If people took what they needed, didn't take what they didn't need, and simply shared everything, the world would be a better place. But so far this kind of thing hasn't worked out I guess.
Look at how many politicians that are also lawyers.
I think slashdot.org or something else once led me to the USPTO.gov which showed a patent for a comb-over. (The following is meant to be funny.) Imagine if we patented having hair over four feet long. Or if a baseball player patented how to hit a homerun a certain way. Or patent how to say a certain word a certain way. Or patent a political method, like how politicians move their hands during speeches.
It's one thing to patent food products such as soda, chips, and other things as someone else said in this overall thread.
It's another thing, in my opinion, to patent genetic material. Cause once you grow something from that genetic material, and grow more stuff from the seeds of that, it gets real messy.
A (funny) extreme example: Someone invests a gene. Someone pays to use that gene in their child. That child grows up, mates, and passes on that gene. Does the patent holder have the right to charge for the grandchild's use of the gene? (I really hope I explained that correctly.)
Food products. There's the actual stuff, the stuff you buy in the store. The finished product. Then there's the seeds, the stuff you grow, etc. I see nothing wrong with patenting the first thing. But as for patenting the second thing, seeds, the genetic material, etc, how exactly do you patent that, and what happens when a plant cross-breeds, seeds get scatted, etc.
Here's a (meant to be humourous) extreme example: Patenting a certain DNA gene one invented. Someone pays to use that gene in a child they want to have. That child then grows up, and passes on that gene.
I'm lucky enough to be able to back up most of my stuff by just plainly copying it from my drive to my USB drive. Then I put my USB drive away. I do this every few months. I guess the smartest thing I can do is invest in a fireproof waterproof lock box, and stick it in an attic.
In my current opinion, food products shouldn't be patented, or at least have a very limited patent life. Perhaps three years. Cause come on, it's food. Unlike software, food is a necessity. What this is-is greed.
Step one, build private internet for the military. Step two, trash current Internet via some method. Goal, to get rid of the voice of the People, one step closer to global domination via control rather than force.
The Self-Cleaning House: Some people may find cleaning enjoyable. Something like this may not change much.
The Movable Hole: Something that seems impossible. Plus, the solution would be for a really stupid mistake one did. Make sure you don't drill the hole in the wrong place in the first place.
Instant Sleep: Hypnosis could probably accomplish this.
Caffeinated Eye Drops: It's a problem in our society if we can't get a good night's sleep to offset this.
The Virtual Ceiling: Wouldn't work in smog filled cities, but a great idea. I would love this. I assume this would be accomplished by a ceiling made out of a certain material, then have four projects, from the four corners of the room, projecting onto the ceiling in a high definition format.
The Dream Recorder: Can you really capture something so intangible? And what about the non-audio/video parts of the dream?
Plaid Spray Paint: Should be very possible. Design it so the device you use automatically shifts to the right colour, and use tracking sensors to know where it's at. Like, move three inches over, switch to colour red.
I don't think we're going to agree with each other on which is better, IRV or Condorcet. But I think there's one thing we can agree on: Condorcet is better than plurality.
Here's my preference of voting. IRV > Condorcet > Plurality.
1. There may be a 49/49 tie, and it has to be broken somehow.
2. With IRV, you aren't forced to choose a second, third, etc. choice. You can stick with just your first choice.
However, I'll say this. IRV and Condorcet has to be better than plurality. If I had the choice between Condorcet and plurality, I'd choose Condorcet. But that doesn't mean I'll be ranking all my candidates on Condorcet. I might only choose two or three out of ten or so candidates, tying the eight in last place.
Imagine audio watermarking television programs by the customer. Imagine if your HD programs on the premium channels are audio watermarked so that if you copy them, release them onto the web, that they'll be able to track you down. Actually, this would be very fair since once you release them onto the web, it's not personal use anymore.
In that case, both sides, the Democrats and Republicans, are compromising their first choices in effort of compromise. If both sides end up compromising, there is no true catalyst for change cause it's just a so-so candidate. But that's my opinion.
In other words, it would be like the Democrats and Republicans working out a deal to merge and choose a candidate they both agree on.
1. People not wanting to wait for the movie to hit t.v. or DVD. 1a. This may be a result of crowded theatres with bad food, and possibly high ticket prices for a single showing.
2. High DVD prices in some places. Some have it for like $10 each, which is a good price I believe. But when some stores sell DVDs for $20+, will a low income person be willing to pay that much to watch a movie?
In my state, the Libertarians tend to be the ones that hurt the Democrats. Hence the huge mess we're still having concerning the governor's race.
And as for Condorcet, I still don't agree. My main reason: I don't advocate that method because that is a method that will use your lower choices to help defeat your earlier choices.
You do realize Condorcet is flawed, right? http://www.mich.com/~donald/x2002d.html will explain some of why it's flawed, if you find the second occurrence of the word "Condorcet".
Condorcet can elect one of your lower choices, unlike IRV. With Condorcet, each lower choice vote has the same weight as one of the higher choices.
With IRV, you should NEVER vote for a candidate you don't want, even if it's a protest vote. You should really vote for a candidate you would want to win.
You mentioned http://electionmethods.org/IRVproblems.html, which has the below. The below is flawed in it's logic. It assumes that the Libertarian's second choice transfers to the Republicans, which may be correct. Well, if Republicans come in third place, thus being elimanted, who do you think the Republicans voted for second, Democrats? Yeah right, more likely the Republicans voted for Libertarians as their second choice in that three major party race. The below seems to assume that Republicans didn't list a second choice.
http://electionmethods.org/IRVproblems.html Suppose my true preference is for the Libertarian first and the Republican second. Suppose further that the Libertarians are the strongest "minor" party. At some round of the IRV counting process, all the candidates will be eliminated except the Republican, the Democrat, and the Libertarian. If the Libertarian then has the fewest first-choice votes, he or she will be eliminated and my vote will transfer to the Republican, just as I wanted. But what if the Republican is eliminated before the Libertarian? Unless all the Republican votes transfer to the Libertarian, which is extremely unlikely, the Democrat might then beat the Libertarian. If so, I will have helped the Democrat win by not strategically ranking the Republican first. But that's the same situation I'm in now if I vote my true preference for the Libertarian!
I don't know how primaries are done exactly in other states, but let me change what I said. How about a $50 tax credit if someone votes the November general election. That at the least would increase the voter turn out in the general elections.
We don't have party registration in my state of Washington. We can register with the party organization, but that's it. There is no registration with the government concerning political parties.
We had something called a blanket primary for the September primary. I heard we were able to vote for the individual, and the plurality winner of each party went onto the general election. This was declared illegal, and it makes sense since what if someone runs unopposed. Then a voter could trash another party's candidates.
We then had to choose a party in the September primary, and only vote in that party for each of the races listed on the ballot(s). People weren't happy about that.
Now Washington State is going to the top two plurality winners total, meaning it very well could be two Democrats going onto the general election for a given race.
1. Allow absentee voting for everyone. Not all states allow absentee voting unless you are absentee, or some other excuse.
2. The option to paper vote at the polls, regardless of being able to electronically vote.
3. Have the polls open from 6am to midnight at least cause some people sleep during the day.
4. iVoting. Being able to cast your ballot over the Internet would be nice, but too much corruption exists.
5. Modify the Electoral College 5a. Use IRV to determine the winner of the state popular vote. That winner receives two electoral votes. 5b. The remaining electoral votes are split among the plurality.... The state winner, determined by IRV, gets those two votes. If Bush gets 40% of the votes, then 40% of the remaining E.C. votes goes to him. If Kerry gets 40% of the votes, 40% of the remaining E.C. votes goes to him.
6. Declare Election Day an official holiday, giving students of all kinds the day off. Create more polling stations at public schools. 6a. Modify overtime laws so if you work more than six hours on Election Day, you get double overtime. Logically, a 7 hour day would pay the same as an 8 hour day any other day.
7. To get a bigger voter turn out, offer a tax "credit" for voting. If you have voted in every single election in a given year (the ones in February, March, May, September, November, and any other ones your locality may have), you get like a $50 tax credit of off your income taxes. Of course, if 200 million voted, that's $10 billion there.
By the way, I wasn't trolling. But let me explain. The US GDP is approximately $10-11 trillion. $2 trillion of that goes towards basic income taxes if I'm not mistaken. Out of that $2 trillion, approximately a half trillion is used for "defense" purposes.
When the Government loses money in one place, they look for a new place to get the lost revenue. How the tax structure exactly works (local vs federal), I'm not exactly sure. But you're right, the government will tend to tax the new technologies rather than live smaller.
Here's my idea. Whatever is taxed goes to pay something relative to that tax. Taxing vehicles should pay for roadways, not other stuff. Taxing telephony should pay for communication services, not other stuff. And I think (not totally sure) that a portion of specifically taxed stuff goes into a general fund, which in return funds basically everything and anything.
I don't care if it's e-mail, telephone calls, etc. The mediums used on the Internet shouldn't be taxed.
The only thing that should be taxed is perhaps the ISP service price. Imagine simply having sales tax on the $30 or so you pay for Internet access itself.
But with the U.S. "wanting" over a half trillion dollars per year for defense purposes, they are going to try getting every penny they can.
Slashdot Mirror
If people took what they needed, didn't take what they didn't need, and simply shared everything, the world would be a better place. But so far this kind of thing hasn't worked out I guess.
Look at how many politicians that are also lawyers.
I think slashdot.org or something else once led me to the USPTO.gov which showed a patent for a comb-over. (The following is meant to be funny.) Imagine if we patented having hair over four feet long. Or if a baseball player patented how to hit a homerun a certain way. Or patent how to say a certain word a certain way. Or patent a political method, like how politicians move their hands during speeches.
I should probably explain some more.
It's one thing to patent food products such as soda, chips, and other things as someone else said in this overall thread.
It's another thing, in my opinion, to patent genetic material. Cause once you grow something from that genetic material, and grow more stuff from the seeds of that, it gets real messy.
A (funny) extreme example: Someone invests a gene. Someone pays to use that gene in their child. That child grows up, mates, and passes on that gene. Does the patent holder have the right to charge for the grandchild's use of the gene? (I really hope I explained that correctly.)
I should probably explain out my opinion more.
Food products. There's the actual stuff, the stuff you buy in the store. The finished product. Then there's the seeds, the stuff you grow, etc. I see nothing wrong with patenting the first thing. But as for patenting the second thing, seeds, the genetic material, etc, how exactly do you patent that, and what happens when a plant cross-breeds, seeds get scatted, etc.
Here's a (meant to be humourous) extreme example: Patenting a certain DNA gene one invented. Someone pays to use that gene in a child they want to have. That child then grows up, and passes on that gene.
I mean seeds, the genetic material, being patented. And no, I'm not the idiot. You don't have to buy a subscription to get an account.
I'm lucky enough to be able to back up most of my stuff by just plainly copying it from my drive to my USB drive. Then I put my USB drive away. I do this every few months. I guess the smartest thing I can do is invest in a fireproof waterproof lock box, and stick it in an attic.
In my current opinion, food products shouldn't be patented, or at least have a very limited patent life. Perhaps three years. Cause come on, it's food. Unlike software, food is a necessity. What this is-is greed.
The genetic children of those seeds would belong to the person who patented the genetic material or something, right?
Does anyone seriously know what the patent system was originally created for? Cause it seems to be going too far in some situations.
(The following comment is meant to be funny.)
Step one, build private internet for the military.
Step two, trash current Internet via some method.
Goal, to get rid of the voice of the People, one step closer to global domination via control rather than force.
Microsoft has broadband. Could AOL be doing some dirty tricks?
I'm told the Avy method passes Monotonicity Criterion when there are three candidates.
The Self-Cleaning House: Some people may find cleaning enjoyable. Something like this may not change much.
The Movable Hole: Something that seems impossible. Plus, the solution would be for a really stupid mistake one did. Make sure you don't drill the hole in the wrong place in the first place.
Instant Sleep: Hypnosis could probably accomplish this.
Caffeinated Eye Drops: It's a problem in our society if we can't get a good night's sleep to offset this.
The Virtual Ceiling: Wouldn't work in smog filled cities, but a great idea. I would love this. I assume this would be accomplished by a ceiling made out of a certain material, then have four projects, from the four corners of the room, projecting onto the ceiling in a high definition format.
The Dream Recorder: Can you really capture something so intangible? And what about the non-audio/video parts of the dream?
Plaid Spray Paint: Should be very possible. Design it so the device you use automatically shifts to the right colour, and use tracking sensors to know where it's at. Like, move three inches over, switch to colour red.
I don't think we're going to agree with each other on which is better, IRV or Condorcet. But I think there's one thing we can agree on: Condorcet is better than plurality.
Here's my preference of voting. IRV > Condorcet > Plurality.
The problem with plurality...
1. There may be a 49/49 tie, and it has to be broken somehow.
2. With IRV, you aren't forced to choose a second, third, etc. choice. You can stick with just your first choice.
However, I'll say this. IRV and Condorcet has to be better than plurality. If I had the choice between Condorcet and plurality, I'd choose Condorcet. But that doesn't mean I'll be ranking all my candidates on Condorcet. I might only choose two or three out of ten or so candidates, tying the eight in last place.
Imagine audio watermarking television programs by the customer. Imagine if your HD programs on the premium channels are audio watermarked so that if you copy them, release them onto the web, that they'll be able to track you down. Actually, this would be very fair since once you release them onto the web, it's not personal use anymore.
In that case, both sides, the Democrats and Republicans, are compromising their first choices in effort of compromise. If both sides end up compromising, there is no true catalyst for change cause it's just a so-so candidate. But that's my opinion.
In other words, it would be like the Democrats and Republicans working out a deal to merge and choose a candidate they both agree on.
I believe the real problems are these...
1. People not wanting to wait for the movie to hit t.v. or DVD.
1a. This may be a result of crowded theatres with bad food, and possibly high ticket prices for a single showing.
2. High DVD prices in some places. Some have it for like $10 each, which is a good price I believe. But when some stores sell DVDs for $20+, will a low income person be willing to pay that much to watch a movie?
If I'm not mistaken, the Avy method of IRV passes the Monotonicity Criterion.
http://electionmethods.org/evaluation.htm says both IRV and Condorcet fail Participation Criterion. As to whether the Avy method fails PC, I don't know.
In my state, the Libertarians tend to be the ones that hurt the Democrats. Hence the huge mess we're still having concerning the governor's race.
And as for Condorcet, I still don't agree. My main reason: I don't advocate that method because that is a method that will use your lower choices to help defeat your earlier choices.
You do realize Condorcet is flawed, right? http://www.mich.com/~donald/x2002d.html will explain some of why it's flawed, if you find the second occurrence of the word "Condorcet".
Condorcet can elect one of your lower choices, unlike IRV. With Condorcet, each lower choice vote has the same weight as one of the higher choices.
With IRV, you should NEVER vote for a candidate you don't want, even if it's a protest vote. You should really vote for a candidate you would want to win.
You mentioned http://electionmethods.org/IRVproblems.html, which has the below. The below is flawed in it's logic. It assumes that the Libertarian's second choice transfers to the Republicans, which may be correct. Well, if Republicans come in third place, thus being elimanted, who do you think the Republicans voted for second, Democrats? Yeah right, more likely the Republicans voted for Libertarians as their second choice in that three major party race. The below seems to assume that Republicans didn't list a second choice.
http://electionmethods.org/IRVproblems.html
Suppose my true preference is for the Libertarian first and the Republican second. Suppose further that the Libertarians are the strongest "minor" party. At some round of the IRV counting process, all the candidates will be eliminated except the Republican, the Democrat, and the Libertarian. If the Libertarian then has the fewest first-choice votes, he or she will be eliminated and my vote will transfer to the Republican, just as I wanted. But what if the Republican is eliminated before the Libertarian? Unless all the Republican votes transfer to the Libertarian, which is extremely unlikely, the Democrat might then beat the Libertarian. If so, I will have helped the Democrat win by not strategically ranking the Republican first. But that's the same situation I'm in now if I vote my true preference for the Libertarian!
I don't know how primaries are done exactly in other states, but let me change what I said. How about a $50 tax credit if someone votes the November general election. That at the least would increase the voter turn out in the general elections.
We don't have party registration in my state of Washington. We can register with the party organization, but that's it. There is no registration with the government concerning political parties.
We had something called a blanket primary for the September primary. I heard we were able to vote for the individual, and the plurality winner of each party went onto the general election. This was declared illegal, and it makes sense since what if someone runs unopposed. Then a voter could trash another party's candidates.
We then had to choose a party in the September primary, and only vote in that party for each of the races listed on the ballot(s). People weren't happy about that.
Now Washington State is going to the top two plurality winners total, meaning it very well could be two Democrats going onto the general election for a given race.
I guess it really depends on the state concerning party primaries.
1. Allow absentee voting for everyone. Not all states allow absentee voting unless you are absentee, or some other excuse.
...
2. The option to paper vote at the polls, regardless of being able to electronically vote.
3. Have the polls open from 6am to midnight at least cause some people sleep during the day.
4. iVoting. Being able to cast your ballot over the Internet would be nice, but too much corruption exists.
5. Modify the Electoral College
5a. Use IRV to determine the winner of the state popular vote. That winner receives two electoral votes.
5b. The remaining electoral votes are split among the plurality.
The state winner, determined by IRV, gets those two votes. If Bush gets 40% of the votes, then 40% of the remaining E.C. votes goes to him. If Kerry gets 40% of the votes, 40% of the remaining E.C. votes goes to him.
6. Declare Election Day an official holiday, giving students of all kinds the day off. Create more polling stations at public schools.
6a. Modify overtime laws so if you work more than six hours on Election Day, you get double overtime. Logically, a 7 hour day would pay the same as an 8 hour day any other day.
7. To get a bigger voter turn out, offer a tax "credit" for voting. If you have voted in every single election in a given year (the ones in February, March, May, September, November, and any other ones your locality may have), you get like a $50 tax credit of off your income taxes. Of course, if 200 million voted, that's $10 billion there.
By the way, I wasn't trolling. But let me explain. The US GDP is approximately $10-11 trillion. $2 trillion of that goes towards basic income taxes if I'm not mistaken. Out of that $2 trillion, approximately a half trillion is used for "defense" purposes.
When the Government loses money in one place, they look for a new place to get the lost revenue. How the tax structure exactly works (local vs federal), I'm not exactly sure. But you're right, the government will tend to tax the new technologies rather than live smaller.
Here's my idea. Whatever is taxed goes to pay something relative to that tax. Taxing vehicles should pay for roadways, not other stuff. Taxing telephony should pay for communication services, not other stuff. And I think (not totally sure) that a portion of specifically taxed stuff goes into a general fund, which in return funds basically everything and anything.
I don't care if it's e-mail, telephone calls, etc. The mediums used on the Internet shouldn't be taxed.
The only thing that should be taxed is perhaps the ISP service price. Imagine simply having sales tax on the $30 or so you pay for Internet access itself.
But with the U.S. "wanting" over a half trillion dollars per year for defense purposes, they are going to try getting every penny they can.