The people's business that I'm talking about here are actual policy issues and laws - tax rate adjustments, war appropriations, tariffs, copyright treaties, etc. The actual running of government is supposed to be the output of politics, not the politicians themselves.
For instance, judging by your sig you're a libertarian. Does it really make any difference to the citizenry whether a libertarian-leaning law gets pushed through by Barack Obama, Michael Badnarik, Ralph Nader, or Sarah Palin?
Yes, it does. Also the Minnesota senate election in 2008. In both cases, because there was a physical record of each vote, there were clear ways of determining exactly what the vast majority of voters intended to do, even those who didn't do exactly what the counting machines expected. The problems in both those elections were because partisan jackasses were coming up with excuses for why votes for the other guy shouldn't count, or why something that may or may not have indicated a clear intent should count for their guy. Oh, and also the partisan jackasses who were charged with the solemn duty of running fair elections, who found ways to run it so that their guy would have a better chance of winning. Electronic votes wouldn't be immune to this sort of thing.
Here's the way to make things work if we're looking for free and fair elections: 1. Create a physical record of each vote that cannot be traced to the individual voter (which, btw, eliminates all concepts of a voting "receipt" that often crop up around here). 2. Make darn sure that the officials running the election are not partisan and have extremely high integrity. An excellent example of the sort of person we'd want in this role is Bill Gardner, who has been running elections in New Hampshire since 1976 and has the support of Democrats and Republicans. 3. Engage in random unannounced audits of voting results in particular precincts by outside organizations, such as news media, foreign election observers, or nonprofit watchdogs.
From the perspective of a conservative, his is THE most left-leaning and partisan Presidency to date.
Only a misinformed conservative.
If you want to talk about a left-wing partisan presidency, look no further than Lyndon Johnson. That guy was as left-wing as they come (Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, the War on Poverty, starting the withdrawal from Vietnam, etc, etc), and was famous for giving senators "the treatment" and effectively browbeating them into voting for his proposals.
But of course, that would be the kind of information you'd find out if GP looked it up in a book, instead of his gut.
Don't you get it? Ronald Reagan proved that you can cut taxes, increase spending, and reduce the deficit all at the same time!
Well, er, wait, no he didn't - what he actually proved is you can cut taxes, increase spending, and then blame Democrats for the deficit. But it sure was a winning political strategy, and it's been the one the Republican Party has been following since 1980.
I live in OH-10. Dennis has always run his congressional campaigns like that, and it's a big part of why he keeps on getting re-elected. At the same time, the big corporate donors had enough cash to throw around that there were billboards out on the highway trying to blame him for the lack of economic growth.
He's also on the record as being concerned that Newt Gingrich was too conciliatory back in the 1990's. Also, the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is on the record as saying that the top priority of the Republican Senate delegation is to ensure that Obama doesn't get reelected. Something tells me the people's business isn't the top of their list.
You don't hire a cook who only knows how to nuke frozen meals do you?
Sure you do. At McDonalds and other places where the instructions are so thorough a complete moron could do job. And of course you get mediocre but consistent results when you do that.
Of course, software development isn't an environment where that remotely works, since writing the instruction manual is exactly what developers are doing, but management would really like development to work that way, so they often try to shoehorn it.
Although he was describing British Parliament, WS Gilbert described the problem very well about a century ago, in a couple of his operettas: Iolanthe, When all Night Long
When in that House, MP's divide If they've a brain and cerebellum too They've got to leave that brain outside and vote just as their leader's tell 'em to. But then the prospect of a lot of dull MP's in close vicinity all thinking for themselves is what no man can face with equanimity.
HMS Pinafore, When I was a Lad
I grew so rich that I was sent by a pocket burser into Parliament. I always voted at my party's call and I never thought of thinking for myself at all. I thought so little they rewarded me by making me the ruler of the Queen's Navy.
And that sort of talk is probably why he never got knighted.
There have been some developments since Brooks wrote No Silver Bullet that have helped by attacking the accidental complexity of software development - widespread use of garbage collection, for instance. But Brooks is still absolutely correct that the complexities of software have a lot more to do with the complexities of the human mental modeling, heuristics, and decisions that software replaces than they do with the challenge of converting that to something the computer can understand.
Which is why I said "not necessarily a bad strategy", not "is always a good strategy". In your scenario, we'll rate A at +0, Hitler at -10000, and Stalin at -10000. Of course the strategy changes when the choices change - if your third option is Pol Pot, you're probably better off running as far away as possible.
He's fulfilled his promise to withdraw from Iraq in a rapid by responsible way.
Would you like to explain the 50,000 troops still in Iraq, then? Actually, the funniest explanation I've seen so far for this is that the troops are there to "prevent foreign interference" (if 50,000 troops isn't foreign interference, what is?)
Voting for the lesser of two evils is not necessarily a bad strategy.
Let's say you have an election between candidates A, B, and C. You really want A to win, you think B is somewhat evil but much better than C, and you really really don't want C. Polls show A at 2% of the vote, B at 49% of the vote, and C at 49% of the vote. Now, who do you vote for? No question that C is out. But the choice between A and B is tougher - if you vote for A, you increase the chance C will win. If you vote for B, A can never get the support they need. As an individual voter, you're in a bind - voting for A will help in the long run, but voting for B will be an improvement right now.
It also matters a lot how bad the various evils are. If, in the above situation, you'd rate A at +100, B at -10, and C at -10000, B is probably the better choice. If you'd rate A at +100, B at -100, and C at -150, then A is probably better.
The real kicker is that the potential direct revenue from web browsers remains $0. Even if they win, not one of these players will be able to make a browser a profit center. Which is great for everyone who uses a browser, of course, as you mentioned.
I think it's safe to say that banana pudding isn't a solution at all - maybe a suspension is you put in a lot of water, but usually more solid that that.
If you want to understand what any organization is actually doing (as opposed to understanding what they say they're doing), read their budget. So the fact that the people theoretically in charge of the intelligence agencies don't know how the money is being spent means that they aren't in charge at all.
There are 2 non-mutually-exclusive reasons this could happen: - The people that are supposed to be in charge aren't doing their jobs. - The career spies that work directly for the people in charge are hiding their activities from their superiors.
Either way, that means that it doesn't matter who gets elected next week - the spooks will continue doing whatever the heck they want with the US government's money.
Well, you're missing the cases in which both parties get together to screw the little people over, such as the USA Patriot Act (the major reason I seriously hope Russ Feingold keeps his seat).
Slashdot Mirror
He's Arnold, Arnold, Arnold Rimmer
Without him life would be much dimmer
He's handsome, brave, and no one's slimmer
He will never use a Zimmer.
(Let's just say that's one smeghead I never want to see again!)
The people's business that I'm talking about here are actual policy issues and laws - tax rate adjustments, war appropriations, tariffs, copyright treaties, etc. The actual running of government is supposed to be the output of politics, not the politicians themselves.
For instance, judging by your sig you're a libertarian. Does it really make any difference to the citizenry whether a libertarian-leaning law gets pushed through by Barack Obama, Michael Badnarik, Ralph Nader, or Sarah Palin?
Do the words "Hanging Chad" mean anything to you?
Yes, it does. Also the Minnesota senate election in 2008. In both cases, because there was a physical record of each vote, there were clear ways of determining exactly what the vast majority of voters intended to do, even those who didn't do exactly what the counting machines expected. The problems in both those elections were because partisan jackasses were coming up with excuses for why votes for the other guy shouldn't count, or why something that may or may not have indicated a clear intent should count for their guy. Oh, and also the partisan jackasses who were charged with the solemn duty of running fair elections, who found ways to run it so that their guy would have a better chance of winning. Electronic votes wouldn't be immune to this sort of thing.
Here's the way to make things work if we're looking for free and fair elections:
1. Create a physical record of each vote that cannot be traced to the individual voter (which, btw, eliminates all concepts of a voting "receipt" that often crop up around here).
2. Make darn sure that the officials running the election are not partisan and have extremely high integrity. An excellent example of the sort of person we'd want in this role is Bill Gardner, who has been running elections in New Hampshire since 1976 and has the support of Democrats and Republicans.
3. Engage in random unannounced audits of voting results in particular precincts by outside organizations, such as news media, foreign election observers, or nonprofit watchdogs.
From the perspective of a conservative, his is THE most left-leaning and partisan Presidency to date.
Only a misinformed conservative.
If you want to talk about a left-wing partisan presidency, look no further than Lyndon Johnson. That guy was as left-wing as they come (Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, the War on Poverty, starting the withdrawal from Vietnam, etc, etc), and was famous for giving senators "the treatment" and effectively browbeating them into voting for his proposals.
But of course, that would be the kind of information you'd find out if GP looked it up in a book, instead of his gut.
Don't you get it? Ronald Reagan proved that you can cut taxes, increase spending, and reduce the deficit all at the same time!
Well, er, wait, no he didn't - what he actually proved is you can cut taxes, increase spending, and then blame Democrats for the deficit. But it sure was a winning political strategy, and it's been the one the Republican Party has been following since 1980.
Rush D Holt, from New Jersey, is a former rocket scientist and generally a friend of geeks on issues like electronic voting.
I live in OH-10. Dennis has always run his congressional campaigns like that, and it's a big part of why he keeps on getting re-elected. At the same time, the big corporate donors had enough cash to throw around that there were billboards out on the highway trying to blame him for the lack of economic growth.
He won fairly easily.
He's also on the record as being concerned that Newt Gingrich was too conciliatory back in the 1990's. Also, the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is on the record as saying that the top priority of the Republican Senate delegation is to ensure that Obama doesn't get reelected. Something tells me the people's business isn't the top of their list.
You don't hire a cook who only knows how to nuke frozen meals do you?
Sure you do. At McDonalds and other places where the instructions are so thorough a complete moron could do job. And of course you get mediocre but consistent results when you do that.
Of course, software development isn't an environment where that remotely works, since writing the instruction manual is exactly what developers are doing, but management would really like development to work that way, so they often try to shoehorn it.
The old Adlai Stevenson quip that comes to mind here:
Supporter: Governor, you'd get the vote of every thinking person.
Adlai: Thank you ma'am, but I need a majority.
Although he was describing British Parliament, WS Gilbert described the problem very well about a century ago, in a couple of his operettas:
Iolanthe, When all Night Long
When in that House, MP's divide
If they've a brain and cerebellum too
They've got to leave that brain outside
and vote just as their leader's tell 'em to.
But then the prospect of a lot
of dull MP's in close vicinity
all thinking for themselves is what
no man can face with equanimity.
HMS Pinafore, When I was a Lad
I grew so rich that I was sent
by a pocket burser into Parliament.
I always voted at my party's call
and I never thought of thinking for myself at all.
I thought so little they rewarded me
by making me the ruler of the Queen's Navy.
And that sort of talk is probably why he never got knighted.
Well, yes and no.
There have been some developments since Brooks wrote No Silver Bullet that have helped by attacking the accidental complexity of software development - widespread use of garbage collection, for instance. But Brooks is still absolutely correct that the complexities of software have a lot more to do with the complexities of the human mental modeling, heuristics, and decisions that software replaces than they do with the challenge of converting that to something the computer can understand.
If only bottles of beer worked that way. Maybe if I try and grab 255 at a time ...
Which is why I said "not necessarily a bad strategy", not "is always a good strategy". In your scenario, we'll rate A at +0, Hitler at -10000, and Stalin at -10000. Of course the strategy changes when the choices change - if your third option is Pol Pot, you're probably better off running as far away as possible.
Since they're in the business of sell out the viewers, it's obvious what they're eventually going to do.
News media are for the most part in the business of selling viewers to advertisers.
He's fulfilled his promise to withdraw from Iraq in a rapid by responsible way.
Would you like to explain the 50,000 troops still in Iraq, then? Actually, the funniest explanation I've seen so far for this is that the troops are there to "prevent foreign interference" (if 50,000 troops isn't foreign interference, what is?)
Voting for the lesser of two evils is not necessarily a bad strategy.
Let's say you have an election between candidates A, B, and C. You really want A to win, you think B is somewhat evil but much better than C, and you really really don't want C. Polls show A at 2% of the vote, B at 49% of the vote, and C at 49% of the vote. Now, who do you vote for? No question that C is out. But the choice between A and B is tougher - if you vote for A, you increase the chance C will win. If you vote for B, A can never get the support they need. As an individual voter, you're in a bind - voting for A will help in the long run, but voting for B will be an improvement right now.
It also matters a lot how bad the various evils are. If, in the above situation, you'd rate A at +100, B at -10, and C at -10000, B is probably the better choice. If you'd rate A at +100, B at -100, and C at -150, then A is probably better.
We reduce the number of ways we can defend against Martian war machines.
The real kicker is that the potential direct revenue from web browsers remains $0. Even if they win, not one of these players will be able to make a browser a profit center. Which is great for everyone who uses a browser, of course, as you mentioned.
Of course I was just fiddling around and not really looking for anything in particular.
You get absolutely fantastic results if you use the "BS marketing" or "investor attractor" biases rather than the "reality" bias.
The other significant factor here is that 3D movies really have to be watched in a theater, as opposed to Netflix or illegal download.
I think it's safe to say that banana pudding isn't a solution at all - maybe a suspension is you put in a lot of water, but usually more solid that that.
Yes, it's better if the US intelligence agencies are spending my money on nothing rather than spending it on spying on me.
But that still doesn't make it perfectly ok.
If you want to understand what any organization is actually doing (as opposed to understanding what they say they're doing), read their budget. So the fact that the people theoretically in charge of the intelligence agencies don't know how the money is being spent means that they aren't in charge at all.
There are 2 non-mutually-exclusive reasons this could happen:
- The people that are supposed to be in charge aren't doing their jobs.
- The career spies that work directly for the people in charge are hiding their activities from their superiors.
Either way, that means that it doesn't matter who gets elected next week - the spooks will continue doing whatever the heck they want with the US government's money.
Well, you're missing the cases in which both parties get together to screw the little people over, such as the USA Patriot Act (the major reason I seriously hope Russ Feingold keeps his seat).