Making sure your vote is registered correctly is an improvement, but it does not address the puppet master you describe. In order to do that, you also have to change the voting system, perhaps to Condorcet. (Good luck with that.)
That's a valid argument, but do you have any evidence to support it? Can you find any news sources that say that governments are wanting Diebold to provide a paper trail free of charge? Perhaps you're right, I did find this quote:
The foundation of Diebold Election Systems' security includes several layers of physical and digital safeguards and multiple audit trails including both digital and voter-verifiable paper audit trails.
In trying to do my own research, it does seem that perhaps it's the incumbents (or the incumbents' party) who are the ones interested in preventing paper trails:
Secretary of State Blackwell has denounced any attempt to require a paper trail as an effort to "derail" election reform.
However, I don't see any reasoned argument (i.e., with documented facts instead of vague talking points) that explains why this would derail election reform. So, it does seem that it's *not* about the extra cost. (If it was, that'd be easy to document, right?) So, what is the reason?
Then "da man" would have a hard time rigging all the voting machines because he wouldn't know which ones are gonna get tested.
But "da boss" would have a much easier way of verifying that you voted the "correct" way. Real-time reporting might close the hole for lying about results, but it'd open a hole for vote buying/intimidation. Along with a verifiable paper trail, we need to keep the current policy of every party having the right to have an observer present for all stages of the voting. (Othan than the actual vote casting, of course.) It's difficult (but not impossible) to lie about the vote totals when you have a member of the other party right there with you looking at them.
What if the voting software were open from the beginning, so its security relied only on hard secrets (like passwords and keys), not mere obscurity, which can be destroyed by "leaks" like the one reported by the Sun?
Of course, passwords and keys can also be destroyed by leaks. The important distinction is that - if you're aware of the leak - it's much easier to assign a new password/key than to fix the software.
If the Democrats somehow manage to take control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, they'll take advantage of the shady techniques pioneered by the Republicans, possibly even extending them. Historically, our country always does best when the party in the White House is a different party than the one controlling Congress.
I was going to continue my rant, but it got too depressing. Anyways, make sure you vote in November - regardless of who you support.
I've heard this logic before, and it sounds good. However, I can also cite cases where bigger is worse, and not just for a particularly bad design decision. Case in point, I was in an accident a little over a year ago involving a tractor trailer and my 1995 Honda Civic, traveling 70 mph down I-85 in Georgia. The tractor trailer clipped my back wheel, sending me out of control and hit me again on the driver's side door. My wife (in the passenger seat) and I managed to get out of our car without a scratch. Now, I'm not going to tell you that the semi-truck was worse off (mainly because it wasn't), but imagine what would have happened if we had been driving a tractor trailer. Most likely, it would have been a serious pile-up.
Now (as with your examples) this is just speculation and case-by-case analysis. In order to really understand, you have to look at the studies done. Studies find that people driving bigger vehicles are no more (or less) likely to be injured/killed than those in smaller cars. They are, however, more likely to kill others. Perhaps it's because they drive more recklessly (see "Why Things Bite Back"), or maybe it's just that those vehicles are designed worse. We can't really know. All we know is what the data tells us.
the trade-offs are more along the lines of mpg vs acceleration, comfort, noise level, cargo capacity or any combination of those
I currently own a Civic Hybrid, and although these don't get 100 mpg yet, they have excellent acceleration, great comfort, very low noise levels, and sufficient cargo capacity. I'm confident that in the future, someone will be able to design a car that gets 100 mpg, has just as good acceleration, just as good comfort, just as low (if not lower) noise levels, and even better cargo capacity. As for noise levels especially, my experience is that higher mpg cars tend to be quieter, not louder.
Oh, and before you mention highway driving, I get almost 50 mpg on the highway in my hybrid with me and 3 passengers. (Which could be interpreted as almost 200 mpg per occupant.)
If you go back and read my post again I think you'll find that I'm one of those people that thinks the designer of the 100 mpg car has already died of old age. Hence the posthumous award.
Fair enough. I did misunderstand what you were *driving* at.
Right, so you'll have to give up accelerating quickly. See my other post where I mention getting 60 mpg out of a box stock Fiesta.
Yes, if you're one of those prepubescent kids (which I'm guessing you're not) that likes to always gun your car from the stop-light, then it's unlikely you'll be able to get 100 mpg. However, if your concern is that you want the *ability* to accelerate quickly - e.g., in an emergency - then you can still get your 100 mpg. And, yes, of course, you can't have an unaerodynamic car or a ridiculously massive car and still get 100 mpg. However, I don't see that there's anything unrealistic that you have to sacrifice.
It can by hybridized to increase peak accelerations, but I'm not usually in that much of a hurry. To get the best milage all you really need to give up is your ridiculous schedule.
I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not. (After the preceding paragraph - which I snipped out - I suspect you might be.) The first phrase makes sense, but you seem to be implying that the only way to get 100 mpg is to go really, really slow. Am I misunderstanding you again?
On the other hand, I also believe that once people are *willing* to give things up, they find that their lives are actually better. I walk to "work" every day, and I've really come to enjoy that part of my day - even when it rains.
Why in the world would you say that? You're not one of those people that thinks bigger necessarily equals safer, are you?
All you have to do to achieve it is give up something else. We can strive for efficiency, but we canna change the laws of physics.
Sure, you might have to give up the ability to, um, I don't know. Help me out here - what exactly would you have to give up? The ability to accelerate quickly? Nope. The ability to decelerate quickly? Nope. What would you have to give up? Which "laws of physics" would one have to change? (I have an MS in Astrophysics, so don't feel that you have to speak to the layman.)
I will say this - when you're accelerating quickly you won't be getting your 100 mpg. But you can have the ability to accelerate quickly (say in an emergency) and still average 100 mpg. Forgive me for saying so, but it's not rocket science.:)
OK, so maybe you'll have to give up your "8 MPG" license plate (I actually saw one of these), but really, is that asking so much?
I ran the Marine Corps Marathon in '03 (4:39) and '04 (4:06). After the first one, my first thought was that I'm never running another marathon. Then I found out my time and realized that Oprah ran it faster than I did. Couldn't go down like that. This year, I'm hoping to beat W's PR (3:44).
Speaking of "Semper Fi", I once heard someone read aloud "Semper Fi, Dough or Dee". Think about it, it'll come to you.:)
As a reference, the race I ran last week I burned the equivalent of 3 snickers bars.
A week from Sunday I'm running in the Marine Corps Marathon. At my weight/speed, that's about 3700 calories or 14 regular Snickers (51 fun-size Snickers). Of course, when I finish the race, I'm not really in a Snickers kind of mood. I'm always in the mood for oranges. Don't know why, though.
I wouldn't consider myself a doom-sayer, but my policy with the environment is somewhat similar to my foreign policy. Also, I have faith that we're ingenious enough to reduce our CO2 without stalling the economy. Furthermore, part of the reason that some "doom" never happened is because people took steps to avert the doom. I was a computer programmer during the whole Y2k scare, and if we hadn't taken it seriously, it would have been an issue (many in the younger crowd don't "get" that, but I suspect that you do). Similarly, when people began dying due to air quality, we adjusted. When a river caught on fire, we adjusted. None of these destroyed the economy. However, good science suggests that the earlier we act to reduce our CO2, the cheaper it will be, and the less likely it will impact our economy.
Enough people have recommended that book, that I'll make an effort to read it. I'll even try to read it with an open mind, but I acknowledge that my biases will no doubt influence me.
Having been a public high school physics teacher, a professional programmer working for two politically conservative bosses who I respect enormously, and now a Ph.D. student doing research in computer science/neuroscience, I think I have a somewhat unique view on many of these topics. I don't think that makes my view correct, but I think it does make it important - if I do say so myself. I do tend to lean liberally, but have many conservative opinions. In fact, from a brief look into some of your previous comments, I think you and I might each have more in common with the Democratic or Republican parties than with each other. As in, if the Dems believe A & B, the Repubs ~A & ~B, then perhaps you could be described as believing A & ~B, whereas I might be described as believing ~A & B. Of course, this is very simplistic and probably not even very accurate. Nevertheless, I can respect that you make up your own mind about issues and can find fault with both sides. In fact, even if my description above is accurate, I'd at least consider the exact opposite of what I believe to be logically consistent, which is more than I can say for either the Dems or Repubs!
I wasn't actually trying to judge whether or not we should have assisted al Qaeda and/or Saddam, as this is always a difficult game to play. I was merely pointing out that blaming Carter for "emboldening" al Qaeda is a fairly large stretch. As I mentioned earlier, a lot of my political viewpoints are shaped based off environmental issues. Things like the "Clear Skies Initiative", "Healthy Forests Initiative", redefining water ways, and the "Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act" have strongly colored my opinion of George W. Bush. Btw, despite these "rosy" sounding names these were all bad for the environment. Granted, the last one was a congressional act, but Bush did come out in favor of it.
To the degree that I do have an opinion about foreign policy, I'm a nerd through-and-through. I think the prime directive is an excellent concept - although just like several captains of the Enterprise, I feel it's only a guideline.
President Carter may have had moral purity but I don't feel Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong Il do. By assuming those nice folks are just like him, I think he buys into a self-deception that hurts us all. And, of course, we cannot forget his record as President, parts of which helped turn Osama bin Laden against us by making him feel we were all weak imbeciles who could be easily defeated.
OK, first of all, I agree completely about Chavez and Il. However, blaming Carter for bin Laden is some pretty strong revisionist history. Who helped arm al Qaeda? For that matter, who helped arm Saddam Hussein? I think you can attribute some blame for these groups to at least 4 presidents, but putting Carter into that group is a stretch. A lot of people also like to forget that the Iranian hostages were actually freed while Carter was still president. However, if you want to credit Reagan for the timing of their release - you wouldn't be alone. (Disclaimer, I'm not buying into the conspiracy theory, I'm just pointing out that it cuts both ways.)
However, I'll admit to being quite young during the Carter administration (6-10 years old), and my "memories" are colored by both of my parents (one Republican, one Democrat). My father (the Republican) has said that Carter makes such an excellent former president that he should have jumped straight into the role (i.e., by-passing the actual presidency).
First of all, I do want to acknowledge that, in general, your arguments were fairly reasonable, even if they suffered from some selective perception. (Who among us doesn't?) Furthermore, it is nice to treat other sides with respect. I will attempt to expose some of your selective perception problems - and I'd appreciate it if others do the same for me.
What is this with President Bush, anyway? You do this to every even modestly right-wing President. I've gotten in the middle of an International ANSWER protest where you show Bush with the swastika placed on his head. I'm sorry, I have to laugh. Bush has no resemblance whatsoever to Adolf Hitler. Bush has not tried to curtail your right to say whatever you want. If Bush really was Hitler, the members of Internaional ANSWER would be in concentration camps right now. I am sorry, but they are not, despite their transparent attempts to get arrested for publicity.
In my opinion, you're falling into a common fallacy that I see from all parts of the spectrum. The use of the unspecified "you". It seems to me that when you say "you", you mean people who disagree with you. The problem is that the people who disagreed with you on issue A might not be the same people who disagreed with you on issue B, so you might see hyprocisy from these mythical "yous" where none exists. (Well, OK, we all suffer from some hypocrisy - unless our standards are too low.) Frankly, I'm very, very bothered by the current Bush (largely for environmental issues), but was only annoyed by his father. One problem I had with his father was the whole "not remembering" or "not being aware" of anything dealing with the Iran-Contra affair. It would have been just as easy for me to criticize "you" for railing about Clinton's indiscretions but not giving credit to Carter for his moral purity.
Conservative views face reality about the situation in the Middle East. Negotiating with the Palastinians has been tried for decades, and those nice folks keep on blowing up pizza parlors in return. Is it not reasonable to say, then, that the "peace process" has failed, because the other side wants to continue fighting so badly?
Same problem here, but different side of the coin. You're painting all conservatives with your own colors. It seems to many "liberals" that most conservatives do not face reality about the situation in the Middle East. I personally know several who do, but it seems to me that the most vocal ones in the media do not. (For the record, I think this can be said about liberals as well - many "face" reality about the situation in the Middle East, even though they might draw different conclusions than you do, but the most vocal ones in the media sometimes propose ridiculous "solutions".)
I disagree with quite a bit you wrote in the posts you're commenting on, and a little bit with the post you've just made. However, I feel that the moderator who modded you "interesting" was fair, and hence I (just) meta-moderated him as such.
Additionally, I should add that the people who moderated you flamebait/troll were being unfair and/or funny. I respect the fact that the points you do make in the posts mentioned at least seem to be your own, are reasonably well thought out, and are respectfully stated.
However, I think you've misrepresented the person who said you shouldn't think. He's saying that some things are so obvious that one shouldn't have to think about them. Not that one shouldn't question the "left" in general. (Do you really believe that "not torturing" is a leftist issue? If so, I think a lot of liberal groups would love to have you film a commercial for them.)
P.S., I'm not saying I agree with the guy (questioning the "obvious" is never a bad idea), just that I feel that you misrepresented him.
Would they fine you for having wild grasses or for not mowing? Couldn't you have wild grasses, but mow them? (Maybe the wild grasses wouldn't survive that environment, but I suspect they would adapt quite nicely.)
Couldn't the PC itself be considered the dongle? You might point out that "clones" (the term has pretty much lost meaning) break that consideration, but dongles can be cloned as well, can't they?
I know you were just being flippant, but throwing darts at a map, would tend to give more weight to rural areas, and hence would tend to favor Republicans.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can volunteer to be non-anonymous, then you can also be "volunteered".
Making sure your vote is registered correctly is an improvement, but it does not address the puppet master you describe. In order to do that, you also have to change the voting system, perhaps to Condorcet. (Good luck with that.)
It sounds safe, but you never know...
Are you suggesting his fiancé is Ann Coulter? That's pretty low...
If so, how would a "paper trail" reveal any trade secrets - unless the secret was that the machine was cheating, of course?
If the Democrats somehow manage to take control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, they'll take advantage of the shady techniques pioneered by the Republicans, possibly even extending them. Historically, our country always does best when the party in the White House is a different party than the one controlling Congress.
I was going to continue my rant, but it got too depressing. Anyways, make sure you vote in November - regardless of who you support.
I think I should patent the process of suing someone who patents an idea that has prior art.
I've heard this logic before, and it sounds good. However, I can also cite cases where bigger is worse, and not just for a particularly bad design decision. Case in point, I was in an accident a little over a year ago involving a tractor trailer and my 1995 Honda Civic, traveling 70 mph down I-85 in Georgia. The tractor trailer clipped my back wheel, sending me out of control and hit me again on the driver's side door. My wife (in the passenger seat) and I managed to get out of our car without a scratch. Now, I'm not going to tell you that the semi-truck was worse off (mainly because it wasn't), but imagine what would have happened if we had been driving a tractor trailer. Most likely, it would have been a serious pile-up.
Now (as with your examples) this is just speculation and case-by-case analysis. In order to really understand, you have to look at the studies done. Studies find that people driving bigger vehicles are no more (or less) likely to be injured/killed than those in smaller cars. They are, however, more likely to kill others. Perhaps it's because they drive more recklessly (see "Why Things Bite Back"), or maybe it's just that those vehicles are designed worse. We can't really know. All we know is what the data tells us.
I currently own a Civic Hybrid, and although these don't get 100 mpg yet, they have excellent acceleration, great comfort, very low noise levels, and sufficient cargo capacity. I'm confident that in the future, someone will be able to design a car that gets 100 mpg, has just as good acceleration, just as good comfort, just as low (if not lower) noise levels, and even better cargo capacity. As for noise levels especially, my experience is that higher mpg cars tend to be quieter, not louder.
Oh, and before you mention highway driving, I get almost 50 mpg on the highway in my hybrid with me and 3 passengers. (Which could be interpreted as almost 200 mpg per occupant.)
Fair enough. I did misunderstand what you were *driving* at.
Yes, if you're one of those prepubescent kids (which I'm guessing you're not) that likes to always gun your car from the stop-light, then it's unlikely you'll be able to get 100 mpg. However, if your concern is that you want the *ability* to accelerate quickly - e.g., in an emergency - then you can still get your 100 mpg. And, yes, of course, you can't have an unaerodynamic car or a ridiculously massive car and still get 100 mpg. However, I don't see that there's anything unrealistic that you have to sacrifice.
I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not. (After the preceding paragraph - which I snipped out - I suspect you might be.) The first phrase makes sense, but you seem to be implying that the only way to get 100 mpg is to go really, really slow. Am I misunderstanding you again?
On the other hand, I also believe that once people are *willing* to give things up, they find that their lives are actually better. I walk to "work" every day, and I've really come to enjoy that part of my day - even when it rains.
Why in the world would you say that? You're not one of those people that thinks bigger necessarily equals safer, are you?
Sure, you might have to give up the ability to, um, I don't know. Help me out here - what exactly would you have to give up? The ability to accelerate quickly? Nope. The ability to decelerate quickly? Nope. What would you have to give up? Which "laws of physics" would one have to change? (I have an MS in Astrophysics, so don't feel that you have to speak to the layman.)
I will say this - when you're accelerating quickly you won't be getting your 100 mpg. But you can have the ability to accelerate quickly (say in an emergency) and still average 100 mpg. Forgive me for saying so, but it's not rocket science. :)
OK, so maybe you'll have to give up your "8 MPG" license plate (I actually saw one of these), but really, is that asking so much?
I ran the Marine Corps Marathon in '03 (4:39) and '04 (4:06). After the first one, my first thought was that I'm never running another marathon. Then I found out my time and realized that Oprah ran it faster than I did. Couldn't go down like that. This year, I'm hoping to beat W's PR (3:44).
Speaking of "Semper Fi", I once heard someone read aloud "Semper Fi, Dough or Dee". Think about it, it'll come to you. :)
A week from Sunday I'm running in the Marine Corps Marathon. At my weight/speed, that's about 3700 calories or 14 regular Snickers (51 fun-size Snickers). Of course, when I finish the race, I'm not really in a Snickers kind of mood. I'm always in the mood for oranges. Don't know why, though.
I wouldn't consider myself a doom-sayer, but my policy with the environment is somewhat similar to my foreign policy. Also, I have faith that we're ingenious enough to reduce our CO2 without stalling the economy. Furthermore, part of the reason that some "doom" never happened is because people took steps to avert the doom. I was a computer programmer during the whole Y2k scare, and if we hadn't taken it seriously, it would have been an issue (many in the younger crowd don't "get" that, but I suspect that you do). Similarly, when people began dying due to air quality, we adjusted. When a river caught on fire, we adjusted. None of these destroyed the economy. However, good science suggests that the earlier we act to reduce our CO2, the cheaper it will be, and the less likely it will impact our economy.
Enough people have recommended that book, that I'll make an effort to read it. I'll even try to read it with an open mind, but I acknowledge that my biases will no doubt influence me.
Having been a public high school physics teacher, a professional programmer working for two politically conservative bosses who I respect enormously, and now a Ph.D. student doing research in computer science/neuroscience, I think I have a somewhat unique view on many of these topics. I don't think that makes my view correct, but I think it does make it important - if I do say so myself. I do tend to lean liberally, but have many conservative opinions. In fact, from a brief look into some of your previous comments, I think you and I might each have more in common with the Democratic or Republican parties than with each other. As in, if the Dems believe A & B, the Repubs ~A & ~B, then perhaps you could be described as believing A & ~B, whereas I might be described as believing ~A & B. Of course, this is very simplistic and probably not even very accurate. Nevertheless, I can respect that you make up your own mind about issues and can find fault with both sides. In fact, even if my description above is accurate, I'd at least consider the exact opposite of what I believe to be logically consistent, which is more than I can say for either the Dems or Repubs!
I wasn't actually trying to judge whether or not we should have assisted al Qaeda and/or Saddam, as this is always a difficult game to play. I was merely pointing out that blaming Carter for "emboldening" al Qaeda is a fairly large stretch. As I mentioned earlier, a lot of my political viewpoints are shaped based off environmental issues. Things like the "Clear Skies Initiative", "Healthy Forests Initiative", redefining water ways, and the "Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act" have strongly colored my opinion of George W. Bush. Btw, despite these "rosy" sounding names these were all bad for the environment. Granted, the last one was a congressional act, but Bush did come out in favor of it.
To the degree that I do have an opinion about foreign policy, I'm a nerd through-and-through. I think the prime directive is an excellent concept - although just like several captains of the Enterprise, I feel it's only a guideline.
OK, first of all, I agree completely about Chavez and Il. However, blaming Carter for bin Laden is some pretty strong revisionist history. Who helped arm al Qaeda? For that matter, who helped arm Saddam Hussein? I think you can attribute some blame for these groups to at least 4 presidents, but putting Carter into that group is a stretch. A lot of people also like to forget that the Iranian hostages were actually freed while Carter was still president. However, if you want to credit Reagan for the timing of their release - you wouldn't be alone. (Disclaimer, I'm not buying into the conspiracy theory, I'm just pointing out that it cuts both ways.)
However, I'll admit to being quite young during the Carter administration (6-10 years old), and my "memories" are colored by both of my parents (one Republican, one Democrat). My father (the Republican) has said that Carter makes such an excellent former president that he should have jumped straight into the role (i.e., by-passing the actual presidency).
First of all, I do want to acknowledge that, in general, your arguments were fairly reasonable, even if they suffered from some selective perception. (Who among us doesn't?) Furthermore, it is nice to treat other sides with respect. I will attempt to expose some of your selective perception problems - and I'd appreciate it if others do the same for me.
In my opinion, you're falling into a common fallacy that I see from all parts of the spectrum. The use of the unspecified "you". It seems to me that when you say "you", you mean people who disagree with you. The problem is that the people who disagreed with you on issue A might not be the same people who disagreed with you on issue B, so you might see hyprocisy from these mythical "yous" where none exists. (Well, OK, we all suffer from some hypocrisy - unless our standards are too low.) Frankly, I'm very, very bothered by the current Bush (largely for environmental issues), but was only annoyed by his father. One problem I had with his father was the whole "not remembering" or "not being aware" of anything dealing with the Iran-Contra affair. It would have been just as easy for me to criticize "you" for railing about Clinton's indiscretions but not giving credit to Carter for his moral purity.
Same problem here, but different side of the coin. You're painting all conservatives with your own colors. It seems to many "liberals" that most conservatives do not face reality about the situation in the Middle East. I personally know several who do, but it seems to me that the most vocal ones in the media do not. (For the record, I think this can be said about liberals as well - many "face" reality about the situation in the Middle East, even though they might draw different conclusions than you do, but the most vocal ones in the media sometimes propose ridiculous "solutions".)
I disagree with quite a bit you wrote in the posts you're commenting on, and a little bit with the post you've just made. However, I feel that the moderator who modded you "interesting" was fair, and hence I (just) meta-moderated him as such.
Additionally, I should add that the people who moderated you flamebait/troll were being unfair and/or funny. I respect the fact that the points you do make in the posts mentioned at least seem to be your own, are reasonably well thought out, and are respectfully stated.
However, I think you've misrepresented the person who said you shouldn't think. He's saying that some things are so obvious that one shouldn't have to think about them. Not that one shouldn't question the "left" in general. (Do you really believe that "not torturing" is a leftist issue? If so, I think a lot of liberal groups would love to have you film a commercial for them.)
P.S., I'm not saying I agree with the guy (questioning the "obvious" is never a bad idea), just that I feel that you misrepresented him.
Would they fine you for having wild grasses or for not mowing? Couldn't you have wild grasses, but mow them? (Maybe the wild grasses wouldn't survive that environment, but I suspect they would adapt quite nicely.)
Couldn't the PC itself be considered the dongle? You might point out that "clones" (the term has pretty much lost meaning) break that consideration, but dongles can be cloned as well, can't they?
Still, the part about Clinton stands.
I know you were just being flippant, but throwing darts at a map, would tend to give more weight to rural areas, and hence would tend to favor Republicans.