I'll admit that the consistency of syntax is wonderful, but that's no excuse for
You're latter comments show that you don't understand what the consistency of the syntax buys you.
> BEDMAS-calculation
Those macros exist and have come packaged with most LISPs for a long time. The tutorial writers ignore it because it's not needed 99.999% of the time. If you are using LISP the application probably isn't a simple a simple math problem. Those macros tend to get in the way of some other common LISP programming tactics; most people don't use them.
> totally obtuse keywords
car and cdr can be composed e.g. caddr. The ability to do those repeated evaluations with simple syntax is generally viewed to be worth the learning curve. Gernerally though, the standard libraries that come with LISP are far too verbose and obtuse.
> blocks-as-lists is a nifty feature
You bet. It makes macros and other niffty features possible. You can't distinguish between them and still have LISP, it's the basis of the entire language. Just like in natural language when you want it to get the meaning you just put the list e.g. "(+ 1 2)" will get 3 and when you want it to take litteral what you mean you quote it e.g. "'(+ 1 2)" gets you (+ 1 2). Yeah it's strange but as soon as you get rid of the ability for them to be the same you break the symetry of the language that makes it powerful.
Actually that was the original idea behind atlantis. They were going to find the lost city under antartica and use the tech to win the war and then go on with a newer enemy (I think Fifth, the humaniod replicator would make the perfect bad guy). However the execs at Sci-fi wanted to keep both going in parallel so they invented the whole other galaxy thing etc.
I think the real problem with the series is that the quality of the bad guys had dropped off recently. Some of the temporary bad guys they've had have been great, but instead of keeping them on, they quickly kill them off in a couple of episodes and get back to fighting the "major" bad guy, who's mostly just melodramatic and scripted.
One of the things I've wanted to do is go and compare the really good episodes with the cruddy ones and see what the differences in staff (esp the writters) were. Anyone done this?
There is no proof that the US millitary had deliberately targeted civilians. Propoganda and spin not withstanding. Targeting of innocent civilians is wrong; rationalizing it by fabricating evidence to show how the US does the same thing is worse.
I thought I was pretty clear. It's called human rights: the founding principle of this country. If I want to buy something, I have a right to buy it. Someone else has a right to produce and sell it to me. Ergo, the owners of the tobacco companies have a right to sell tobacco and fullfil the demand. What you are proposing runs against the ideals of a free society.
> Tobacco companies do not benefit society
Yes they do, they satisfy a market need in an efficient manner. In doing so they create value and provide jobs, raising the standard of living. That's how a free market works. However, I get the idea that your problem is less with the tobacco companies and more with your fellow Americans who you seem to think are too stupid to make their own decisions.
> I, of course, never said that people didn't have the right to smoke.
Yes you did. If the goverment can prevent me from smoking, then I do not have the right to smoke, I can be given the privilage. A right is something I am born with and recieve from no one. Having to get a "prescription" for smoking denies me my right to do with my body as I see fit, no matter how stupid it may seem to you or anyone else out there.
> And why would the government tell you that?
Because you've already decided it's not a right, it's just a privilage that the government has to grant. Since smoking is so dangerous, and you know so much more then the rest of us, obviously you are going to make certain distinctions as to who gets a smoking permit and who doesn't, otherwise why have one? You even said yourself that you intend to deny my right to my body to me:
they could figure out a way to only sell to people who were actually addicted to them
> And why, exactly, would gas stations stop selling tobacco?
Because like alchohol some states will require that tobacco be sold only is specially licensed stores. Because Joe on the street does not have a right to smoke without permission. Because you are tampering with the free market and screwing with demand.
> As my plan is an attempt to get less smokers
Setting aside that it won't work, WHY? Why do you get to decide if people should smoke? Why should the government even care?
> If you think the government doing that instead of tobacco companies is somehow going to result in less jobs, I think you've seriously underestimated the ability of the government to waste money.
No, I think you underestimate the economic reprecussions of market inefficiency.
> So, um, why would we have it again?
Right now 1/4 - 1/3 of all tobacco sold is this country is done so illegally because the taxes artificially inflate the price. Further resticting tobacco is going to drive even more people into the ALREADY existant black market.
> Anyone could buy it if they were willing to waste an hour getting a license
Which is it? Is this a plan to just make smokers waste an hour (in which case we don't need to nationalize tobacco for that)? Or is it, as you originally claimed a plan to prevent new smokers from being able to start?
> It's because there's no money in it!
There is already enough money in it to finance a very large smuggling operation. You plan only increases that incentive. Assuming that smugglers buy tobacco at the store is really silly.
> Do we have a thriving black market in alcohol to people who don't have photo ID
Technically yes, ever notice the guys who hang around outside of a liquor store and charge high school kids five bucks to buy them alchohol?
> And if someone is going to go to the trouble of tracking those down, duh, they could have already spent the time and gotten a license to purchase it. They're just doing it for the money
So we should just give up if someone uses civilians as human shields and let them go around killing many people because a few would die if we tried to stop them?
> tobacco companies have some sort of inherit right to exist
Welcome to the free market! Yes tobacco companies have a right to exist. Just as much as Grocery stores, and video game companies. If people want to buy and smoke tobacco it is their choice. They have a RIGHT to do so. The don't need to get a perscription or permission from the government or anything else. Their body belongs to them and it's their RIGHT to do whatever they want to it.
> Anyone who thinks so better damn well have an explanation of why Coca-Cola shouldn't be allowed to put cocaine in their drinks, by the same logic.
If they label that the product contains cocaine (even in the trace amounts they traditionally included), I have no problem with that. I also don't have a problem with cocaine's stronger form crack or opium or anything else for that matter. The goverment is supposed to protect my rights from external forces period. Telling me I can't start smoking if I choose to is silly.
Furthermore, the system most states use to control alchohol is corrupt, inefficient, and results in poor market choice. Doing that with tobacco is going to be 100x worse, and it WILL cost me money. Tobacco is a large employer of people. Many gas stations make much of their profit from tobacco, getting rid of that revenue stream is going to cause the price of other things to go up. It's also going to result in fewer people hired at those stations. Not to mention all of the people who make a living producing and distributing tobacco. The economic friction caused by all of those people having to find new jobs is going to cost me money; this doesn't even include government entitlements that those people are going to get.
Also you are ignoring the social costs of black market effects which are far higher than whatever percieved social cost we bear because of smokers. Small black markets already exist because of the artifically high prices set by the government. All your idea is really going to accomplish is driving more people to them and increasing the power of the criminals who run it. Prohibition got us the mob, the war on drugs got us south american drug lords, and government run tobacco is going to get something a hell of a lot worse. How do you plan to deal with this? Will you do what some places did and have "fines"? That's just going to get amortized as a cost of doing business and result in bribes and corruption to the police. Are you going to criminalize it? That's going to cause a rise in violent crime and make the drug trade look tame.
> Outlawing them is insanely stupid
Yes and your plan is even dumber.
As for your initial claims use common sense:
> where I said anything whatsoever about not letting people smoke.
If you don't allow me to START smoking because I'm not already an addict (implied under your proposal), you are not letting me smoke and denying me my right to do with my body as I will.
> taking your money to stop people from smoking.
Some of the money spent on police enforcement, spent entitlements to those who loose their jobs, and lost on market friction is mine. I loose all of that money because you feel you are somehow special enough and wise enough to tell the rest of the citizens of this country what they should and shouldn't be doing.
Yes, let's end a good bit of humor and get back to a serious topic. Like talking about how since the goverment is supposed to protect our liberties from outside forces (criminals, terrorists, hucksters, whatever) it should obviously protect us from INTERNAL forces as well (stupidity, glutony, laziness, whatever).
This is a free country and for better or for worse that includes the freedom to fuck up (and hopefully learn from your mistake). If someone is so self centered that they CHOOSE to use a substance that the know WILL KILL them( tobacco or cocaine, or pain pills, or whatever) that's not my problem.
I'd also like to point out there is a difference between purposefully targeting innocent civilians and innocent civilians dieing on accident in a war situation. Anyone who claims the two are equivilant is morally bankrupt.
I'd just like to point out that if the Israeli's sent troops in to capture him, a lot more then a few innocent civilians would have died in the resultant fighting. And left alive Yassin would have killed even more innocent people.
The only Chomsky I know of is the one who claims the US fabricated the holocaust to help Israeli murder Arabs. Surely your talking about someone else I've just never heard of.
FYI, little-to-no experience and just getting out of school arn't nessessarily related. Many schools have co-op programs that require a certain amount of work experience in addition to class time. Kettering(formerly GMI) pioneered this approach but many schools have since adopted it. For anyone going into school in any technical field (esp. Engineering) I recommond such a program.
However as someone just getting out, you don't have that option. While I don't know the specifics of your situation, I'm going to suggest tring to expand your search. Look in other regions and industries then the ones you have been applying to. Also try to look into consulting jobs and jobs with smaller organizations (i.e. non-profits usually need a CS/IT guy or two to do general work). Also keep in mind that since this is your first job, it's probably not going to pay very well.
Personal note: I'm in my last term as an EE. I already have several offers (in various parts of the country). Many of my friends are having problems similar to yours, however they usually want to be in a specific industry or geographic area, and those decisions provide an extreamly limited set of job options. OTOH, I've looked into many different options all over the USA (not to interested in going overseas again, guess I limited myself too). I'm in a good position a pretty good position though. I took hard electives and did well in them. I've got 2 yrs of work experience because of the co-op program. Finally, my management minor and my extensive CS knowledge tend to play into the types of EE jobs that are available right now.
Detroit Area; I'd guess other manufacturing heavy areas would have similar demand. (Everyone seems to be trying to get better equipment and boost productivity). I suppose the main reason these jobs are more available is that they require domain experience.
I don't think the DS will have the same problem as the virtual boy: It was a pain in the butt to use the Virtual boy. You had to find a table that was the right height and adjust that stupid stand, etc. If they'd just put a head strap on it, it would have been much easier to use.
The DS however should be simple to use. My only concerns are that it's a little big and that I would be able to use the stylus unless I put the device on a table or something similar.
So what your saying is that pyramid schemes like Social Security won't have the clout of the Federal Government behind them, causing them to fail quicker (instead of the long, slow failure we have today) and forcing us to come up with sustainable benefits plans. I'm not seeing how this is a bad thing.
In the short term you are going to have some people moving around, but their movement is damped by costs and by delays in getting benefits. The osccillations you worry about arn't likely to happen because the situation will quickly approach an equilibrium where the cost of moving cancels out the additional benefits you'll get.
we need to expand the House (at minimum) to more fairly represent the population
The problem with doing this is that as the house gets more representatives it becomes harder to get things accomplished. That's why Congress capped the number of seats.
I would propose that the real solution is to reduce what the federal government does. If the individual states started doing Social Security, Welfare, Education, etc. and the national government mostly did foreign and monetary policy, I think there would be a lot less need for having "better" representation.
Since you use this in a bussiness, you might want to know that the lisence reads:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without a written agreement is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies.
That "without fee" is a misplaced modifier, the intent is that you don't have to pay those things to do them, but the way it reads it means that you can do those things so long as you don't charge. This has been pointed out and UCB is OK with fixing the license but the PostgreSQL guys don't want to change it; "tradition!".
Anyway, that may or maynot cause a problem for you.
What we should have is proportional allocation of electoral votes according to each state's vote
Depending on which statisticians you believe, this is either a good idea or a horrible one. I think it's a fine idea for reasons similar to the ones you listed. I'm simply against a direct popular vote.
I think the problem lies more in the way we pick the electors and representatives and less in the way the college works. If the votes were counted using approval voting, there would be a wider range of political opinions available, and attack ads would be less effective. Under this method the election of representatives could easily be done in a fair way at the state level. (Each party would get a portion of the House seats in proportion to that party's approval rating ) The same method could be used for the electoral college.
I'm not disputing that Iraq has value, but whenever you do something there is price (what you pay) and value (what you get). What price is worth paying for the value we got? $400 Billion and 1000 lives? 50000 lives? 500 lives? 10?
What if we could have won the entire war in Iraq overnight and with only one casualty, you, would you still think it was a good idea? What if that casualty was your child or your spouse? Your best friend?
I agree that from a value stand point what we did makes sense. The cost hasn't been justified to me however. Especially in light of our alternative options.
I made the same point because that is what we're talking about.
You cited an editorial piece written by a liberal professor and then quoted it in a manner that supported my claim.
However, the author of the editorial doesn't even understand how the electoral college works and fails to grasp the basic mathematics behind it. He even gets the name of Thomas Jefferson's Party wrong. That article has no weight.
As you should know, the electoral college works by increasing the average probability that a given vote will affect the election, while decentralizing the election process in a manner that forces a candidate to have wide appeal (instead of building a coalition of 51% by having policies that drastically favor that 51% at the expense of the other 49%).
Hence my original claim: the electoral college balances the interests of the majority against the interests of minority blocks and individuals. This balancing is a key concept in a republic.
I've heard a similar idea where the income tax rate would slide to automatically balance the budget and congress would just set the brackets. Both ideas are good.
You made the same point using the same arguement. All you managed to do was show that after they compromised on how they counted slaves they decided to use that compromise as a basis for further compromises and agreements. That seems perfectly reasonalbe.
Either way, the electoral college offeres protection to smaller states who's voters have a minority oppionion from the more populous urban states. I think the compromise is as valid today as it was in the past.
Slashdot Mirror
You're latter comments show that you don't understand what the consistency of the syntax buys you.
> BEDMAS-calculation
Those macros exist and have come packaged with most LISPs for a long time. The tutorial writers ignore it because it's not needed 99.999% of the time. If you are using LISP the application probably isn't a simple a simple math problem. Those macros tend to get in the way of some other common LISP programming tactics; most people don't use them.
> totally obtuse keywords
car and cdr can be composed e.g. caddr. The ability to do those repeated evaluations with simple syntax is generally viewed to be worth the learning curve. Gernerally though, the standard libraries that come with LISP are far too verbose and obtuse.
> blocks-as-lists is a nifty feature
You bet. It makes macros and other niffty features possible. You can't distinguish between them and still have LISP, it's the basis of the entire language. Just like in natural language when you want it to get the meaning you just put the list e.g. "(+ 1 2)" will get 3 and when you want it to take litteral what you mean you quote it e.g. "'(+ 1 2)" gets you (+ 1 2). Yeah it's strange but as soon as you get rid of the ability for them to be the same you break the symetry of the language that makes it powerful.
I think the real problem with the series is that the quality of the bad guys had dropped off recently. Some of the temporary bad guys they've had have been great, but instead of keeping them on, they quickly kill them off in a couple of episodes and get back to fighting the "major" bad guy, who's mostly just melodramatic and scripted.
One of the things I've wanted to do is go and compare the really good episodes with the cruddy ones and see what the differences in staff (esp the writters) were. Anyone done this?
There is no proof that the US millitary had deliberately targeted civilians. Propoganda and spin not withstanding. Targeting of innocent civilians is wrong; rationalizing it by fabricating evidence to show how the US does the same thing is worse.
I thought I was pretty clear. It's called human rights: the founding principle of this country. If I want to buy something, I have a right to buy it. Someone else has a right to produce and sell it to me. Ergo, the owners of the tobacco companies have a right to sell tobacco and fullfil the demand. What you are proposing runs against the ideals of a free society.
> Tobacco companies do not benefit society
Yes they do, they satisfy a market need in an efficient manner. In doing so they create value and provide jobs, raising the standard of living. That's how a free market works. However, I get the idea that your problem is less with the tobacco companies and more with your fellow Americans who you seem to think are too stupid to make their own decisions.
> I, of course, never said that people didn't have the right to smoke.
Yes you did. If the goverment can prevent me from smoking, then I do not have the right to smoke, I can be given the privilage. A right is something I am born with and recieve from no one. Having to get a "prescription" for smoking denies me my right to do with my body as I see fit, no matter how stupid it may seem to you or anyone else out there.
> And why would the government tell you that?
Because you've already decided it's not a right, it's just a privilage that the government has to grant. Since smoking is so dangerous, and you know so much more then the rest of us, obviously you are going to make certain distinctions as to who gets a smoking permit and who doesn't, otherwise why have one? You even said yourself that you intend to deny my right to my body to me:
> And why, exactly, would gas stations stop selling tobacco?
Because like alchohol some states will require that tobacco be sold only is specially licensed stores. Because Joe on the street does not have a right to smoke without permission. Because you are tampering with the free market and screwing with demand.
> As my plan is an attempt to get less smokers
Setting aside that it won't work, WHY? Why do you get to decide if people should smoke? Why should the government even care?
> If you think the government doing that instead of tobacco companies is somehow going to result in less jobs, I think you've seriously underestimated the ability of the government to waste money.
No, I think you underestimate the economic reprecussions of market inefficiency.
> So, um, why would we have it again?
Right now 1/4 - 1/3 of all tobacco sold is this country is done so illegally because the taxes artificially inflate the price. Further resticting tobacco is going to drive even more people into the ALREADY existant black market.
> Anyone could buy it if they were willing to waste an hour getting a license
Which is it? Is this a plan to just make smokers waste an hour (in which case we don't need to nationalize tobacco for that)? Or is it, as you originally claimed a plan to prevent new smokers from being able to start?
> It's because there's no money in it!
There is already enough money in it to finance a very large smuggling operation. You plan only increases that incentive. Assuming that smugglers buy tobacco at the store is really silly.
> Do we have a thriving black market in alcohol to people who don't have photo ID
Technically yes, ever notice the guys who hang around outside of a liquor store and charge high school kids five bucks to buy them alchohol?
> And if someone is going to go to the trouble of tracking those down, duh, they could have already spent the time and gotten a license to purchase it. They're just doing it for the money
It takes almost no time to order illegal
So we should just give up if someone uses civilians as human shields and let them go around killing many people because a few would die if we tried to stop them?
Welcome to the free market! Yes tobacco companies have a right to exist. Just as much as Grocery stores, and video game companies. If people want to buy and smoke tobacco it is their choice. They have a RIGHT to do so. The don't need to get a perscription or permission from the government or anything else. Their body belongs to them and it's their RIGHT to do whatever they want to it.
> Anyone who thinks so better damn well have an explanation of why Coca-Cola shouldn't be allowed to put cocaine in their drinks, by the same logic.
If they label that the product contains cocaine (even in the trace amounts they traditionally included), I have no problem with that. I also don't have a problem with cocaine's stronger form crack or opium or anything else for that matter. The goverment is supposed to protect my rights from external forces period. Telling me I can't start smoking if I choose to is silly.
Furthermore, the system most states use to control alchohol is corrupt, inefficient, and results in poor market choice. Doing that with tobacco is going to be 100x worse, and it WILL cost me money. Tobacco is a large employer of people. Many gas stations make much of their profit from tobacco, getting rid of that revenue stream is going to cause the price of other things to go up. It's also going to result in fewer people hired at those stations. Not to mention all of the people who make a living producing and distributing tobacco. The economic friction caused by all of those people having to find new jobs is going to cost me money; this doesn't even include government entitlements that those people are going to get.
Also you are ignoring the social costs of black market effects which are far higher than whatever percieved social cost we bear because of smokers. Small black markets already exist because of the artifically high prices set by the government. All your idea is really going to accomplish is driving more people to them and increasing the power of the criminals who run it. Prohibition got us the mob, the war on drugs got us south american drug lords, and government run tobacco is going to get something a hell of a lot worse. How do you plan to deal with this? Will you do what some places did and have "fines"? That's just going to get amortized as a cost of doing business and result in bribes and corruption to the police. Are you going to criminalize it? That's going to cause a rise in violent crime and make the drug trade look tame.
> Outlawing them is insanely stupid
Yes and your plan is even dumber. As for your initial claims use common sense:
> where I said anything whatsoever about not letting people smoke.
If you don't allow me to START smoking because I'm not already an addict (implied under your proposal), you are not letting me smoke and denying me my right to do with my body as I will.
> taking your money to stop people from smoking.
Some of the money spent on police enforcement, spent entitlements to those who loose their jobs, and lost on market friction is mine. I loose all of that money because you feel you are somehow special enough and wise enough to tell the rest of the citizens of this country what they should and shouldn't be doing.
This is a free country and for better or for worse that includes the freedom to fuck up (and hopefully learn from your mistake). If someone is so self centered that they CHOOSE to use a substance that the know WILL KILL them( tobacco or cocaine, or pain pills, or whatever) that's not my problem.
I'd also like to point out there is a difference between purposefully targeting innocent civilians and innocent civilians dieing on accident in a war situation. Anyone who claims the two are equivilant is morally bankrupt.
I'd just like to point out that if the Israeli's sent troops in to capture him, a lot more then a few innocent civilians would have died in the resultant fighting. And left alive Yassin would have killed even more innocent people.
The only Chomsky I know of is the one who claims the US fabricated the holocaust to help Israeli murder Arabs. Surely your talking about someone else I've just never heard of.
However as someone just getting out, you don't have that option. While I don't know the specifics of your situation, I'm going to suggest tring to expand your search. Look in other regions and industries then the ones you have been applying to. Also try to look into consulting jobs and jobs with smaller organizations (i.e. non-profits usually need a CS/IT guy or two to do general work). Also keep in mind that since this is your first job, it's probably not going to pay very well.
Personal note: I'm in my last term as an EE. I already have several offers (in various parts of the country). Many of my friends are having problems similar to yours, however they usually want to be in a specific industry or geographic area, and those decisions provide an extreamly limited set of job options. OTOH, I've looked into many different options all over the USA (not to interested in going overseas again, guess I limited myself too). I'm in a good position a pretty good position though. I took hard electives and did well in them. I've got 2 yrs of work experience because of the co-op program. Finally, my management minor and my extensive CS knowledge tend to play into the types of EE jobs that are available right now.
Detroit Area; I'd guess other manufacturing heavy areas would have similar demand. (Everyone seems to be trying to get better equipment and boost productivity). I suppose the main reason these jobs are more available is that they require domain experience.
If they didn't lump unskilled workers and skilled workers together in the same category they'd be able to tell the difference
Yep.
The DS however should be simple to use. My only concerns are that it's a little big and that I would be able to use the stylus unless I put the device on a table or something similar.
Anyone know where we can get it for free?
In the short term you are going to have some people moving around, but their movement is damped by costs and by delays in getting benefits. The osccillations you worry about arn't likely to happen because the situation will quickly approach an equilibrium where the cost of moving cancels out the additional benefits you'll get.
It's only a bad thing because so much stuff if f***ed up that it'd take forever to fix. Once stuff gets fixed sure.
I'll be interested to see what the results are and if this gets any traction in the media
The problem with doing this is that as the house gets more representatives it becomes harder to get things accomplished. That's why Congress capped the number of seats.
I would propose that the real solution is to reduce what the federal government does. If the individual states started doing Social Security, Welfare, Education, etc. and the national government mostly did foreign and monetary policy, I think there would be a lot less need for having "better" representation.
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without a written agreement is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies.
That "without fee" is a misplaced modifier, the intent is that you don't have to pay those things to do them, but the way it reads it means that you can do those things so long as you don't charge. This has been pointed out and UCB is OK with fixing the license but the PostgreSQL guys don't want to change it; "tradition!".
Anyway, that may or maynot cause a problem for you.
Depending on which statisticians you believe, this is either a good idea or a horrible one. I think it's a fine idea for reasons similar to the ones you listed. I'm simply against a direct popular vote.
I think the problem lies more in the way we pick the electors and representatives and less in the way the college works. If the votes were counted using approval voting, there would be a wider range of political opinions available, and attack ads would be less effective. Under this method the election of representatives could easily be done in a fair way at the state level. (Each party would get a portion of the House seats in proportion to that party's approval rating ) The same method could be used for the electoral college.
What if we could have won the entire war in Iraq overnight and with only one casualty, you, would you still think it was a good idea? What if that casualty was your child or your spouse? Your best friend?
I agree that from a value stand point what we did makes sense. The cost hasn't been justified to me however. Especially in light of our alternative options.
You cited an editorial piece written by a liberal professor and then quoted it in a manner that supported my claim.
However, the author of the editorial doesn't even understand how the electoral college works and fails to grasp the basic mathematics behind it. He even gets the name of Thomas Jefferson's Party wrong. That article has no weight.
As you should know, the electoral college works by increasing the average probability that a given vote will affect the election, while decentralizing the election process in a manner that forces a candidate to have wide appeal (instead of building a coalition of 51% by having policies that drastically favor that 51% at the expense of the other 49%).
Hence my original claim: the electoral college balances the interests of the majority against the interests of minority blocks and individuals. This balancing is a key concept in a republic.
Also when I buy my house, I intend to pay cash.
Either way, the electoral college offeres protection to smaller states who's voters have a minority oppionion from the more populous urban states. I think the compromise is as valid today as it was in the past.