What exactly is stopping anyone from registering as the opposite party to screw with their primary choices, and then voting for their own candidate in the general election? Nothing.
Mostly, of course, the fact that it's more bother than most people will go to, combined with the fact that registration closes about 60 days before the election. It's not something you can do at the last minute on impulse. At the poll, your party affiliation is listed next to your name. (Primaries only, of course.) The poll worker gives you a ballot for that party, even if you'd rather vote for candidates in "the other lot."
Does your state prevent you from voting for the opposite party or something?
Only in the primaries, at present. Naturally, in the General Election, you can vote for whoever you want. Alas, California is going to an Open Primary. I give it five years at most before people come to their senses and stop the madness.
Don't be more stupid than you have to be. When you register to vote, at least in states with proper primaries, you are allowed to specify your party affiliation. If you're registered as a Republican you get a ballot with the Republican candidates on it; the same goes if you're registered as a Democrat or any other recognized political party. Those who decline to state any party preference get ballots with only the party-neutral parts, such as initiatives.
In a primary system with full turnout, you'd expect the winners to reflect the median Democrat and median Republican, with ideology scores of -.5 and.5. The Median voter would prefer someone with an ideology score of zero.
I'm a moderate, slightly to the right of center, but still a moderate. I'm also too much of a realist to expect such well-balanced candidates. I'd love to get a choice between.5 and -.5. Alas, I live in California where the Democrats always end up with somebody at about -.9944 and the Republicans with somebody between.75 and.9944.
It's kept voter turnout in general down for generations, too.
Well, if the average citizen can't be bothered to take a few minutes to vote in their primaries, they've only themselves to blame that there's no candidate they like in the General Election. Democracy may not always get you the government you want, but if you don't vote, you'll end up with exactly what you deserve.
You can see how such a system screws over the median voter though.
No, it doesn't. It does, however, screw over people who aren't willing to join a party or who can't be bothered to vote in the primary. And, as long as that's true of so many middle-of-the-road voters, you'll always end up with a choice between the far left and the far right.
You implement it by only giving ballots with a party's candidates to voters registered in that party. Yes, people can switch party to influence "that other lot," but you have to do it well in advance and that stops last minute impulse switching. It's not perfect, of course, but it's worked rather well on the whole for several generations.
And what of true "Independents"? Should they not have a voice in primaries even though they don't have a party to call their own?
No, they should not. A primary is an election where the members of a political party decide among themselves who they want as their candidate in the General Election. Persons who aren't members of the party shouldn't be allowed to vote on such questions any more than they should be allowed to attend a party's caucus. Yes, there are various "open primary" schemes, but none of them ever last very long because they Just Don't Work.
If I was on Obama's campaign team I would definitely go for this idea.
I take it, then, that you don't think President Obama can win unless he's running against somebody unelectable? If he's that unpopular, maybe it's better for the country (if not for the short-term interests of the Democrats.) if he's not re-elected.
Mixing numbers and letters together in hexadecimal (a numbering system humans don't use) was something cobbled together by some tit who had no idea about the practicalities of maintaining a network.
As a matter of fact, the term "hexadecimal" goes back to 1954, decades before the first computer network and the use of letters (although not always, at first, A through F) goes back to at least the 1940s. Using them in IPV6 addresses is simply using the system in the standard fashion; anything else would be confusing.
Yes. It's quite clear to anybody who tries to be the least bit objective about it that the TSA's current practices are specifically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. If you need to fly and want to make your opinion known the goons running the X-Ray machines (and only them) wear a Tee-shirt with the text of the amendment written on it in metallic ink.
Probably has helped prevent a lot of rear-end collisions, especially on the highway when cars stop suddenly for an obstruction. At any rate, clearly a good bang for the buck.
Personally, I'd prefer to say it was a good deal less bang for the buck!
These are stars that went supernova, but for which the remaining gravitationally bound matter did not turn into a black hole.
In a word, no. Supernovas that don't turn into black holes end up as neutron stars, not red dwarfs. Red dwarfs are the remains of stars too small to go supernova, which is why they're so small.
The authors don't have a leg to stand on and they know it. They are nothing but whiners.
Considering that US copyright lasts for seventy years after the author's death, and some of the authors involved are still alive, I find that hard to believe.
And I don't know Poul Anderson's daughter, but the idea of progeny of famous people trying to live off their parents' work is distasteful to me.
I don't know Astrid either, but I do know Poul's widow, editor and co-author, Karen Anderson. If anybody's profiting from Poul's work at this time, it's Karen, not Astrid. I do hope you don't object to that.
Yeah. Just the other day I saw a job advertised where experience with Windows Vista was required to get the job, but nothing was said about being expected to work with Vista.
If you'd bothered to RTFA, that's how the twit spelled it in the "apology," along with several other mis-spellings. Judging only from that one article, the world is probably better off without her magazine.
It's well known that Fred Astaire insisted that his dance numbers be filmed in one, long, take whenever possible. Compare this to some of today's "great" dance numbers composed of so many tiny takes that it looks like the "dancer" wasn't capable of remembering more than a few seconds of the dance at a time.
i love linux, but never in a million years do i want to compile a kernel
I started dual-booting DOS/Linux several years before Fedora Core 1 came out, with RedHat. Back then, the only way to upgrade your kernel was to download the source on Dial-Up, compile it, install it and edit LILO to reflect it. It wasn't that hard, actually, although as time went on, there were more and more options to select when you configured the makefile. Now, you simply let yum, apt-get or whatever package manager your distro uses download and install a pre-compiled kernel along with whatever updates there happen to be. No fuss, no muss, no bother, just let it install, then reboot into the new kernel and Bjorn Stronginthearm's your uncle!
You make a good point, but you forget something: if that's what Google was collecting data for, there was no need to record the packets in the first place. All they needed was the GPS data, signal strength and BSSID involved. I'm not saying that they were planning to make improper use of the data, just that there was no need to record it in the first place if what you say is true.
Please understand me: first, I'm not that interested in arguing with you and second, I don't think this is a bad idea. My original point was simply that it's similar in concept to SELinux. Yes, I realize that making a habit of using strncpy() instead of strcpy() isn't a Magic Bullet, but it will block the simplest forms of buffer overflow because it won't let you copy more bytes than the buffer will hold.
The straw man, of course, was your introduction of "perfect programmers," which is something I'd never mentioned. If you can, and do make it a habit of using string copy functions that prevent buffer overflows, all well and good; if not, it's not a bad idea to use a language that requires you to specify how many bytes to copy. The important thing isn't what language you use, but that you write programs where buffer overflows can't happen.
How much failure do you need to see in the real world before you guys stop with this old saw about improving or hiring perfect programmers?
Where did you get that strawman from? I never wrote anything like that! I'm talking about simple things, such as using a function that only copies a specified number of bytes into a buffer instead of one that copies everything so that you can't overrun your buffer. Making that a habit doesn't make you a perfect programmer and it doesn't prevent any and all bugs but it does prevent buffer overflow exploits.
Slashdot Mirror
Mostly, of course, the fact that it's more bother than most people will go to, combined with the fact that registration closes about 60 days before the election. It's not something you can do at the last minute on impulse. At the poll, your party affiliation is listed next to your name. (Primaries only, of course.) The poll worker gives you a ballot for that party, even if you'd rather vote for candidates in "the other lot."
Does your state prevent you from voting for the opposite party or something?
Only in the primaries, at present. Naturally, in the General Election, you can vote for whoever you want. Alas, California is going to an Open Primary. I give it five years at most before people come to their senses and stop the madness.
Don't be more stupid than you have to be. When you register to vote, at least in states with proper primaries, you are allowed to specify your party affiliation. If you're registered as a Republican you get a ballot with the Republican candidates on it; the same goes if you're registered as a Democrat or any other recognized political party. Those who decline to state any party preference get ballots with only the party-neutral parts, such as initiatives.
I'm a moderate, slightly to the right of center, but still a moderate. I'm also too much of a realist to expect such well-balanced candidates. I'd love to get a choice between .5 and -.5. Alas, I live in California where the Democrats always end up with somebody at about -.9944 and the Republicans with somebody between .75 and .9944.
Well, if the average citizen can't be bothered to take a few minutes to vote in their primaries, they've only themselves to blame that there's no candidate they like in the General Election. Democracy may not always get you the government you want, but if you don't vote, you'll end up with exactly what you deserve.
No, it doesn't. It does, however, screw over people who aren't willing to join a party or who can't be bothered to vote in the primary. And, as long as that's true of so many middle-of-the-road voters, you'll always end up with a choice between the far left and the far right.
You implement it by only giving ballots with a party's candidates to voters registered in that party. Yes, people can switch party to influence "that other lot," but you have to do it well in advance and that stops last minute impulse switching. It's not perfect, of course, but it's worked rather well on the whole for several generations.
No, they should not. A primary is an election where the members of a political party decide among themselves who they want as their candidate in the General Election. Persons who aren't members of the party shouldn't be allowed to vote on such questions any more than they should be allowed to attend a party's caucus. Yes, there are various "open primary" schemes, but none of them ever last very long because they Just Don't Work.
Yes, although I doubt that most of the people here are old enough to remember how bad things got under Jimmy Carter.
I take it, then, that you don't think President Obama can win unless he's running against somebody unelectable? If he's that unpopular, maybe it's better for the country (if not for the short-term interests of the Democrats.) if he's not re-elected.
Standards are so wonderful, aren't they? After all, there are so many of them to choose from.
As a matter of fact, the term "hexadecimal" goes back to 1954, decades before the first computer network and the use of letters (although not always, at first, A through F) goes back to at least the 1940s. Using them in IPV6 addresses is simply using the system in the standard fashion; anything else would be confusing.
Yes. It's quite clear to anybody who tries to be the least bit objective about it that the TSA's current practices are specifically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. If you need to fly and want to make your opinion known the goons running the X-Ray machines (and only them) wear a Tee-shirt with the text of the amendment written on it in metallic ink.
Personally, I'd prefer to say it was a good deal less bang for the buck!
In a word, no. Supernovas that don't turn into black holes end up as neutron stars, not red dwarfs. Red dwarfs are the remains of stars too small to go supernova, which is why they're so small.
Considering that US copyright lasts for seventy years after the author's death, and some of the authors involved are still alive, I find that hard to believe.
I don't know Astrid either, but I do know Poul's widow, editor and co-author, Karen Anderson. If anybody's profiting from Poul's work at this time, it's Karen, not Astrid. I do hope you don't object to that.
Yeah. Just the other day I saw a job advertised where experience with Windows Vista was required to get the job, but nothing was said about being expected to work with Vista.
Absolutely! I still want to bring the ripsaw into some of the newer games, especially when you consider that you can bounce the blades around corners.
If you'd bothered to RTFA, that's how the twit spelled it in the "apology," along with several other mis-spellings. Judging only from that one article, the world is probably better off without her magazine.
It's well known that Fred Astaire insisted that his dance numbers be filmed in one, long, take whenever possible. Compare this to some of today's "great" dance numbers composed of so many tiny takes that it looks like the "dancer" wasn't capable of remembering more than a few seconds of the dance at a time.
I started dual-booting DOS/Linux several years before Fedora Core 1 came out, with RedHat. Back then, the only way to upgrade your kernel was to download the source on Dial-Up, compile it, install it and edit LILO to reflect it. It wasn't that hard, actually, although as time went on, there were more and more options to select when you configured the makefile. Now, you simply let yum, apt-get or whatever package manager your distro uses download and install a pre-compiled kernel along with whatever updates there happen to be. No fuss, no muss, no bother, just let it install, then reboot into the new kernel and Bjorn Stronginthearm's your uncle!
You make a good point, but you forget something: if that's what Google was collecting data for, there was no need to record the packets in the first place. All they needed was the GPS data, signal strength and BSSID involved. I'm not saying that they were planning to make improper use of the data, just that there was no need to record it in the first place if what you say is true.
Please understand me: first, I'm not that interested in arguing with you and second, I don't think this is a bad idea. My original point was simply that it's similar in concept to SELinux. Yes, I realize that making a habit of using strncpy() instead of strcpy() isn't a Magic Bullet, but it will block the simplest forms of buffer overflow because it won't let you copy more bytes than the buffer will hold.
The straw man, of course, was your introduction of "perfect programmers," which is something I'd never mentioned. If you can, and do make it a habit of using string copy functions that prevent buffer overflows, all well and good; if not, it's not a bad idea to use a language that requires you to specify how many bytes to copy. The important thing isn't what language you use, but that you write programs where buffer overflows can't happen.
Where did you get that strawman from? I never wrote anything like that! I'm talking about simple things, such as using a function that only copies a specified number of bytes into a buffer instead of one that copies everything so that you can't overrun your buffer. Making that a habit doesn't make you a perfect programmer and it doesn't prevent any and all bugs but it does prevent buffer overflow exploits.