Actually, if you'd seen the video, you'd agree it was done in realtime using the then-current alpha software. I urge you to watch it--it's pretty impressive!
Also see The Economist's poll of academic economists, which puts Bush against Kerry and finds Kerry's policies by and large coming out on top. The article notes that while academia may rightly be considered leftist (heh), the poll isn't obviously biased against Bush in its assessment of the economy's recovery and of the president's role in it.
Clearly you've never used Mail.app on a Mac. It's got all the search capabilities of Gmail, except better (think iTunes for searching mailboxes), and the discussion threading is simply amazing.
And just to take that one step further, if this mechanism had been in place in 2000, chances are the candidates would have been different too. On a national level, the whole political industry (yeah, we're calling it an industry) is built around the warts and idiosyncrasies of our current system, meaning candidates are chosen to appeal not to the people per se but rather the electoral college. Were the balance of electoral power shifted towards more populous regions, my suspicion is we'd have seen two candidates representing more "cosmopolitan" values than either Bush or Gore, and...
That's right. Instead, they ignore urban centers and go straight after suburban and rural voters. Is that more fair? I don't know, but it's not obvious to me why it's an inherently better situation.
But then, if this system had been in place for the 2000 elections, people's voting patterns would have changed. People in NYC, for example, would have turned out in much larger numbers due to the fact that "suddenly" their vote seems to matter a lot more, and Nader voters (presumably) would have been more inclined to pick one of the two major parties' candidates. Same in Texas, or anywhere else where people feel their electoral college votes are predetermined.
People, being people, will vote strategically--that's just a fact of life. You can't take voting patterns from one system and infer that people would vote the same way under a different (more equitable?) system.
Your analysis is interesting, for sure, and I for one enjoyed it. But I'm just not convinced you can read all that much into it.
Not that you care, but let me add that I keep my infrequently-used cards (drugstore customer card, insurance info, Social Security, etc.) in my bag. But then, I live in the city--if I were a suburban rat slut I'd probably stuff that shit in my glove compartment.
No wallet. Four or five cards in my right pocket with my keys. Cell phone in my change pocket (the little one on my right hip). Cash and change in my left pocket.
However, not everyone is a Picasso. Insensitive as it may seem, there are people (including, but not limited to, the homeless guy down the street who calls you names) who will contribute less to the world than the Mona Lisa's continued existence, even judging by criteria other than earning potential.
Suppose I'm never going to find a job. (I'm currently unemployed, so this isn't too far a stretch.) Perhaps taking a bullet in order to save a priceless work of art is the most valuable way I can serve society.
'The term is "Could NOT care less"! Saying you "Could care less" implies that you do indeed care.'
Hmm... isn't that supposed to be a sarcastic remark? You'd say "As if I could care less," which makes the sarcasm obvious, except at some point everyone dropped the "as if".
Eh, I'd just dump out my change on the counter at Burger King. Sure, the chili has fingers and rats in it, but at ninety-nine pennies you can't beat the price.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if you'd seen the video, you'd agree it was done in realtime using the then-current alpha software. I urge you to watch it--it's pretty impressive!
Do you know how shrill and obnoxious that sounds? You know what he meant; everyone knows what he meant. Quit being a dingbat.
But it plays OGG, man! OGG!
Also see The Economist's poll of academic economists, which puts Bush against Kerry and finds Kerry's policies by and large coming out on top. The article notes that while academia may rightly be considered leftist (heh), the poll isn't obviously biased against Bush in its assessment of the economy's recovery and of the president's role in it.
Highly recommended.
Touché.
Contrary to popular opinion, copyright infringement can be a criminal offense in the U.S. See 17 USC 506.
Way to go with the backwards swastika, dumbass.
Clearly you've never used Mail.app on a Mac. It's got all the search capabilities of Gmail, except better (think iTunes for searching mailboxes), and the discussion threading is simply amazing.
"And oh, Iraq invaded Kuwait *because* Kuwait was the first aggressor in the Gulf War."
Have you researched this claim? I have, and it's simply not true.
If I'm going to oppose this administration, I'm going to do so with facts and reason--not with talking points and empty rhetoric, as they do.
Is that supposed to be funny? It's even worse than most Penny Arcade strips.
And just to take that one step further, if this mechanism had been in place in 2000, chances are the candidates would have been different too. On a national level, the whole political industry (yeah, we're calling it an industry) is built around the warts and idiosyncrasies of our current system, meaning candidates are chosen to appeal not to the people per se but rather the electoral college. Were the balance of electoral power shifted towards more populous regions, my suspicion is we'd have seen two candidates representing more "cosmopolitan" values than either Bush or Gore, and ...
Oh shit! Lost is on ABC. Gotta go.
That's right. Instead, they ignore urban centers and go straight after suburban and rural voters. Is that more fair? I don't know, but it's not obvious to me why it's an inherently better situation.
But then, if this system had been in place for the 2000 elections, people's voting patterns would have changed. People in NYC, for example, would have turned out in much larger numbers due to the fact that "suddenly" their vote seems to matter a lot more, and Nader voters (presumably) would have been more inclined to pick one of the two major parties' candidates. Same in Texas, or anywhere else where people feel their electoral college votes are predetermined.
People, being people, will vote strategically--that's just a fact of life. You can't take voting patterns from one system and infer that people would vote the same way under a different (more equitable?) system.
Your analysis is interesting, for sure, and I for one enjoyed it. But I'm just not convinced you can read all that much into it.
Well, yeah. It'd be better than doing what I do all day--go out and drink.
Not that you care, but let me add that I keep my infrequently-used cards (drugstore customer card, insurance info, Social Security, etc.) in my bag. But then, I live in the city--if I were a suburban rat slut I'd probably stuff that shit in my glove compartment.
No wallet. Four or five cards in my right pocket with my keys. Cell phone in my change pocket (the little one on my right hip). Cash and change in my left pocket.
However, not everyone is a Picasso. Insensitive as it may seem, there are people (including, but not limited to, the homeless guy down the street who calls you names) who will contribute less to the world than the Mona Lisa's continued existence, even judging by criteria other than earning potential.
Suppose I'm never going to find a job. (I'm currently unemployed, so this isn't too far a stretch.) Perhaps taking a bullet in order to save a priceless work of art is the most valuable way I can serve society.
At least, that's my opinion.
'The term is "Could NOT care less"! Saying you "Could care less" implies that you do indeed care.'
Hmm... isn't that supposed to be a sarcastic remark? You'd say "As if I could care less," which makes the sarcasm obvious, except at some point everyone dropped the "as if".
At least, that's how I always understood it.
Are you retarded?
Honestly, I think because if it did evolve without water, it wouldn't be a form of life we would recognize anyway.
Oh yeah, that's what I meant. Sorry. I'm just bitter because all my friends are going to law school and I'm unemployed. :-)
Eh, I'd just dump out my change on the counter at Burger King. Sure, the chili has fingers and rats in it, but at ninety-nine pennies you can't beat the price.
Or you could just get a law degree.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_334.html
Don't forget that living in a major city also increases your earning potential.
But I'm on a no-carb diet. Looks like it's gonna be rum.