That's part of the reason I ignore beat-paths. the "Condorcet method" is not one method, but a set of methods. I have explained to numerous people the ranked-choice ballot, and the Condorcet principle. That is when the light bulb starts to go on, and I start to explain the benefits.
Not all Condorcet methods use beat-paths. The Smith/IRV that I propose doesn't, for example. For this method, find the Smith set (smallest set of candidates that all defeat each of the remaining candidates) and use IRV to eliminate the ambiguities. It satisfies the Condorcet Criterion, and is easy to understand as the Condorcet principle and IRV.
aside: for those who still haven't read about the Condorcet method, it: (1) Eliminates the problem of spoiler candidates. We wouldn't have to vote for a second runner in order to vote against the forerunner. Each voter can vote honestly for his true benefit. (2) Allows for third (fourth, fifth, etc.) parties to elect people who are truly more popular than the primary parties. Our current system can, but is unfairly biased against third parties. (see point 1) (3) Suppresses dirty campaigning. Candidates can essentially run together. "Vote for me, and put the other guy second on your ballot". This behavior would be beneficial to both candidates.
Not necessarily. It would be a huge moral drain if a country lost a space colony that it had spent lots of funding to set up. It might not bleed, but it would hurt. It would lead to public outcry, or sharpen the outcry that already existed. Besides, the cost of nuking a colony is a pittance compared to the cost to build the colony. When war gets dirty, that is what it is all about: Hurting the other guy more than they hurt you (ideally to make them unable to strike back). The idea that those in the colony are entirely non-military will be totally irrelevant to any country that does not have a strong moral feeling about such things (as the US).
"It will (of course) be many years before any software copyrights expire (here in the States at least)."
As it stands right now, that means decades for most software.
Unless you see a good reason to think so, how dare you! Particularly in cases like this, it was probably someone elses fault (If you know otherwise, please inform the rest of us).
I know I shouldn't respont to an AC, but who modded the troll funny?
Interesting. I had not known that. I'll have to look into it at some point. Still, that would be a type of runoff vote. If the voters were consistent, it would be equivalent to an instant runoff vote (IRV, though only through the electoral college). It would not satisfy the condorcet criteria (technically, you could still fail to elect the condorcet winner) although IRV is still far superior to our current systems.
Of course it does. The only thing that makes the GPL enforceable is copyright; when the copyright expires, it passes into the public domain just like everything else.
I take that partly back. It more completely passes into the public domain that a vast majority of software, because the source is easily available (copyright expiration wont make companies release the source).
It will (of course) be many years before any software copyrights expire (here in the States at least).
So you think that Condorcet (and other ranked choice) methods are proportional representation? You clearly don't understand them. Please read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
The Condorcet method is much better at being fair than our pluratilty system. In case you don't feel like reading the article, I'd like to point out the Condorcet principle: If any on candidate would win in a one on one election against any (read all) other candidates, he is the condorcet winner, and must be elected. That is only fair and very reasonable. Our current system does not even come close.
The Condorcet method (and other ranked choice ballots) would still result in a two-party duopoly (I believe), but it would be much easier to change which two parties were in power. There are only two good reasons not use use a varient of the Condorcet method. (1) difficulty in tabulation. Since we do all our tabulation electronically nowadays anyways, this reason is defunct. (2) The parties in power don't want to make it easier to be supplanted. They are perfectly happy with the false dicotomy of "Democrat v. Republican".
Ahh, that explains it. I didn't get that interpretation because I see the odds of that possible existance == 0.
Even so, the middle of my post stands. We all would simply come to accept that nobody will push the button. Life would otherwise continue almost completely uninterrupted. It would not end war, or crime, or poverty, etc.
And if we were each to hit the button when we saw something un-Utopian, then it would only truly drive the possibility to zero. (I'm postulating that some things are deterministic, at least, even if their symptoms are not always.)
If by "perfect Utopian universe" you mean dead, then yes. Somebody's going to push that button.
But lets assume for argument sake that nobody does. People will quickly learn that nobody will push their button, and nobody will seriously care that others have them. We will be in much the same place we are right now.
That's the problem with the current (and former) arms race. We weren't willing to "push the button" (meaning nuke Russia), and Russia wasn't either. Both countries were reduced to non-nuclear means of dealing with each other (Vietnam, etc). The problem with the current variant is that some eastern nut-job is going to decide that Allah wants the West nuked. If capable, this will eventually happen even if a majority of his Muslim countrymen were to disagree with his interpretation.
I would hope if it was volitile, that nobdy would be stupid enough to publish an article suggesting it for use by hard drives. Odds are strong that it is non-volitile. This is especially true if the quote from IBM is acurate: "According to IBM, this type of magnetic memory could vastly simplify computers, and eventually replace all hard-disk drives."
On the other hand, more idiotic things have been done in the past.
Until they really do implement a system that stops "break once run everywhere" we will always have piracy because all devices will agree to play media. And how are they going to do that without either making devices highly non-interoperable with themselves, or severly incroached on our privacy? (DVD #927402 is registered to player #sny-23-e-352 and will not play anyplace else!)
When the do get arround to these tactics, I'm almost as worried at how well they will manage to botch it. (It wont work and it will be obtrusive to everyone)
Before I get into this rebuttal, I would like to point out that I believe your confusion originated because you learned computing on a Macintosh. I apologize if this statement is incorrect. It has been said repeatedly that the operating system that you learn on first is normally the one that you will be most comfortable with. I think there are studies stating such, but I haven't read them.
That is absolutly NOT true. Compare classicly styled spell checkers with the ones offered by current versions of Word and Open Office. You right click on a specific word and are instantly given a list of available spellings.
Actually, the procedure for using it is: highlight the word (usually by double clicking), then right click, then select correct spelling from the provided list, then release the button.
Please correct me when I'm wrong, and not when I'm right. The precise procedure is as follows:
Notice that a word is flagged as misspelled.
Move the mouse to that word.
Right click.
Locate the correct spelling in the menu.
Move the mouse to that location.
Left click.
You do not need to highlight the word first. Note that this is the same between Word 2002 and Open Office 2.
In general, the workflow of highlighting a word, then hitting a button and navigating a dialogue in a standard location is faster for new users and slower for expert users, in that instance,...
You're right, but you have set up the dichotomy wrong. The comparison really should be between new users and the so-called computer literate. You do not even need to be close to expert for the context menu to be faster, in this case. It will be faster for (very nearly) anybody who knows it's there. Let's run your example:
Notice that a word is flagged as misspelled.
Move the mouse to that word.
Left click so the cursor will be in the word (so the spell check knows where you want to start).
Move the mouse all the way to the toolbar where the button resides.
Click the spell check button.
Examine the dialog box for the correct spelling.
Move the mouse to that possition (typically a much greater distance than to a context menu).
Double click the word (a shortcut as hidden as a context menu).
Several of these steps are longer or more involved than the context menu counterpart. Note that in this case you do need to double click to highlight the word in question for Open Office. Word 2002 wont even give you that much, as it starts it's spell checking at the beginning regardless. These are peripheral problems, though, and related directly to the word processor.
By the way, I'm breaking up a run-on sentence here for you.
...but you're failing to account for the fact that it is a special case where there are very, very few options in the contextual menu.
It is a special case, but not as special as you would like to believe. It's mostly special because it is a novel use of dynamic context menus (This may be an oxymoron, since it dynamically changes to match context...). Most context menus don't have too many options.
As the number of items in the contextual menu gets larger, the operation becomes slower and slower, while the traditional button option remains the same speed.
I'll agree that context menus should be kept as small as reasonable. Often, they aren't. And yes, they become annoyingly slow to navigate when they grow too big. The "traditional button option" is slow for it's own reason. It typically requires selecting something, and then moving across the screen to the button. This is faster and easier than a large and unwieldy context menu. It can also be done in constant time (I dare, tentatively, to propose that context menus are O(n) ).
I thought the Clone wars animated series was really good.
Having not seen the animated series, I wasn't sure whether to mod your comment "informative" or "funny".
Instead of making the grueling determination, I replied instead. Problem solved.
Right-clicking should never, ever be the only way to get to some functionality.
(emphasis added)
I was ticked at your post until I reread it. This much is absolutly true. I think this is the part that other posters missed.
Right-clciking and selecting a menu option is a lot slower and less learnable than a button
That is absolutly NOT true. Compare classicly styled spell checkers with the ones offered by current versions of Word and Open Office. You right click on a specific word and are instantly given a list of available spellings. Yes, there should be another way to also reach the spell checker, but it is SLOWER and LESS LEARNABLE. Perhaps it's the exception, and not the rule. You were painting with a pretty broad brush. Besides, when someone starts learning to use a computer on a Windows box, they will start right clicking on everything to learn their options. I suspect it's harder when you transition from a Mac.
Most of the rest of your post stands on it's own merit.
...
I think (and IANAL) that if this could be shown once, it would be proper to ask for all communications between the RIAA and their lawyers regarding any particular case in discovery. That should pretty much shut down their tactics.
Can someone tell me why this doesn't happen? IAANAL:
It's called the attorney client privilege. We rarely think about it except as an inconvenience, but it really does help our legal system remain fair and efficient (not that our system is either, but it could be worse).
On the other hand, if you could find a memo between the RIAA and it's constituency or within one of the organizations, it should be fair game...
Every critical piece of data should have a backup plan, making this expensive recovery obsolete. But you knew that already, didn't you.
I hear your pain though. I'm not looking forward to the first time I have a customer bring me a dead solid state drive with vital data. Telling him that there is nothing that anyone can do will be painful.
(this assumes that new recovery tech is not developed - but this will certainly be much more expensive)
Slashdot Mirror
That's part of the reason I ignore beat-paths. the "Condorcet method" is not one method, but a set of methods. I have explained to numerous people the ranked-choice ballot, and the Condorcet principle. That is when the light bulb starts to go on, and I start to explain the benefits.
Not all Condorcet methods use beat-paths. The Smith/IRV that I propose doesn't, for example. For this method, find the Smith set (smallest set of candidates that all defeat each of the remaining candidates) and use IRV to eliminate the ambiguities. It satisfies the Condorcet Criterion, and is easy to understand as the Condorcet principle and IRV.
aside: for those who still haven't read about the Condorcet method, it:
(1) Eliminates the problem of spoiler candidates. We wouldn't have to vote for a second runner in order to vote against the forerunner. Each voter can vote honestly for his true benefit.
(2) Allows for third (fourth, fifth, etc.) parties to elect people who are truly more popular than the primary parties. Our current system can, but is unfairly biased against third parties. (see point 1)
(3) Suppresses dirty campaigning. Candidates can essentially run together. "Vote for me, and put the other guy second on your ballot". This behavior would be beneficial to both candidates.
IRV is good. I wish we used it. Condorcet methods are better. I currently lean towards Smith/IRV (a Condorcet & IRV mix).
Any who doesn't know what I'm talking about, please visit here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
I don't mind mods hiding trolls, I just think we need a:
"-1 I don't understand your joke and I don't like how it sounds"
Anybody who ever selects it should never be given mod points again!
Not necessarily. It would be a huge moral drain if a country lost a space colony that it had spent lots of funding to set up. It might not bleed, but it would hurt. It would lead to public outcry, or sharpen the outcry that already existed. Besides, the cost of nuking a colony is a pittance compared to the cost to build the colony. When war gets dirty, that is what it is all about: Hurting the other guy more than they hurt you (ideally to make them unable to strike back). The idea that those in the colony are entirely non-military will be totally irrelevant to any country that does not have a strong moral feeling about such things (as the US).
Apparently we missed one...
(mods, please recognize a joke when you see one! It's really sad that I need to remind you.)
More specificly, copyleft lasts as long as copyright does. :-)
"It will (of course) be many years before any software copyrights expire (here in the States at least)." As it stands right now, that means decades for most software.
Unless you see a good reason to think so, how dare you! Particularly in cases like this, it was probably someone elses fault (If you know otherwise, please inform the rest of us).
I know I shouldn't respont to an AC, but who modded the troll funny?
Interesting. I had not known that. I'll have to look into it at some point. Still, that would be a type of runoff vote. If the voters were consistent, it would be equivalent to an instant runoff vote (IRV, though only through the electoral college). It would not satisfy the condorcet criteria (technically, you could still fail to elect the condorcet winner) although IRV is still far superior to our current systems.
Of course it does. The only thing that makes the GPL enforceable is copyright; when the copyright expires, it passes into the public domain just like everything else.
I take that partly back. It more completely passes into the public domain that a vast majority of software, because the source is easily available (copyright expiration wont make companies release the source).
It will (of course) be many years before any software copyrights expire (here in the States at least).
Uh... That would be a patent, not copyright... (The same problem over again, and then some)
So you think that Condorcet (and other ranked choice) methods are proportional representation? You clearly don't understand them. Please read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
The Condorcet method is much better at being fair than our pluratilty system. In case you don't feel like reading the article, I'd like to point out the Condorcet principle: If any on candidate would win in a one on one election against any (read all) other candidates, he is the condorcet winner, and must be elected. That is only fair and very reasonable. Our current system does not even come close.
The Condorcet method (and other ranked choice ballots) would still result in a two-party duopoly (I believe), but it would be much easier to change which two parties were in power. There are only two good reasons not use use a varient of the Condorcet method. (1) difficulty in tabulation. Since we do all our tabulation electronically nowadays anyways, this reason is defunct. (2) The parties in power don't want to make it easier to be supplanted. They are perfectly happy with the false dicotomy of "Democrat v. Republican".
Ahh, that explains it. I didn't get that interpretation because I see the odds of that possible existance == 0.
Even so, the middle of my post stands. We all would simply come to accept that nobody will push the button. Life would otherwise continue almost completely uninterrupted. It would not end war, or crime, or poverty, etc.
And if we were each to hit the button when we saw something un-Utopian, then it would only truly drive the possibility to zero. (I'm postulating that some things are deterministic, at least, even if their symptoms are not always.)
If by "perfect Utopian universe" you mean dead, then yes. Somebody's going to push that button.
But lets assume for argument sake that nobody does. People will quickly learn that nobody will push their button, and nobody will seriously care that others have them. We will be in much the same place we are right now.
That's the problem with the current (and former) arms race. We weren't willing to "push the button" (meaning nuke Russia), and Russia wasn't either. Both countries were reduced to non-nuclear means of dealing with each other (Vietnam, etc). The problem with the current variant is that some eastern nut-job is going to decide that Allah wants the West nuked. If capable, this will eventually happen even if a majority of his Muslim countrymen were to disagree with his interpretation.
For a forum with "It's funny laugh" headlines and "funny" moderations, we should expect a fair number of jokes (hopefully in good taste).
Those who can't stand them can go look elsewhere.
(although we do seem to be off topic now... hmmm... )
I would hope if it was volitile, that nobdy would be stupid enough to publish an article suggesting it for use by hard drives. Odds are strong that it is non-volitile. This is especially true if the quote from IBM is acurate: "According to IBM, this type of magnetic memory could vastly simplify computers, and eventually replace all hard-disk drives."
On the other hand, more idiotic things have been done in the past.
... it's a feature!
No, really. Don't believe me, check step 24.
("Swim across the Atlantic Ocean 3,462 mi)
When the do get arround to these tactics, I'm almost as worried at how well they will manage to botch it. (It wont work and it will be obtrusive to everyone)
Please correct me when I'm wrong, and not when I'm right. The precise procedure is as follows:
You do not need to highlight the word first. Note that this is the same between Word 2002 and Open Office 2.
You're right, but you have set up the dichotomy wrong. The comparison really should be between new users and the so-called computer literate. You do not even need to be close to expert for the context menu to be faster, in this case. It will be faster for (very nearly) anybody who knows it's there. Let's run your example:
Several of these steps are longer or more involved than the context menu counterpart. Note that in this case you do need to double click to highlight the word in question for Open Office. Word 2002 wont even give you that much, as it starts it's spell checking at the beginning regardless. These are peripheral problems, though, and related directly to the word processor.
By the way, I'm breaking up a run-on sentence here for you.
It is a special case, but not as special as you would like to believe. It's mostly special because it is a novel use of dynamic context menus (This may be an oxymoron, since it dynamically changes to match context...). Most context menus don't have too many options.
I'll agree that context menus should be kept as small as reasonable. Often, they aren't. And yes, they become annoyingly slow to navigate when they grow too big. The "traditional button option" is slow for it's own reason. It typically requires selecting something, and then moving across the screen to the button. This is faster and easier than a large and unwieldy context menu. It can also be done in constant time (I dare, tentatively, to propose that context menus are O(n) ).
Instead of making the grueling determination, I replied instead. Problem solved.
I was ticked at your post until I reread it. This much is absolutly true. I think this is the part that other posters missed.
That is absolutly NOT true. Compare classicly styled spell checkers with the ones offered by current versions of Word and Open Office. You right click on a specific word and are instantly given a list of available spellings. Yes, there should be another way to also reach the spell checker, but it is SLOWER and LESS LEARNABLE. Perhaps it's the exception, and not the rule. You were painting with a pretty broad brush. Besides, when someone starts learning to use a computer on a Windows box, they will start right clicking on everything to learn their options. I suspect it's harder when you transition from a Mac.
Most of the rest of your post stands on it's own merit.
... I think (and IANAL) that if this could be shown once, it would be proper to ask for all communications between the RIAA and their lawyers regarding any particular case in discovery. That should pretty much shut down their tactics. Can someone tell me why this doesn't happen? IAANAL: It's called the attorney client privilege. We rarely think about it except as an inconvenience, but it really does help our legal system remain fair and efficient (not that our system is either, but it could be worse).On the other hand, if you could find a memo between the RIAA and it's constituency or within one of the organizations, it should be fair game...
Or insightful, as the observation is certainly true!
(For those who don't get the joke, SPAMers regularly use a virus to build a botnet where they can send (or relay) their SPAM from.)
Every critical piece of data should have a backup plan, making this expensive recovery obsolete. But you knew that already, didn't you.
I hear your pain though. I'm not looking forward to the first time I have a customer bring me a dead solid state drive with vital data. Telling him that there is nothing that anyone can do will be painful.
(this assumes that new recovery tech is not developed - but this will certainly be much more expensive)