uncomfortable, which is what I was talking about. The reason you make the homes airtight is to deal with all the side effects of CO2, too hot, too cold, underwater, whatever. I was actually trying to say that I think we would survive by changing our lifestyle to the new conditions, not by trying to change something noone understands. Any technology we create with the capability to fix a CO2 filled atmosphere will likely also make things even worse!
I think that attempting to alter conditions on such a large scale would be wasteful. Pretend that we get hit by a comet, composed entirely of CO2. Would it make more sense to create atmospheric cleansers, that would process the entire atmosphere, or would it be smarter to make our homes airtight with local oxygen processors.
As for "mankind uniting", the only way that would happen would be in war. Look at history, man! People do not become friendly when nations are threatened!
I believe the grandparent had a point - the person quoted was wrong, but there is more to it than that. I believe that the real truth to be learned is that you cannot legislate morality short term, but that long term (more than one generation), you can!
Segragation caused many problems in its early years, but now is accepted as the only fair possibility by the vast majority.
This is not really a valid argument for making something illegal. Now that porn is legal (possibly even mainstream), there are far fewer cases of "porn-rape." If drugs were legal, terrorists wouldn't find it lucrative enough to participate, and those biker risks would go away as drugs would be shipped by normal delivery trucks.
The real reason for making drugs illegal (apart from moral reasons) is that the sellers of drugs are "taking" the freedom of the drug user away. Many drug users are esentially slaves to drugs, and creating the slavery is illegal.
Of course the person that bought the drugs also had some say in the matter - but in the US it is illegal to sell someone into slavery, even yourself.
I think that laws such as Adultery should be a contractual matter, not a "law." For example when someone gets married, instead of assuming that there is an unwritten "understanding" that marriage means no sex, or blow jobs, or whatever - write it down in the form of a contract. Say "if a partner has intercourse or oral sex with a third party that partner will give up X% of the equity of the partnership, and the partnership will be disolved." The problem with just telling everyone that it doesn't matter if they have an affair is that it does hurt people. Lot's of single moms and dads out there lost everything they had to get away from someone who was abusing them emotionally through a marriage relationship. They should not have to abandon everything they have made together because the other partner decided to have an affair.
Not that I necessarilly disagree, but let me point out what the opposition says. To them, pornography is not between consenting adults - as said in a previous story posted to slashdot, "no amount of juice could stop a monkey from looking at the hindquarters of a female in heat" (or close to that). So, if the pornography industry is taking advantage of the weak minded (that are unable to look away), wouldn't that be wrong? The same with drugs, but even more so - by selling drugs to someone, you decrease their ability to turn you down in the future. Essentially, you are taking away their ability to choose - isn't that wrong?
To me, the question is more one of enforceability. There are fewer drunks now than in early times because the drunks have a tendancy to die before reproducing, so the problem goes away if ignored (I think Larry Niven wrote about that). But throwing the drunks (druggies, porn viewers, etc.) in jail doesn't really help anyone - it just makes the streets look cleaner.
Don't be a fool. Obviously, in such a solution the other cars would limit your system efficiency!
The obvious solution is to launch a constellation of orbiting mirrors! Enough so that there is always one overhead where ever you need to drive. This way, it will even work at night! If there are clouds, burn them away by upping the power!
We must start right now launching these orbiting mirrors, one constellation for every car!
The problem everyone is having is that these numbers are average power - as in integrate the power over 24 hours, then divide by 24 hours. This is very different than peak power (over 1KW), or even daytime power (800 W, I believe, but it has been a while).
Honestly though, the best solution to using a solar panel on your car would be to store the energy in a Li-ion battery. Hydrogen is lighter, but the volume is greater and the efficiency is terrible!
As others have said, this would make more sense with the hydrogen generated at your home. (Except that I live on the 54th floor of a skyscraper, so I can't install solar cells!)
Slashdot Mirror
In addition to standardizing things - improve the standard. Require the ballot to have a short description of each candidate, including who they are and what their platform is.
Most people know the presidential candidates, but who knew the options for their District Court Judge, comptroller, etc?
I agree with you that it should throw things more towards the smaller (and generally more Republican) states, I just find it fascinating that it doesn't seem to have done that historically.
Clinton's margin of victory was large, but I believe most people attribute that to the problems with three realistic choices in a (generally) 2 person race. If the two conservative candidates were squished together, the margins were much smaller. Obviously that doesn't decide elections, but I think the whole data set we are discussing may mean that the USA's population is largely Republican, but that Democrats are "louder", and so are more likely to vote.
What do you think? Are there more silent Democrats, or silent Republicans?
Always nice to check one's viewpoint for realism... Your comment about Clinton made me review the election results more closely, thanks!
I know that no-one will ever read this, but I had to add something to this.
I have seen many posts here talking about how the electoral college nonsense throws the election towards the rural areas, and hence to the Republicans. If you look at history, the truth is very different. No president from the Democrat party in recent history has won the popular vote (achieved more than 50% popular). All recent Democrat Presidents won only through the electoral college.
Just food for thought.
OK, this is humorous, but we all know how easy it is to forge headers and send mail... I would bet that most of this mail is forged. The real problem is that the public will probably not know that, and believe this "evidence" should be used in court.
OK, fess up, who sent 'em?
I know, but this is a more general answer. Like I said, specific answers always include a "what if," even if it is what if I don't trust your engineering capabilities. Of course the engineers make it as safe as possible. I'm saying that even if someone goes up to the rocket, makes a dirty bomb out of it, and sends it back to Earth it wouldn't be worth the effort. (You can kill a dozen people with a minivan - just ram a crowded bus!)
The real question here is "how safe is a radiactive substance?" People often try to answer this by saying, we have done X so it isn't possible to have the reactor break, etc. (I mean, it is only for use in space, so it really shouldn't ever be near unshielded humans. Space is already a nastly place filled with radiation.) But everyone knows that humans aren't perfect, we can't forsee everything, etc. So, if the thing blows up and dumps radioactive stuff all over, what happens?
Well, first of all note that the Earth we live on is radioactive. We are constantly subjected to a high dose of radiation, and our bodies are relatively immune to it. In the scenario you mentioned where the radioactive substance is spread across a wide area like a continent, its contribution to the radioactivity levels is dwarfed by Earth's natural radiation. The real problem is concentration, for example if the stuff does not burn up but comes down as small chunks. Each small chunk can hurt or kill a person, depending on the size of the chunk and its level of radioactivity. The object in question would hurt you if you were exposed to it directly (like it fell on your house), but wouldn't kill you right out. You would get sick, go to the hospital and be treated. Your neighbors wouldn't get sick, but would be evacuated (and probably lose their house as well).
Summary: A worst case event could hurt or kill a couple dozen people, just like a normal rocket launch.
Also keep in mind that while this is the cheapest launch vehicle per launch, it is the most expensive per kg to LEO. (Possibly excepting the shuttle...)
Yes, but that is true now also - and it is far easier to lie via the media than to lie in person. At least we would get the best out of the group of liars elected, because after the first round knocks out all the non-liars the remaining people still have to narrow down the options. Also, "liars" tend to be good at detecting other "liars," possibly even predicting what they will really do, so it would still be a more informed decision then the current method.
To be fair, while Pegasus is indeed very cool, it is also one of the smallest launchers (500 kg to LEO). It "big brother" Taurus (1350 kg to LEO) went back to ground launch. The Pegasus makes a lot of sense for small stuff (mainly because they could use an existing aircraft, so no new design work needed).
Still, Pegasus fills its niche quite well!
I can't believe no one has said this yet - This is how the matrix starts!
An idea I've been toying with achieves a similar result (adding random elements to election) but still attempts to find the best person for the job. Basically, you divide society up (randomly, but based on location so you can meet your group) into groups of 10 people. Out of that group of people, 1 is selected to represent that group. Then all of the "winners" get together and are randomly divided into groups of ten again, etc. In the USA, you would have 9 levels - and each time people would be choosing the "best" based on personal interaction with the selected person. When the final group of 10 (probably amazingly qualified people) selects 1, that person is president.
The advantages of such a system are:
1. It does not inconvenience the common man much.
2. Each level of group "leaders" is iteratively better, so more chances of eliminating "bad" choices.
3. Incumbants have to go through many levels of possible rejection, and so have a much harder time getting elected based on imcumbancy alone.
4. It preserves the idea from the electoral college of choosing someone that you know will represent the desires of your group.
5. It limits the abilities of powerfull people (such as media) to influence the outcome.
As far as I know, this is original with me. But since everything that could be invented had been by the 1800s, probably not...
Any thoughts?
A remote root exploit on Linux, in a module that isn't used by anyone is not the same as a remote system exploit on Windows which most people don't even know they're running (or why).
No, it's worse than that - Windows had things like RPC that, even if you do know how dangerous it is, you can't turn it off and still have a working PC!
I can tell Linux to run ssh on a wierd port, and to not run anything else on a public interface. If you try to do that on Windows, unrelated programs fail! For example, I used to have RPC turned off on a Windows box I was using as a firewall/proxy (long story). But then a required update came from my ISP, and suddenly RPC was required to be turned on or the Internet didn't work! (I couldn't change ISP because it is basically a monopoly...)
Even more than this, what else would we do? You can say "we will cure cancer, ease suffering, etc." OK, once all that is done (and we are currently working on that too), what is the point? As in, what is the purpose to life? This type of project gives life meaning to a large number of people (as in a large percentage of humans on Earth). It gives them a challenge to work towards. Think about it! If what we want is to prevent all human suffering, there is an easy way - genocide (We can even make that painless!). Why do humans want to exist, when existance is so painful? Yes this is extreme, but humans need a purpose. This is such a purpose!
I realize that not everyone agrees, but this really does apply to a large enough portion of people that a democracy really should fund such a project. And so it does. Maybe not at the rate some would like, but as many point out there are other priorities as well.
Just a few nits - the Space Shuttle Main Engine has an Isp of ~430, and still throws away a lot of stuff! Most Hydrogen/Oxygen engines have Isp in the 400 range, while the 300 range is typically hydrocarbon such as kerosene. I would have difficulty believing that a 200 Isp engine would make it to orbit, if it hadn't already been done. (Pretty amazing engineering, that!) The mass ratio required goes up exponentially with Isp, and at 200 it is ~90:1 (so for every kg in orbit, you launched with 90 kg!).
As for your other comment, about how high Isp devices seem to always have low thrust, that is because to a first approximation we are limited by the power available. Engine power is proportional to thrust x Isp, so assuming the same power source increasing Isp decreases thrust. Going from a dense power source (chemical fuel) to a non-dense power source (solar panels) only makes that worse!
Actually, that's very close to how current space armour works. First, there is a thin outer layer that is hit by the high speed object. Because of the insane speeds involved, approximately equal masses of the shield and object are turned into a vapor. That vapor is allowed to expand a bit (as in there is a gap between the inner and outer shields), and then it hits the inner sheild. But now the inner sheild only has to stop a rapidly cooling gas, spreading the energy over a much larger area.
Of course, if the rock is big enough, it won't totally vaporize - then you are toast!
the world will become pretty hungry for *any* source of carbon at a concentration higher than what's present in the atmosphere
Um...
Humans have a large percentage of carbon...
Run away!
Um... that shows that they are effective against a democracy, which I don't think anyone questions. Sanctions are utterly ineffective against a totalitarian government, because by definition the desires of the government do not reflect the needs of the governed. Sanctions against totalitarian governments harm the populace, while the government is supported by smugglers.
Getting one thousand years CO2 in one jump could very well make the climate extremely uncomfortable, which is what I was talking about. The reason you make the homes airtight is to deal with all the side effects of CO2, too hot, too cold, underwater, whatever. I was actually trying to say that I think we would survive by changing our lifestyle to the new conditions, not by trying to change something noone understands. Any technology we create with the capability to fix a CO2 filled atmosphere will likely also make things even worse!
I think that attempting to alter conditions on such a large scale would be wasteful. Pretend that we get hit by a comet, composed entirely of CO2. Would it make more sense to create atmospheric cleansers, that would process the entire atmosphere, or would it be smarter to make our homes airtight with local oxygen processors.
As for "mankind uniting", the only way that would happen would be in war. Look at history, man! People do not become friendly when nations are threatened!
I believe the grandparent had a point - the person quoted was wrong, but there is more to it than that. I believe that the real truth to be learned is that you cannot legislate morality short term, but that long term (more than one generation), you can!
Segragation caused many problems in its early years, but now is accepted as the only fair possibility by the vast majority.
This is not really a valid argument for making something illegal. Now that porn is legal (possibly even mainstream), there are far fewer cases of "porn-rape." If drugs were legal, terrorists wouldn't find it lucrative enough to participate, and those biker risks would go away as drugs would be shipped by normal delivery trucks.
The real reason for making drugs illegal (apart from moral reasons) is that the sellers of drugs are "taking" the freedom of the drug user away. Many drug users are esentially slaves to drugs, and creating the slavery is illegal.
Of course the person that bought the drugs also had some say in the matter - but in the US it is illegal to sell someone into slavery, even yourself.
I think that laws such as Adultery should be a contractual matter, not a "law." For example when someone gets married, instead of assuming that there is an unwritten "understanding" that marriage means no sex, or blow jobs, or whatever - write it down in the form of a contract. Say "if a partner has intercourse or oral sex with a third party that partner will give up X% of the equity of the partnership, and the partnership will be disolved." The problem with just telling everyone that it doesn't matter if they have an affair is that it does hurt people. Lot's of single moms and dads out there lost everything they had to get away from someone who was abusing them emotionally through a marriage relationship. They should not have to abandon everything they have made together because the other partner decided to have an affair.
Not that I necessarilly disagree, but let me point out what the opposition says. To them, pornography is not between consenting adults - as said in a previous story posted to slashdot, "no amount of juice could stop a monkey from looking at the hindquarters of a female in heat" (or close to that). So, if the pornography industry is taking advantage of the weak minded (that are unable to look away), wouldn't that be wrong? The same with drugs, but even more so - by selling drugs to someone, you decrease their ability to turn you down in the future. Essentially, you are taking away their ability to choose - isn't that wrong?
To me, the question is more one of enforceability. There are fewer drunks now than in early times because the drunks have a tendancy to die before reproducing, so the problem goes away if ignored (I think Larry Niven wrote about that). But throwing the drunks (druggies, porn viewers, etc.) in jail doesn't really help anyone - it just makes the streets look cleaner.
Don't be a fool. Obviously, in such a solution the other cars would limit your system efficiency!
The obvious solution is to launch a constellation of orbiting mirrors! Enough so that there is always one overhead where ever you need to drive. This way, it will even work at night! If there are clouds, burn them away by upping the power!
We must start right now launching these orbiting mirrors, one constellation for every car!
The problem everyone is having is that these numbers are average power - as in integrate the power over 24 hours, then divide by 24 hours. This is very different than peak power (over 1KW), or even daytime power (800 W, I believe, but it has been a while).
Honestly though, the best solution to using a solar panel on your car would be to store the energy in a Li-ion battery. Hydrogen is lighter, but the volume is greater and the efficiency is terrible!
As others have said, this would make more sense with the hydrogen generated at your home. (Except that I live on the 54th floor of a skyscraper, so I can't install solar cells!)