"Ultimately, your're still making a binary decision on multiple options, with lots of math serving mostly as a diversion."
Not a lot of math, just a few runoffs. How is ranking the candidates in order of preference a binary decision? Is it just because, in the end, the most popular will be shown to have received more votes than the second most popular?
"In the end, you can still make the argument that you're throwing your vote away if you vote outside the two party system."
You could, but you would be wrong. Don't forget the simple fact that if I want Nader and he's the third most popular, my second choice vote will still go to Gore over Bush. You could even consider that if your last-choice (worst ranked) vote ends up going to the winner, you could still say that you voted for him...last! Do you see how simple that is? Nobody outside of Palm Beach County would throw a single vote away. That's the simple promise of IRV.
If you understood that much, you might also see what would have happened if Perot was the true favorite in '96, but didn't get a majority of the votes simply because too many people were afraid of throwing their vote away to a third party. Imagine the outcome if they could have voted Perot as their top choice and Bush or Clinton as their second choice. No reason to worry about the possibility of Perot being eliminated in the first count, because then their vote would still go to their second choice above their third choice. If enough people in '96 had the opportunity to vote their conscience without fear, a third party candidate could have taken a majority (Perot was popular among lefties and righties).
That's how IRV weakens the major parties, and that's why we don't have IRV. Both parties depend on us making that dreadful vote-saving calculation instead of voting our conscience. I would go as far as to say that the reason nobody ever discusses IRV is that anybody with a stake in the status-quo would like to keep third-parties out, and the best way to do that is to chide them for "throwing their vote away".
Something else to consider is that our two major parties are too strong. We actually have laws in place that protect and preserve our "two-party system". Why do people believe that a two-party system is better? They use words like "stability". Yes indeed...a system that would allow consumers to rise up and protect their privacy could not be considered a "stable" place for corporations to do business.
Given that our two major parties are each rapidly becoming about as corrupt as the PRI in Mexico, we should welcome any type of progress that would weaken their grip on the country. First, we should establish Instant Runoff Voting.
After that, we could look at other ways for more people to feel like they are represented in government. How about proportional representation? It won't work for every contest, but where it does, it would keep certain groups from feeling so alienated. The constitution is not enough to protect minority rights. Even if it was, somone should be looking out for the *interests* of minority constituencies and balancing them in a proportional way (I'm not talking about racial groups).
So this means that when you fill out a form and are denied coverage, an account, etc., it may not be because of what you said, but because of what someone else said about you. Great.
This might actually help in the effort to get people to rethink the role of the patent office in the digital era. I welcome this nonsense...the higher the profile (eBay!), the greater the impact.
Nobody but the people who created the DMCA "caused" the DMCA. Think for a moment about "cause" and "effect". We might just as easily say that we "caused" them to lower their prices, or that we "caused" them to put their products online in a form that would be as useful to us as the pirated reproductions, but none of that ever happened.
They "caused" the DMCA by deciding that radical technological developments didn't justify adaptive business models/practices. They decided it would not be for them to change...even though it could be argued that nearly a century ago their own industry, coupled with technological developments, spoiled the potential markets for live music performance, musical instruments, sheet music, etc...they decided it would be for society to change.
They would rather render new technology impotent to create new market realities. Did they consider whether or not this was the right path? No, I don't think so. It's just enlightened self-interest working its selfish magic. Surely the only question that they ever asked themselves was whether or not they had the political capitol and lobbying muscle to pull it off. They're doing a bang-up job, and they're not even close to being finished. They'll wine about piracy until they experience ever-expanding profits (pay no attention to the larger recession or the fact that they haven't shown anything valuable to distinguishing music "consumers" in years).
What bothers me the most is voices like your own, demonstrating the extent to which they're winning the PR war as well. They're taking away your freedom to use technology for perfectly legitimate purposes (betamax VCR "legitimate usages" = "legal product" precedent, R.I.P. Now, if it can be used for pirating we have to do something about it...obviously bad for technological development), and you're worried about them. It's so sad.
A final requirement is that the solutions in the four areas must coexist gracefully with larger configured networks. ZEROCONF protocols MUST NOT cause harm to the network when a ZEROCONF machine is plugged into a large network.
I'm kind of wondering if this is only a technology for small networks, or if this is something we would ever want to use on the WAN. Is this AppleTalk II? Anyone?
Speaking of the internet and propaganda, you absolutely have to see this: http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/ldrive/ e082202 _fec.rm
You get to see the majority of the commission use twisted, tortured logic to try to suggest that SMS and instant messenging political ads are more like a bumpersticker or a banner trailing from an airplane than they are like a tv or radio commercial, as far as the use of disclaimers goes.
There were two voices in dissent (sanity), who argue that whatever arguments there are for not requiring the usual "paid for by" disclaimers, there are many more arguments for requiring them. The majority disagrees.
Basically, I see this commission as having moved us closer to a future where our political debates will favor rich, anonymous advertisers who can send "candidate Bob is GAY!" messages to the masses". When you consider what's going on over at the FCC, Powell and Smith make quite a tag time duo working on behalf of aspiring propagandists.
I particularly love it how Chairman Smith argues that "more information is better", apparently suggesting that "paid for by" disclaimers could slow down the adoption of SMS for political communication, and that would deprive us of important "information". As if the disclaimer itself is trivial information!
Watch it for yourself and be AMAZED!
Notice that Smith doesn't seem very comfortable on camera.
It's been reported that people who watch the local news have a far greater perception that the world is a dangerous place than those who don't watch it. It's not that they're trying to scare us, it's just that murders, rapes, holdups, fires, car crashes, etc. are the easiest stories to report on. It's the disaster beat.
Quality journalism requires intelligence and creativity. But why bother to inform or say anything meaningful when you can just cater to an audience's morbid curiosity?
when you get your ass kicked on national television, you just write a nasty article for Salon where you can make personal attacks against the people who made you feel so bad.
The upside: they can't even respond, whereas you they gave you the opportunity on the show and you blew it.
The downside: You'll teach the media never to invite you to appear again.
Any enforcable law is a bit of totalitarian control. Any citizen who deeply believes that he should be able to do something that the state will not allow (like smoking a joint or having two spouses) will say that he or she is living under an oppressive government. When those laws become enforcable, that citizen will say that he or she is living under a totalitarian government (and with enough technology in the hands of the state, all laws will eventually be fully enforcable).
So we hear much rhetoric about how the Soviet Union, China, Cuba or any other leftist governments are totalitarian and evil, but what does totalitarian even mean? Does it mean that they have to ask before they can eat or drink or use the toilet? No. All nations have freedoms, but they aren't necessarilly the same freedoms.
If you're not upset by this story, which does raise concerns about an American form of *CENSORSHIP*, it probably means that you have fully internalized the values promoted by our government. The value in this case: property rights are legitimate and should be respected and enforced at any cost to anyone who would disagree.
(note: the new American method of social control involves criticizing the elected officials of a democratic government for making policies and then smiling as you hand all power and discretion to unacountable private authorities)
We value property rights in ways that are unjust and disproportionate. Think about the fact that if a dumb kid steals a car, he can lose his freedom entirely (go to jail), even though it could be argued that he did nothing whatsoever to compromise the *basic freedoms* of the victim. That is, unless we all wanted to agree that the victim has a basic right to freedom *from* theft or freedom *from* property loss that is more important than the dumb kid's freedom to remain a member of society (thrown in the trash for having over-cultivated an appetite for the shiny toys that he sees on television).
Our system of government places property rights above almost any other right that you could conceive of. We lack a basic right to freedom from starvation. Any employer knows that if he pays two employees (for instance, a man and his wife) so little that they can't even afford to feed their 6 kids* and keep a roof over their heads, not only will he not go to jail for paying such lousy wages and exploiting their condition (whateve condition that could keep them working for him), but he can fire them for any reason or for no reason at all and be totally within his rights.
It would be easy to take issue with my example (Americans naturally find it very easy to ridicule concerns about the general welfare), but one point will stand: our system values property rights... public health and social cohesion be damned...and other systems consider other things more important. I'm happiest living in America, but I know that others would be happier elsewhere, because there are two kinds of economic freedom:
Those who want to get rich will say that economic freedom means you can get rich and you can take advantage of people who aren't rich.
Those who want to be religious, artistic, family-oriented, transcendental, etc. might say that economic freedom means not having to spend all day worrying about paying bills.
Conservatives, it could be argued, are still living in the past...the days of hunting and gathering...still obsessed with the issues of sustenance and physical well-being.
We're only humans though, and humans have very simple needs, and current advancements in technology are still not even allowing us to spend more time with our friends and family. We work more hours a week than the citizens of Japan, Germany, Britain, and all the rest.
What do our technologies and American values allow us to do? Feed the world with a bit of public organization? No, but we can sure make a lot more money for our employers.
* until very recently, six kids = a respectable family size. I wouldn't think of it, but that's just me.
"you really think that when you WORK for someone you are EXPLOITING him?
"Wake up buddy."
I said: "The current rules allow global businesses to go wherever they want so that they can exploit whoever they want."
Wake yourself up.
Don't you think it's funny that citizen A of nation A is not allowed to relocate to nation B, but corporation A from nation A can easily establish itself as a player in nation B? Laws are always written for the benefit of capital, not labor. Which is odd because capital is nothing more than the fruit of labor. Who's looking out for the interests of people who work?
If you want to relocate to work in the EU, your best bet is to get hired by a multinational corporation doing business there. What does that say? These guys have all of the power.
Maybe he is, but it raises the question: for whom does the American economy exist? I believe that we should establish open borders and free trade, but there are currently free flows of capitol without free flows of labor. Our laws should reflect the needs of American employees as well as American employers. The current rules allow global businesses to go wherever they want so that they can exploit whoever they want.
it seems like geeks built an internet that reflected their values and needs, then they showed other people what it was and what it could become.
Everybody was excited...wow, an information revolution.
It seems like the people who always tend to get what they want are beginning to decide that they never really wanted an information revolution, and now we're seeing the counter-revolution.
Slashdot Mirror
It's obvious that you don't understand IRV.
"Ultimately, your're still making a binary decision on multiple options, with lots of math serving mostly as a diversion."
Not a lot of math, just a few runoffs. How is ranking the candidates in order of preference a binary decision? Is it just because, in the end, the most popular will be shown to have received more votes than the second most popular?
"In the end, you can still make the argument that you're throwing your vote away if you vote outside the two party system."
You could, but you would be wrong. Don't forget the simple fact that if I want Nader and he's the third most popular, my second choice vote will still go to Gore over Bush. You could even consider that if your last-choice (worst ranked) vote ends up going to the winner, you could still say that you voted for him...last! Do you see how simple that is? Nobody outside of Palm Beach County would throw a single vote away. That's the simple promise of IRV.
If you understood that much, you might also see what would have happened if Perot was the true favorite in '96, but didn't get a majority of the votes simply because too many people were afraid of throwing their vote away to a third party. Imagine the outcome if they could have voted Perot as their top choice and Bush or Clinton as their second choice. No reason to worry about the possibility of Perot being eliminated in the first count, because then their vote would still go to their second choice above their third choice. If enough people in '96 had the opportunity to vote their conscience without fear, a third party candidate could have taken a majority (Perot was popular among lefties and righties).
That's how IRV weakens the major parties, and that's why we don't have IRV. Both parties depend on us making that dreadful vote-saving calculation instead of voting our conscience. I would go as far as to say that the reason nobody ever discusses IRV is that anybody with a stake in the status-quo would like to keep third-parties out, and the best way to do that is to chide them for "throwing their vote away".
Watch John Cleese of Monty Python fame explain proportional representation.
Something else to consider is that our two major parties are too strong. We actually have laws in place that protect and preserve our "two-party system". Why do people believe that a two-party system is better? They use words like "stability". Yes indeed...a system that would allow consumers to rise up and protect their privacy could not be considered a "stable" place for corporations to do business.
Given that our two major parties are each rapidly becoming about as corrupt as the PRI in Mexico, we should welcome any type of progress that would weaken their grip on the country. First, we should establish Instant Runoff Voting.
After that, we could look at other ways for more people to feel like they are represented in government. How about proportional representation? It won't work for every contest, but where it does, it would keep certain groups from feeling so alienated. The constitution is not enough to protect minority rights. Even if it was, somone should be looking out for the *interests* of minority constituencies and balancing them in a proportional way (I'm not talking about racial groups).
Because only corporations would be able to buy it.
This is good reading for anyone interested in the distinctions between "capitalism" and "corporatism".
So this means that when you fill out a form and are denied coverage, an account, etc., it may not be because of what you said, but because of what someone else said about you. Great.
This might actually help in the effort to get people to rethink the role of the patent office in the digital era. I welcome this nonsense...the higher the profile (eBay!), the greater the impact.
What's that saying? The worse the better?
Nobody but the people who created the DMCA "caused" the DMCA. Think for a moment about "cause" and "effect". We might just as easily say that we "caused" them to lower their prices, or that we "caused" them to put their products online in a form that would be as useful to us as the pirated reproductions, but none of that ever happened.
They "caused" the DMCA by deciding that radical technological developments didn't justify adaptive business models/practices. They decided it would not be for them to change...even though it could be argued that nearly a century ago their own industry, coupled with technological developments, spoiled the potential markets for live music performance, musical instruments, sheet music, etc...they decided it would be for society to change.
They would rather render new technology impotent to create new market realities. Did they consider whether or not this was the right path? No, I don't think so. It's just enlightened self-interest working its selfish magic. Surely the only question that they ever asked themselves was whether or not they had the political capitol and lobbying muscle to pull it off. They're doing a bang-up job, and they're not even close to being finished. They'll wine about piracy until they experience ever-expanding profits (pay no attention to the larger recession or the fact that they haven't shown anything valuable to distinguishing music "consumers" in years).
What bothers me the most is voices like your own, demonstrating the extent to which they're winning the PR war as well. They're taking away your freedom to use technology for perfectly legitimate purposes (betamax VCR "legitimate usages" = "legal product" precedent, R.I.P. Now, if it can be used for pirating we have to do something about it...obviously bad for technological development), and you're worried about them. It's so sad.
It's not even a real droid. It turns out it's a toy.
I found this at zeroconf.org:
A final requirement is that the solutions in the four areas must coexist gracefully with larger configured networks. ZEROCONF protocols MUST NOT cause harm to the network when a ZEROCONF machine is plugged into a large network.
I like your sig. It's so good to see a sign of life from the judicial branch.
I'm kind of wondering if this is only a technology for small networks, or if this is something we would ever want to use on the WAN. Is this AppleTalk II? Anyone?
Speaking of the internet and propaganda, you absolutely have to see this:/ e082202 _fec.rm
http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/ldrive
You get to see the majority of the commission use twisted, tortured logic to try to suggest that SMS and instant messenging political ads are more like a bumpersticker or a banner trailing from an airplane than they are like a tv or radio commercial, as far as the use of disclaimers goes.
There were two voices in dissent (sanity), who argue that whatever arguments there are for not requiring the usual "paid for by" disclaimers, there are many more arguments for requiring them. The majority disagrees.
Basically, I see this commission as having moved us closer to a future where our political debates will favor rich, anonymous advertisers who can send "candidate Bob is GAY!" messages to the masses". When you consider what's going on over at the FCC, Powell and Smith make quite a tag time duo working on behalf of aspiring propagandists.
I particularly love it how Chairman Smith argues that "more information is better", apparently suggesting that "paid for by" disclaimers could slow down the adoption of SMS for political communication, and that would deprive us of important "information". As if the disclaimer itself is trivial information!
Watch it for yourself and be AMAZED!
Notice that Smith doesn't seem very comfortable on camera.
Of course you realize that while this might not be "some nefarious plot", it won't work at all for your average programmer.
I don't mind the fact that my server is somewhat slow, just as long as I can use it for doing some real work.
It's been reported that people who watch the local news have a far greater perception that the world is a dangerous place than those who don't watch it. It's not that they're trying to scare us, it's just that murders, rapes, holdups, fires, car crashes, etc. are the easiest stories to report on. It's the disaster beat.
Quality journalism requires intelligence and creativity. But why bother to inform or say anything meaningful when you can just cater to an audience's morbid curiosity?
when you get your ass kicked on national television, you just write a nasty article for Salon where you can make personal attacks against the people who made you feel so bad.
The upside: they can't even respond, whereas you they gave you the opportunity on the show and you blew it.
The downside: You'll teach the media never to invite you to appear again.
Any enforcable law is a bit of totalitarian control. Any citizen who deeply believes that he should be able to do something that the state will not allow (like smoking a joint or having two spouses) will say that he or she is living under an oppressive government. When those laws become enforcable, that citizen will say that he or she is living under a totalitarian government (and with enough technology in the hands of the state, all laws will eventually be fully enforcable).
So we hear much rhetoric about how the Soviet Union, China, Cuba or any other leftist governments are totalitarian and evil, but what does totalitarian even mean? Does it mean that they have to ask before they can eat or drink or use the toilet? No. All nations have freedoms, but they aren't necessarilly the same freedoms.
If you're not upset by this story, which does raise concerns about an American form of *CENSORSHIP*, it probably means that you have fully internalized the values promoted by our government. The value in this case: property rights are legitimate and should be respected and enforced at any cost to anyone who would disagree.
(note: the new American method of social control involves criticizing the elected officials of a democratic government for making policies and then smiling as you hand all power and discretion to unacountable private authorities)
We value property rights in ways that are unjust and disproportionate. Think about the fact that if a dumb kid steals a car, he can lose his freedom entirely (go to jail), even though it could be argued that he did nothing whatsoever to compromise the *basic freedoms* of the victim. That is, unless we all wanted to agree that the victim has a basic right to freedom *from* theft or freedom *from* property loss that is more important than the dumb kid's freedom to remain a member of society (thrown in the trash for having over-cultivated an appetite for the shiny toys that he sees on television).
Our system of government places property rights above almost any other right that you could conceive of. We lack a basic right to freedom from starvation. Any employer knows that if he pays two employees (for instance, a man and his wife) so little that they can't even afford to feed their 6 kids* and keep a roof over their heads, not only will he not go to jail for paying such lousy wages and exploiting their condition (whateve condition that could keep them working for him), but he can fire them for any reason or for no reason at all and be totally within his rights.
It would be easy to take issue with my example (Americans naturally find it very easy to ridicule concerns about the general welfare), but one point will stand: our system values property rights... public health and social cohesion be damned...and other systems consider other things more important. I'm happiest living in America, but I know that others would be happier elsewhere, because there are two kinds of economic freedom:
Those who want to get rich will say that economic freedom means you can get rich and you can take advantage of people who aren't rich.
Those who want to be religious, artistic, family-oriented, transcendental, etc. might say that economic freedom means not having to spend all day worrying about paying bills.
Conservatives, it could be argued, are still living in the past...the days of hunting and gathering...still obsessed with the issues of sustenance and physical well-being.
We're only humans though, and humans have very simple needs, and current advancements in technology are still not even allowing us to spend more time with our friends and family. We work more hours a week than the citizens of Japan, Germany, Britain, and all the rest.
What do our technologies and American values allow us to do? Feed the world with a bit of public organization? No, but we can sure make a lot more money for our employers.
* until very recently, six kids = a respectable family size. I wouldn't think of it, but that's just me.
Reminds me of Mike in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
I just saw "Signs", and I know exactly what you mean. They're coming...head for the lake!
"Build a better mousetrap and the world will
beat a path to your door." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
"you really think that when you WORK for someone you are EXPLOITING him?
"Wake up buddy."
I said: "The current rules allow global businesses to go wherever they want so that they can exploit whoever they want."
Wake yourself up.
Don't you think it's funny that citizen A of nation A is not allowed to relocate to nation B, but corporation A from nation A can easily establish itself as a player in nation B? Laws are always written for the benefit of capital, not labor. Which is odd because capital is nothing more than the fruit of labor. Who's looking out for the interests of people who work?
If you want to relocate to work in the EU, your best bet is to get hired by a multinational corporation doing business there. What does that say? These guys have all of the power.
Maybe he is, but it raises the question: for whom does the American economy exist? I believe that we should establish open borders and free trade, but there are currently free flows of capitol without free flows of labor. Our laws should reflect the needs of American employees as well as American employers. The current rules allow global businesses to go wherever they want so that they can exploit whoever they want.
it seems like geeks built an internet that reflected their values and needs, then they showed other people what it was and what it could become.
Everybody was excited...wow, an information revolution.
It seems like the people who always tend to get what they want are beginning to decide that they never really wanted an information revolution, and now we're seeing the counter-revolution.