I decided to search for a second one, but couldn't find one. I'm fairly certain I could find a second one if I really, really tried, but don't see it's worth the effort. That said, I could easily find 5 instances (and probably 10) where it benefitted the Republicans. That's where my other conspiracy theories fit in!:)
(I really just like to argue - I voted for Kerry and was sad that Bush won, although I don't think it spells the beginning of Armageddon like some of my more liberal colleagues.)
Well, obviously, it's because the liberal media is only reporting the ones that benefit the Republicans!:)
Seriously, I'm fairly certain that in the last two weeks there have been at least a couple reports of mistakes that helped the Democrats.
Additionally, playing devil's advocate (and perhaps the word devil should be emphasized), one could argue that the mistakes that benefit Democrats are being hid better!
(OK, there are all kinds of ways to play the conspiracy game, but that's what makes it so much fun!)
P.S. No, I'm not seriously suggesting that Bush is the devil.
There's a difference between stategic voting and strategic campaigning (or strategic misrepresentation - which both (all?) parties are guilty of).
Also, as any good statistician can tell you, the definition of the word "center" is debatable. Do you mean the mean, median, mode, or some other statistical measure? Median probably comes closest to what the current system does, but I think TMV might tend to cause politicians to move more towards the mean - although don't ask me to back that up with more than hand-wavy arguments! Of course, those measures are also typically used when referring to single variables - a very poor way to describe political leanings. Many slashdotters like to talk about two variables describing one's political inclinations, but even this is obviously an over-simplification. (Granted, one needs to simplify to talk about such a complex system!) Also, I'm obviously leaving myself open for trying to defend why mean (or center-of-mass for multiple dimensions) would be a better place for our politicans to be than the median, but I'm not sure I could do.
So, I strongly disagree that all voting is strategic, and furthermore argue that no voting should be strategic. All campaigning is (and maybe should be) strategic, but those are two very different parameters in the political equation.
Either way I think the disabled should be allowed to bring someone they trust into the booth with them (which currently is generally allowed, I don't know if it allowed offically though)...
Hmmmm. Although I'm reasonably sure in practice this is all done in good faith, this seems like an easy way to corrupt the system. Who is to say that the person "they trust" is not someone who is threatening them and/or bribing them to influence their vote. Perhaps they have a way of dealing with this, but it seems to me that it wouldn't be too hard to make an option available for virtually every type of handicap. The blind could use braille (most likely on paper ballots), the deaf don't really need any help (as far as I can tell), and the quadriplegic - well I'm sure something could be worked out.
IRV has many of the same problems as simple majority vote, which basically boils down to one thing - the need for strategic voting
TMV (true majortiy voting, AKA Condorcet) allows voters to vote how they really feel and not have to worry about whether voting for z instead of y, when they really want y, will come closer to giving them the benefits they want. TMV does suffer from one of the same drawbacks as IRV - it requires rank-ordering and hence is a little more difficult to understand, but it's much easier to explain (IMO) than the electoral college. Scientific American had an article some time back on TMV (and other systems) called "The Fairest Vote of All" that is well worth the read.
Again, the important thing is to remove the need for strategic voting. This means that the system should not require one to vote other than how they feel in order to improve their chances of getting the best result (from their perspective).
It's 60 miles to the beginning of space, and approximately 20,000 miles to geosynchronous orbit. The anchor for the space elevator needs to be at 3x geosynchronous orbit or approximately 60,000 miles out. They had that number right, but your comment emphasizes the Herculean nature of the task.
Additionally, they say they will soon be using robots to stop sheep jumping off cliffs [...]I thought sheep were supposed to push back when they are near the edge of a cliff.... oh wait... nevermind
Yeah, I was wondering if I was the only one thinking that might have been a veiled insult to us USians.
Shells made from depleted uranium have more penetration power because they are denser. I've never heard of bullets made from plutonium, however, and doubt they exist.
I have not read the book, but it does sound interesting. However, comparing "places in the deep south" to third world countries either (a) overestimates poverty in the deep south (depth and breadth), (b) underestimates poverty in third world countries, or (c) both. I'm not saying poverty doesn't exist in the U.S. - it definitely does - but it does not compare to poverty in third world countries!
Actually, it sounds like they'll soon be able to print these as RFID's as ubiquitously as bar codes. This is good for efficiency, and potentially bad for privacy.
You bring up a good point. The child I am most familiar with and have spent the most time with, definitely has characteristics A & B. (This child is also clearly autistic, as opposed to having Asperger's Syndrome or other autistic spectrum disorders.) However, a clinician who doesn't know the child (and perhaps more importantly isn't known by the child) would probably suggest that the child manifests C&D as well. Of course, I guess good clinicians weigh information gleaned from parents and others who do know (and are known) by the child (IANAPsychologist/Psychiatrist).
Additionally, this child and the other autistic children I know are all in an ABA (applied behavioral analysis) program that is designed to mediate their symptoms, so that could explain why my experiences with these children differ from other people's experiences.
Examples of this child's warm, loving personality are:
his genuine excitement in seeing me when I come to visit
his requests to spend time with his favorite people (e.g., his grandparents)
And just like me, Ashlie (my first name). I should know better than to assume the sex of someone by their name, especially when it was clear from context that Fran is male. Thanks for the correction.
Perhaps you are correct in your interpretation of what he (Fran) was saying. I think you're spot on with respect to your belief about people who either aren't stepped on or, as is much more likely to be the case, aren't aware they're being stepped on typically having a warm and loving personality.
Fran Peek describes his son this way: "Kim is not behaviorally autistic. He has a warm, loving personality. He truly cares for people and enjoys sharing his unique skills and knowledge capacity.
I know several autistic children, and they all have warm, loving personalities, once you get to know them. By all, I mean the ones I know - I will not argue that there may be autistic children/adults who do not have warm, loving personalities, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe they represent any majority. These are not cold people, they just have a hard time understanding others.
NB: this is in response to the original comment, not the parent poster. I just get a little tired of some of the myths spread about autistic individuals, and although Fran did not explicitly state that autistic children are cold, one could infer that from her statement. Of course, Fran can't be blamed too much, since she didn't have an autistic child, most of her information likely came from popular beliefs.
So, for the g++ compiler a signed short can hold a number as large as 2^(8*2-1)-1 = 32,767, whereas a signed int (or a long) can hold 2^(8*4-1)-1 = 2,147,483,647, and a signed long long can hold 2^(8*8-1)-1 = 9,223,372,036,854,775,807. Note: this is compiler-specific, not language-specfic.
Actually, this sounds more like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. "The system is corrupted, and my guy is going to lose because of it, so I won't vote," and then many of these moan and complain when their guy lost.
I was really saddened that the youth turnout was so low again this election. I figured they would have learned something from the 2000 election. Of course, I then realized that many of the 18-24 year olds in this election were not 18-24 year olds in the last election, so every election will probably have these kids needing to learn something.
Is the system corrupt? In some places, certainly. However, if the 18-24 year olds had voted in the numbers that some people were expecting (unfortunately, myself included), the election most likely would have had a different outcome. C'est la vie.
It has occurred to me that possibly you're just being sarcastic, and don't actually believe what you're saying, but enough people do believe it that we still need to rail against it.
So, here's a proposal. Some body (I'm thinking governmental, because I'm an evil liberal) would accept proposals for prizes, accept donations towards specific prizes from governments and private entities. The prizes can be rewards for any sort of accomplishment. For example, if somebody wants to spur leukemia research, they would draw up a request for a new treatment that reduced the mortality rate by 50%. Then they could front as much money towards the prize as they like, and others would be free to donate as well.
When I first read this, I thought you were being funny. (I don't mean to disparage your post - you have some good ideas.) My first thought was, "Don't we already have that?". If I have an idea for how to reduce Leukemia mortality, I send a (grant) proposal to the NIH, and they review it and send me money if they think my idea has merit, and I have the means to carry it out.
I guess the way this is different is:
the donations are voluntary instead of deducted from our paycheck (this is not a crucial distinction, although it would no doubt please many conservatives!)
the ideas for what to fund come from the people and are reviewed by the body (kind of like slashdot?), instead of just coming from people who want money
the money is not granted until after the task has actually been accomplished (this is a big difference, in both good and bad ways
After thinking about it in more detail, I think such a program could complement the existing grant structure in various government organizations. (NSF, NIH, DARPA, etc.)
Are you actually alleging that ALL THREE e-voting vendors have found some way to add votes only to the Republican candidates, undetected.
Actually, only one of the three has to be stacking the votes towards Bush for Bush to win, and it is disturbing that the president of Diebold promised to deliver Ohio to Bush. I don't believe that he meant he would do it illegally, but you have to admit it does give one pause. I agree that Bush won. Most likely, he won without/despite any electronic tampering. (I.e., I agree up to a point that it is unlikely that there was widespread fraud. It would have been possible to strategically alter a few precincts in Ohio where the Diebold machines were, but the odds of it making a difference increase with the odds of getting caught, and more likely the latter would happen before the former.
Let's assume the worst-case scenario (from an effort point of view, not from an accuracy point ov view) and say that the votes are challenged every time and the paper ballots end up having the final say. How has the electronic counting helped?
Given that computers are less prone to make careless errors (OK, they don't make careless errors), even if they might be more prone to systematic errors, they give you a number to compare against. Let's say that the computer told you it had printed out 2,523 votes for Bush and 2,427 votes for Kerry. When the vote-counters counted it, however, they counted 2,525 votes for Bush and 2,425 votes for Kerry. The first thing that one should assume is that the vote-counters miscounted, and should recount. If a second recount (by different people) got the same result as the first human count, then we have a problem. The error could be: (1) the computer mis-counted, or (2) the computer mis-printed. Unfortunately, either one is possible. However, since the voters would be encouraged to look at their ballots prior to them entering the box, it would seem more likely that the computer mis-counted, in which case the human count should trump the computer count.
However, notice that the computer count still helps. It gives us a number to compare against. If the human count on the first count matched the computer count, there is little reason to suspect that both counts are wrong. (Although, theoretically, the computer could still have mis-printed and mis-counted in a matching way. This would be an unlikely accidental error, and a very risky deliberate hack since the voters can verify their votes before they go in the box.
Of course, this only works if the printed version can be viewed by the voter prior to it going in the box.
And once Govenor Schwarzenegger wins the presidency and these shotgun toting robots refuse to listen about a little thing called the constitution, what then?:)
Actually, Kerry also has a lead in the no high school crowd. This proves the old saw: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing," where little in this case means high school degree up to bachelor's degree.:) Obviously, one could also look at the no high school degree as the people who are most likely to be in poverty and therefore most likely to be wanting a change. I think it would be interesting to combine statistics for wealth and education. I suspect that those who have less wealth and more education (the combination, that is) are more likely to vote for Kerry, but that's just an uneducated guess.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Here's one: Palm Beach County Logs 88,000 More Votes Than Voters, which from this web-site you can see would almost definitely benefit Kerry.
I decided to search for a second one, but couldn't find one. I'm fairly certain I could find a second one if I really, really tried, but don't see it's worth the effort. That said, I could easily find 5 instances (and probably 10) where it benefitted the Republicans. That's where my other conspiracy theories fit in! :)
(I really just like to argue - I voted for Kerry and was sad that Bush won, although I don't think it spells the beginning of Armageddon like some of my more liberal colleagues.)
How about feature?
Well, obviously, it's because the liberal media is only reporting the ones that benefit the Republicans! :)
Seriously, I'm fairly certain that in the last two weeks there have been at least a couple reports of mistakes that helped the Democrats.
Additionally, playing devil's advocate (and perhaps the word devil should be emphasized), one could argue that the mistakes that benefit Democrats are being hid better!
(OK, there are all kinds of ways to play the conspiracy game, but that's what makes it so much fun!)
P.S. No, I'm not seriously suggesting that Bush is the devil.
There's a difference between stategic voting and strategic campaigning (or strategic misrepresentation - which both (all?) parties are guilty of).
Also, as any good statistician can tell you, the definition of the word "center" is debatable. Do you mean the mean, median, mode, or some other statistical measure? Median probably comes closest to what the current system does, but I think TMV might tend to cause politicians to move more towards the mean - although don't ask me to back that up with more than hand-wavy arguments! Of course, those measures are also typically used when referring to single variables - a very poor way to describe political leanings. Many slashdotters like to talk about two variables describing one's political inclinations, but even this is obviously an over-simplification. (Granted, one needs to simplify to talk about such a complex system!) Also, I'm obviously leaving myself open for trying to defend why mean (or center-of-mass for multiple dimensions) would be a better place for our politicans to be than the median, but I'm not sure I could do.
So, I strongly disagree that all voting is strategic, and furthermore argue that no voting should be strategic. All campaigning is (and maybe should be) strategic, but those are two very different parameters in the political equation.
Hmmmm. Although I'm reasonably sure in practice this is all done in good faith, this seems like an easy way to corrupt the system. Who is to say that the person "they trust" is not someone who is threatening them and/or bribing them to influence their vote. Perhaps they have a way of dealing with this, but it seems to me that it wouldn't be too hard to make an option available for virtually every type of handicap. The blind could use braille (most likely on paper ballots), the deaf don't really need any help (as far as I can tell), and the quadriplegic - well I'm sure something could be worked out.
IRV has many of the same problems as simple majority vote, which basically boils down to one thing - the need for strategic voting
TMV (true majortiy voting, AKA Condorcet) allows voters to vote how they really feel and not have to worry about whether voting for z instead of y, when they really want y, will come closer to giving them the benefits they want. TMV does suffer from one of the same drawbacks as IRV - it requires rank-ordering and hence is a little more difficult to understand, but it's much easier to explain (IMO) than the electoral college. Scientific American had an article some time back on TMV (and other systems) called "The Fairest Vote of All" that is well worth the read.
Again, the important thing is to remove the need for strategic voting. This means that the system should not require one to vote other than how they feel in order to improve their chances of getting the best result (from their perspective).
It's 60 miles to the beginning of space, and approximately 20,000 miles to geosynchronous orbit. The anchor for the space elevator needs to be at 3x geosynchronous orbit or approximately 60,000 miles out. They had that number right, but your comment emphasizes the Herculean nature of the task.
Yeah, I was wondering if I was the only one thinking that might have been a veiled insult to us USians.
Shells made from depleted uranium have more penetration power because they are denser. I've never heard of bullets made from plutonium, however, and doubt they exist.
I have not read the book, but it does sound interesting. However, comparing "places in the deep south" to third world countries either (a) overestimates poverty in the deep south (depth and breadth), (b) underestimates poverty in third world countries, or (c) both. I'm not saying poverty doesn't exist in the U.S. - it definitely does - but it does not compare to poverty in third world countries!
And some very interesting gravity waves will be generated!
Love it! Your first paragraph actually was getting me worked up (thinking, "oh no, another loon") until I read your second paragraph!
What's not funny is that there appear to be at least a couple vocal slashdotters who seem to really believe what you're just joking about it.
Kill all the lawyers!
Naturally, this would have the added benefit of eliminating most politicians.
No, I'm not being serious.
Actually, it sounds like they'll soon be able to print these as RFID's as ubiquitously as bar codes. This is good for efficiency, and potentially bad for privacy.
You bring up a good point. The child I am most familiar with and have spent the most time with, definitely has characteristics A & B. (This child is also clearly autistic, as opposed to having Asperger's Syndrome or other autistic spectrum disorders.) However, a clinician who doesn't know the child (and perhaps more importantly isn't known by the child) would probably suggest that the child manifests C&D as well. Of course, I guess good clinicians weigh information gleaned from parents and others who do know (and are known) by the child (IANAPsychologist/Psychiatrist).
Additionally, this child and the other autistic children I know are all in an ABA (applied behavioral analysis) program that is designed to mediate their symptoms, so that could explain why my experiences with these children differ from other people's experiences.
Examples of this child's warm, loving personality are:
And just like me, Ashlie (my first name). I should know better than to assume the sex of someone by their name, especially when it was clear from context that Fran is male. Thanks for the correction.
Perhaps you are correct in your interpretation of what he (Fran) was saying. I think you're spot on with respect to your belief about people who either aren't stepped on or, as is much more likely to be the case, aren't aware they're being stepped on typically having a warm and loving personality.
I know several autistic children, and they all have warm, loving personalities, once you get to know them. By all, I mean the ones I know - I will not argue that there may be autistic children/adults who do not have warm, loving personalities, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe they represent any majority. These are not cold people, they just have a hard time understanding others.
NB: this is in response to the original comment, not the parent poster. I just get a little tired of some of the myths spread about autistic individuals, and although Fran did not explicitly state that autistic children are cold, one could infer that from her statement. Of course, Fran can't be blamed too much, since she didn't have an autistic child, most of her information likely came from popular beliefs.
If I create the code tstSize.cpp:
and compile it using g++:
I get:
So, for the g++ compiler a signed short can hold a number as large as 2^(8*2-1)-1 = 32,767, whereas a signed int (or a long) can hold 2^(8*4-1)-1 = 2,147,483,647, and a signed long long can hold 2^(8*8-1)-1 = 9,223,372,036,854,775,807. Note: this is compiler-specific, not language-specfic.
Actually, this sounds more like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. "The system is corrupted, and my guy is going to lose because of it, so I won't vote," and then many of these moan and complain when their guy lost.
I was really saddened that the youth turnout was so low again this election. I figured they would have learned something from the 2000 election. Of course, I then realized that many of the 18-24 year olds in this election were not 18-24 year olds in the last election, so every election will probably have these kids needing to learn something.
Is the system corrupt? In some places, certainly. However, if the 18-24 year olds had voted in the numbers that some people were expecting (unfortunately, myself included), the election most likely would have had a different outcome. C'est la vie.
It has occurred to me that possibly you're just being sarcastic, and don't actually believe what you're saying, but enough people do believe it that we still need to rail against it.
When I first read this, I thought you were being funny. (I don't mean to disparage your post - you have some good ideas.) My first thought was, "Don't we already have that?". If I have an idea for how to reduce Leukemia mortality, I send a (grant) proposal to the NIH, and they review it and send me money if they think my idea has merit, and I have the means to carry it out.
I guess the way this is different is:
After thinking about it in more detail, I think such a program could complement the existing grant structure in various government organizations. (NSF, NIH, DARPA, etc.)
Actually, only one of the three has to be stacking the votes towards Bush for Bush to win, and it is disturbing that the president of Diebold promised to deliver Ohio to Bush. I don't believe that he meant he would do it illegally, but you have to admit it does give one pause. I agree that Bush won. Most likely, he won without/despite any electronic tampering. (I.e., I agree up to a point that it is unlikely that there was widespread fraud. It would have been possible to strategically alter a few precincts in Ohio where the Diebold machines were, but the odds of it making a difference increase with the odds of getting caught, and more likely the latter would happen before the former.
Let's assume the worst-case scenario (from an effort point of view, not from an accuracy point ov view) and say that the votes are challenged every time and the paper ballots end up having the final say. How has the electronic counting helped?
Given that computers are less prone to make careless errors (OK, they don't make careless errors), even if they might be more prone to systematic errors, they give you a number to compare against. Let's say that the computer told you it had printed out 2,523 votes for Bush and 2,427 votes for Kerry. When the vote-counters counted it, however, they counted 2,525 votes for Bush and 2,425 votes for Kerry. The first thing that one should assume is that the vote-counters miscounted, and should recount. If a second recount (by different people) got the same result as the first human count, then we have a problem. The error could be: (1) the computer mis-counted, or (2) the computer mis-printed. Unfortunately, either one is possible. However, since the voters would be encouraged to look at their ballots prior to them entering the box, it would seem more likely that the computer mis-counted, in which case the human count should trump the computer count.
However, notice that the computer count still helps. It gives us a number to compare against. If the human count on the first count matched the computer count, there is little reason to suspect that both counts are wrong. (Although, theoretically, the computer could still have mis-printed and mis-counted in a matching way. This would be an unlikely accidental error, and a very risky deliberate hack since the voters can verify their votes before they go in the box.
Of course, this only works if the printed version can be viewed by the voter prior to it going in the box.
And once Govenor Schwarzenegger wins the presidency and these shotgun toting robots refuse to listen about a little thing called the constitution, what then? :)
Actually, Kerry also has a lead in the no high school crowd. This proves the old saw: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing," where little in this case means high school degree up to bachelor's degree. :) Obviously, one could also look at the no high school degree as the people who are most likely to be in poverty and therefore most likely to be wanting a change. I think it would be interesting to combine statistics for wealth and education. I suspect that those who have less wealth and more education (the combination, that is) are more likely to vote for Kerry, but that's just an uneducated guess. :)