In some ways, gerrymandered districts are fair. You have to ask, "what is the point of districts?"
Well, representatives are assigned to districts. Specifically, a representative ought to represent the district. That means that the district ought to be representable by a representative. Now, take it as given that a representative should not have multiple personality disorder. He can only represent the district as a unit if the district is a unit. Which means that the district needs to be composed of like-minded people. If this is the case, than the representative will be able to accurately represent his district.
Since the district ought to be composed of like-minded people -- ideally, political party can be used as an indicator of this, though we'd need more parties to work with -- the districts ought to be gerrymandered to provide this.
Any flaws in my logic?
Of course, the whole "entrenched ideologies" thing is no good, and that threat to stability might override the fulfillment of the purpose of districts.
See, here's the thing. Yeah, it's true that the guy scared his passenger and annoyed the driver behind him. That's not important. The important thing is that he is capable of cutting through that gap. He can see it, he knows he can fit, he can accelerate and turn, he can time it perfectly so that he can change lanes through a gap leaving only inches. He can do it instinctively.
That is a survival skill. If he's driving along a highway and there is a collision ahead, he'll be able to avoid becoming a part of it by accelerating through a closing gap. Why the hell does he consider that to be a bad thing? Because he did it automatically? He'd damn well better do it automatically if he hopes to survive an accident!
He has gained a driving skill. Driving skills are basically instinctive. But most "bad" game skills aren't. A GTA player might envision pulling the driver of a nice Porsche out of his window and stealing the car, but he won't reflexively start walking over.
i'd rather be clusterfucked by a bunch of nuts trying to change my ideology, than by a bunch of corporations trying to turn me into a "consumer" instead of a human being.
So in short it's "follow his rules or die" and in exactly what way does that have any difference with a dictator?
Well, the difference is that you could theoretically depose a dictator through bloody revolution, but as God is omnipotent, ain't no one gettin' Him off'a His Throne. So when He says "jump", you'd best be three feet in the air, asking "when can I come back down?"
Yes, societies need rules. The question is how many people agree on them. If almost everyone believed/followed the same rules, you'd have a xenophobic conformist society closer to Japan. If almost no one believed/followed the same rules, you'd have an argumentative factional society closer to Afghanistan.
A society can still hold together if people disagree on the rules. There are ways to compensate. People could self-segregate towards others who feel the same way. They could give a space for rebels. They could exile rebels. They could take rules less seriously. They could shrug and change the subject. They could institute defusing rituals. They could talk endlessly until they bring everyone around. They could fight or argue, but without real heat.
A government could simply decree what the rules are. But as they do that, they increase the risk of rebellion. If people continue to disagree with the decrees, eventually the above mechanisms would no longer be sufficient to stave off the dissolution of that society.
There's a spectrum, let's call it independence versus conformity. America used to be a far more independent society than we are now. I believe we coped with geographical separation and self-segregation, and perhaps with a shrug and a change of subject.
Now, we are more conformist, but cope less well, with defusing rituals (political correctness) and meaningless argument.
See, that makes more sense. How is "man" (as used without the article) different from "mankind"? It isn't, which always confused me about that quote. But "a man" is definitely different from "mankind".
I used to hate scripted service as much as the next cognoscenti. But then, one time, running through the script actually caught something I had missed. "Now I'm a believer!"
This reminds me of the "purple wage" from David Brin's books. It's not a new concept, but basically, in the future, only a small proportion of people will do useful work. The rest will live on permanent unemployment, trying to stave off boredom.
Aqua-man has become quite the hard-ass. He cut off his own hand and grafted on a harpoon instead. He no longer takes shit from anyone. He now acts like what he is, the king of 73% of the Earth's surface. He's got armies, sea monsters, and a chip on his shoulder.
Kind of like Namor without the pretensions, and with a beard.
It's a shame that Apple "corrects" its own guidelines like that. It wasn't always this way. Back in the day, Apple did the Right Thing, and even if they didn't follow the guidelines, at least they left them intact.
No, in every other scene in Zahn's books, Luke could not understand R2-D2 any better than in the movies. I'm guessing Luke's disassembly conversation went something like this:
L: Okay, I've got my hand open. There's a rectangle about 2 cm by 1 cm just behind the flexors. It's got...seven wires coming out. That's the power supply, right? R2: [affirmative beep] L: So how do I disconnect them? Start with the outermost wire and work in? R2: [urgent squeal] L: No, huh? Okay, let's go through them one-by-one. Red wire? etc.
Slashdot Mirror
In some ways, gerrymandered districts are fair. You have to ask, "what is the point of districts?"
Well, representatives are assigned to districts. Specifically, a representative ought to represent the district. That means that the district ought to be representable by a representative. Now, take it as given that a representative should not have multiple personality disorder. He can only represent the district as a unit if the district is a unit. Which means that the district needs to be composed of like-minded people. If this is the case, than the representative will be able to accurately represent his district.
Since the district ought to be composed of like-minded people -- ideally, political party can be used as an indicator of this, though we'd need more parties to work with -- the districts ought to be gerrymandered to provide this.
Any flaws in my logic?
Of course, the whole "entrenched ideologies" thing is no good, and that threat to stability might override the fulfillment of the purpose of districts.
Mmm, I love hero cookies!
I'm looking for a nice leather portfolio for it at the moment, that would make things even better
Check Levenger's. They have lots of folio type stuff. I've been satisfied by their products.
How would they know that Christ was going to be born in ~44 years? Hmmm?
He's got an interesting take on Jesus sinning.
Hey, you asked... :-)
"This statement is false."
Heh.
See, here's the thing. Yeah, it's true that the guy scared his passenger and annoyed the driver behind him. That's not important. The important thing is that he is capable of cutting through that gap. He can see it, he knows he can fit, he can accelerate and turn, he can time it perfectly so that he can change lanes through a gap leaving only inches. He can do it instinctively.
That is a survival skill. If he's driving along a highway and there is a collision ahead, he'll be able to avoid becoming a part of it by accelerating through a closing gap. Why the hell does he consider that to be a bad thing? Because he did it automatically? He'd damn well better do it automatically if he hopes to survive an accident!
He has gained a driving skill. Driving skills are basically instinctive. But most "bad" game skills aren't. A GTA player might envision pulling the driver of a nice Porsche out of his window and stealing the car, but he won't reflexively start walking over.
i'd rather be clusterfucked by a bunch of nuts trying to change my ideology, than by a bunch of corporations trying to turn me into a "consumer" instead of a human being.
See story at top. You say you want a revolution?
Heh. Good thing I'm not Christian. Right?
So in short it's "follow his rules or die" and in exactly what way does that have any difference with a dictator?
Well, the difference is that you could theoretically depose a dictator through bloody revolution, but as God is omnipotent, ain't no one gettin' Him off'a His Throne. So when He says "jump", you'd best be three feet in the air, asking "when can I come back down?"
Right. Which is why the poster is advocating less government, not no government. Remember the difference.
Yes, societies need rules. The question is how many people agree on them. If almost everyone believed/followed the same rules, you'd have a xenophobic conformist society closer to Japan. If almost no one believed/followed the same rules, you'd have an argumentative factional society closer to Afghanistan.
A society can still hold together if people disagree on the rules. There are ways to compensate. People could self-segregate towards others who feel the same way. They could give a space for rebels. They could exile rebels. They could take rules less seriously. They could shrug and change the subject. They could institute defusing rituals. They could talk endlessly until they bring everyone around. They could fight or argue, but without real heat.
A government could simply decree what the rules are. But as they do that, they increase the risk of rebellion. If people continue to disagree with the decrees, eventually the above mechanisms would no longer be sufficient to stave off the dissolution of that society.
There's a spectrum, let's call it independence versus conformity. America used to be a far more independent society than we are now. I believe we coped with geographical separation and self-segregation, and perhaps with a shrug and a change of subject.
Now, we are more conformist, but cope less well, with defusing rituals (political correctness) and meaningless argument.
a big glass of fuck off and die
It does the body good. Er, wait...
See, that makes more sense. How is "man" (as used without the article) different from "mankind"? It isn't, which always confused me about that quote. But "a man" is definitely different from "mankind".
I used to hate scripted service as much as the next cognoscenti. But then, one time, running through the script actually caught something I had missed. "Now I'm a believer!"
Mod parent up!
This reminds me of the "purple wage" from David Brin's books. It's not a new concept, but basically, in the future, only a small proportion of people will do useful work. The rest will live on permanent unemployment, trying to stave off boredom.
But Americans do notice that the Asian nationalities do not have our initiative and problem-solving skills. They are not as good at that as us.
Why is that?
Yup, looks like.
Aqua-man has become quite the hard-ass. He cut off his own hand and grafted on a harpoon instead. He no longer takes shit from anyone. He now acts like what he is, the king of 73% of the Earth's surface. He's got armies, sea monsters, and a chip on his shoulder.
Kind of like Namor without the pretensions, and with a beard.
Did she ever get her money?
It's a shame that Apple "corrects" its own guidelines like that. It wasn't always this way. Back in the day, Apple did the Right Thing, and even if they didn't follow the guidelines, at least they left them intact.
I kept on thinking about Core Foundation (Apple's C-language equivalent to .NET CLR).
No, in every other scene in Zahn's books, Luke could not understand R2-D2 any better than in the movies. I'm guessing Luke's disassembly conversation went something like this:
L: Okay, I've got my hand open. There's a rectangle about 2 cm by 1 cm just behind the flexors. It's got...seven wires coming out. That's the power supply, right?
R2: [affirmative beep]
L: So how do I disconnect them? Start with the outermost wire and work in?
R2: [urgent squeal]
L: No, huh? Okay, let's go through them one-by-one. Red wire?
etc.
"Piracy for too long has been high-reward and low-risk," Taylor said.
High-reward? But...does anyone in these United States actually pays for pirated movies? Then how is it high-reward?