At a basic level the right celebrates authority (everyone in the tribe works together) while the left embraces individuality (everybody free to be themselves). This means the right tends to believe their authorities without question, while the left tends to question everything.
Dude, seriously?
The right (traditionally) is individualistic. They support gun rights in case the authority gets out of control and starts usurping their rights.
The left promotes central authority. Of everything. More money to government programs, "it takes a village", etc.
That said, one has to draw a distinction between the paleoconservative/libertarian right (the traditional branch mentioned above) and the neoconservative right (who also want to expand central authority, just with different aims than the left).
If I were to get a smartphone, I'd be very interested in the SE or its successor. The 5/6 is at the sweet spot of big-enough screen to be useful for "smart" features, but small-enough to be a decent portable phone. There is precisely 0 chance I'll ever buy the 8 or X.
Right now, I'd be very happy with an iPod Touch refresh. Last refresh was after a three year wait. This summer will be three years from the last one. Either a new one gets introduced, or it is discontinued and the prices drop to clear them out. Either way, I want to scoop one up.
When the Air pushed out the old MacBook, I wondered why anyone would pay more for a less powerful machine, made more expensive by using miniaturized parts, just to shave ounces off the weight (and look "cool"). Now they're doubling down on light/"cool" at the expense of affordability (again), performance (again), and flexibility.
We have a 2012 MBP we bought refurbed in 2013. We use both USBs all the time. We use the SD slot all the time. We use the optical drive fairly regularly. I just replaced the HD with a SSD, and I hope it doesn't fail anytime soon because Apple has nothing to replace it for the way we work.
That's what happens when bad guys know their potential victims are defenseless.
You don't get mass shootings at gun shows, police stations, or sportsmans clubs.
I hate the Air. It's a great machine for its purposes, sure, but it stole the "low end" position from the MacBook a few years later. While it definitely has "low end" components, miniaturized to achieve its size goals, that miniaturization does not lead to a low-end price. Apple does not make it easy to get into Mac hardware on a budget.
The Mini suffers the same problem. Shrinking components to hit a size goal leave me with an underpowered machine at the price point I'm looking at. Smallness is not a feature I'm particularly interested in. It's like paying a double Apple premium. It's frustrating to be a "bang for the buck" shopper and every option available is dressed up with glitz I don't want.
Complete agreement. I have a 2011 Honda - certainly not an old car, but no Bluetooth. I also have an iPod nano, now two years old. A short USB and a short miniplug cable keeps me charged and tuned. Without a miniplug on my player, I'd have to use some funky adapter (more money) and probably not be able to charge simultaneously, either.
Looking back, it seems insane that auto manufacturers didn't have mini-plug input a looong time ago. "Here's a nook to set your portable player - walkman, discman, future-things-not-invented-yet - and here's the input port."
There are several places that a brighter in the "dark" photo than before. For example, near the northern coast, from about center running a ways west. (Roughly Manati to Arecibo.) Makes me wonder what's going on there.
If elections aren't throwing the bums out, then fix the way we do elections so that they work right. The mathematics of the system ensure that we self-limit our own freedom by looking at only two candidates as real possibilities. Isn't that foolish?
How to fix? Condorcet voting, for one. Proportional representation in one chamber of state legislatures, for another.
One chamber of state legislatures should be chosen by proportional representation. Vote for a party, get your political philosophy represented.
The other chamber can be chosen by districted races. Vote for a person, get your local concerns represented.
There's a balance in the Congress between competing views. Bicameralism is great, unless you throw out the main reason for having two houses. Then it's just redundancy.
Those who live in rural areas like their lifestyle the way it is. They don't want law dictated to them by people far away, from a completely different environment, who don't understand them.
America is a live-and-let-live country. That's the nature of freedom.
By dumping the EC, rural folks have less voice to be "left alone" to live they way they want to. Why would they want to remain a part of the United States if they can't get their wishes respected?
Even rural folks from different parts of the country have different cultures, and the EC helps enforce a respect for that. You don't have to merely earn a majority of the votes, but you have to earn that majority from geographically and culturally diverse segments of the population. I think that's a good thing! A president has to be president of ALL the people.
That's part of the current problem. The 17th Amendment should be repealed. Senators ought not to be merely super-Representatives. With larger districts and longer terms than Representatives, they are even less responsive to the will of the voters than Reps are, and riper pickings for special interests to buy off. Removing the state legislature from having a role in choosing them means they have less incentive in fighting against centralization of power, so the federal model which is a safeguard of citizens' liberty is threatened.
I currently live in NE, one of the two states that allocates EC votes proportionally. I completely agree with you. Regardless of your political stripe, this is the right way to go, if you want election results to reflect the will of the voters. However, in the last legislative term, there was a bill to switch to winner-take-all. The only reason to do this is to benefit the dominant political party. Unfortunately, the pols that introduce these things fail to realize that going this road may be a good idea for them today, but a bad idea for them if the political winds change tomorrow. Better to stick to the principle of reflecting the will of the electorate.
It is interesting to me that when the disenfranchised groups in CA have called for secession (e.g. Cascadia) in the previous 10-20 years, the liberal majority responded with disparaging comments like, "What is this, the 1860s?" Now, when faced with results they don't like, they call for their own secession movement. I wonder if anyone has ever realized that splitting CA into several smaller states would actually improve things for all concerned? Each new smaller state would have more local control, disenfranchised groups would be less frustrated, and as a whole the people of what is currently CA would have more voice in the Senate and EC. Of course, the liberal majority of current-CA would not be in control of all that new influence, but as far as benefiting the people it would be a win. And that's who our state policy-makers are supposed to be helping, right?
Direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. That's why we have an EC. It's a system to protect our collective selves from ourselves. The US of A are a federal system. The design of Congress is a compromise - brush up on the VA/NJ plans. The design of the EC is the same compromise directed toward a singular office rather than a body. The implementation is very well thought out - brush up on the Federalist Papers. Sometimes I think we should actually vote for the Electors rather than for president, and have their meeting in December actually be a meaningful debate and vote. This would make the EC what it was intended to be: a specially-convened single-purpose one-time convention.
What else might we change to fix our system meaningfully? Glad you asked. Specially note #4, which is most relevant to this story.
1) Condorcet voting. Duverger's Law is the suck. 2) Lower the thresholds to get on the ballot. The major parties don't like competition. High filing fees and petitioning requirements only benefit the entrenched establishment. They may say it's to keep "joke" candidates off the ballot, but...just take a look at the presidential race. Both the Ds and Rs are jokes, so obviously that doesn't work. 3) Proportional representation in the lower chamber of your state legislature. Bicameralism is great, if the two houses serve to balance differing points of view. Having both chambers allocated by district is pointless. There are Libertarians/Greens/Constitutionalists who are perpetually disenfranchised. They should have a voice somewhere commensurate to their size. 4) Increase the size of the (federal) House to 1000 (without increasing the total size of support staff). This solves two problems. First, small districts makes reps more responsive to citizenry. Second, it makes the EC distribution more equitable, so that calls to remove it (which would be disastrous) hopefully subside. 5) Repeal the 17th Amendment. Making senators into super-representatives through popular election makes them unaccountable to their states, and thus more beholden to special interests. Senate elections are insanely expensive because of this. If your motto is "get money out of politics" this should be a no-brainer.
Couldn't agree more. I've said for some time that if you're not voting third party (at least considering the candidates based on their merits), you're not paying attention.
We need to implement a Condorcet voting system, too.
And proportional representation in one chamber of bicameral state legislatures would probably be a good idea.
That's pretty cool. I was trying to port the pkgsrc framework to A/UX at one point. Nice to see lingering enthusiasm for A/UX out there.
If you succeed, let me know, I'll update the FAQ.
Slashdot Mirror
"B’resheet" means "In the beginning". It is the Hebrew name for what many know as the book of Genesis, being the first few words from it.
I think the axing of the SE is more significant than the new products that were announced. I was still really hoping for an SE 2.
When what we really want is an upgrade to the SE. Small, inexpensive, to handle the basics of smartphone life, and that's it.
Most of us are jet-lagged twice a year by this silly ritual that has no beneficial effect. Can we ditch it already?
Finch had to backup the Machine to an iPhone, team Samaritan got it diverted for "repair", and it's trying to reach out to Fusco for a rescue.
Dude, seriously?
The right (traditionally) is individualistic. They support gun rights in case the authority gets out of control and starts usurping their rights.
The left promotes central authority. Of everything. More money to government programs, "it takes a village", etc.
That said, one has to draw a distinction between the paleoconservative/libertarian right (the traditional branch mentioned above) and the neoconservative right (who also want to expand central authority, just with different aims than the left).
Everything's bigger in Texas.
If I were to get a smartphone, I'd be very interested in the SE or its successor. The 5/6 is at the sweet spot of big-enough screen to be useful for "smart" features, but small-enough to be a decent portable phone. There is precisely 0 chance I'll ever buy the 8 or X.
Right now, I'd be very happy with an iPod Touch refresh. Last refresh was after a three year wait. This summer will be three years from the last one. Either a new one gets introduced, or it is discontinued and the prices drop to clear them out. Either way, I want to scoop one up.
Again, Apple is prioritizing the wrong thing.
When the Air pushed out the old MacBook, I wondered why anyone would pay more for a less powerful machine, made more expensive by using miniaturized parts, just to shave ounces off the weight (and look "cool"). Now they're doubling down on light/"cool" at the expense of affordability (again), performance (again), and flexibility.
We have a 2012 MBP we bought refurbed in 2013. We use both USBs all the time. We use the SD slot all the time. We use the optical drive fairly regularly. I just replaced the HD with a SSD, and I hope it doesn't fail anytime soon because Apple has nothing to replace it for the way we work.
That's what happens when bad guys know their potential victims are defenseless. You don't get mass shootings at gun shows, police stations, or sportsmans clubs.
I hate the Air. It's a great machine for its purposes, sure, but it stole the "low end" position from the MacBook a few years later. While it definitely has "low end" components, miniaturized to achieve its size goals, that miniaturization does not lead to a low-end price. Apple does not make it easy to get into Mac hardware on a budget. The Mini suffers the same problem. Shrinking components to hit a size goal leave me with an underpowered machine at the price point I'm looking at. Smallness is not a feature I'm particularly interested in. It's like paying a double Apple premium. It's frustrating to be a "bang for the buck" shopper and every option available is dressed up with glitz I don't want.
How's the Machine supposed to make emergency contact with Finch and Reese without payphones on the street?
Complete agreement. I have a 2011 Honda - certainly not an old car, but no Bluetooth. I also have an iPod nano, now two years old. A short USB and a short miniplug cable keeps me charged and tuned. Without a miniplug on my player, I'd have to use some funky adapter (more money) and probably not be able to charge simultaneously, either.
Looking back, it seems insane that auto manufacturers didn't have mini-plug input a looong time ago. "Here's a nook to set your portable player - walkman, discman, future-things-not-invented-yet - and here's the input port."
There are several places that a brighter in the "dark" photo than before. For example, near the northern coast, from about center running a ways west. (Roughly Manati to Arecibo.) Makes me wonder what's going on there.
Less freedom is not the way to fix the problem.
If elections aren't throwing the bums out, then fix the way we do elections so that they work right. The mathematics of the system ensure that we self-limit our own freedom by looking at only two candidates as real possibilities. Isn't that foolish?
How to fix? Condorcet voting, for one. Proportional representation in one chamber of state legislatures, for another.
Agreed. The Cascadia movement (secession from CA) is not new. Funny how liberals in CA scoffed at secession...until now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_and_secession_in_California
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:California_4way_secession_proposal.svg
One chamber of state legislatures should be chosen by proportional representation. Vote for a party, get your political philosophy represented.
The other chamber can be chosen by districted races. Vote for a person, get your local concerns represented.
There's a balance in the Congress between competing views. Bicameralism is great, unless you throw out the main reason for having two houses. Then it's just redundancy.
Spoken like a true big city/state resident
Those who live in rural areas like their lifestyle the way it is. They don't want law dictated to them by people far away, from a completely different environment, who don't understand them.
America is a live-and-let-live country. That's the nature of freedom.
By dumping the EC, rural folks have less voice to be "left alone" to live they way they want to. Why would they want to remain a part of the United States if they can't get their wishes respected?
Even rural folks from different parts of the country have different cultures, and the EC helps enforce a respect for that. You don't have to merely earn a majority of the votes, but you have to earn that majority from geographically and culturally diverse segments of the population. I think that's a good thing! A president has to be president of ALL the people.
That's part of the current problem. The 17th Amendment should be repealed. Senators ought not to be merely super-Representatives. With larger districts and longer terms than Representatives, they are even less responsive to the will of the voters than Reps are, and riper pickings for special interests to buy off. Removing the state legislature from having a role in choosing them means they have less incentive in fighting against centralization of power, so the federal model which is a safeguard of citizens' liberty is threatened.
I currently live in NE, one of the two states that allocates EC votes proportionally. I completely agree with you. Regardless of your political stripe, this is the right way to go, if you want election results to reflect the will of the voters. However, in the last legislative term, there was a bill to switch to winner-take-all. The only reason to do this is to benefit the dominant political party. Unfortunately, the pols that introduce these things fail to realize that going this road may be a good idea for them today, but a bad idea for them if the political winds change tomorrow. Better to stick to the principle of reflecting the will of the electorate.
It is interesting to me that when the disenfranchised groups in CA have called for secession (e.g. Cascadia) in the previous 10-20 years, the liberal majority responded with disparaging comments like, "What is this, the 1860s?" Now, when faced with results they don't like, they call for their own secession movement. I wonder if anyone has ever realized that splitting CA into several smaller states would actually improve things for all concerned? Each new smaller state would have more local control, disenfranchised groups would be less frustrated, and as a whole the people of what is currently CA would have more voice in the Senate and EC. Of course, the liberal majority of current-CA would not be in control of all that new influence, but as far as benefiting the people it would be a win. And that's who our state policy-makers are supposed to be helping, right?
Direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. That's why we have an EC. It's a system to protect our collective selves from ourselves. The US of A are a federal system. The design of Congress is a compromise - brush up on the VA/NJ plans. The design of the EC is the same compromise directed toward a singular office rather than a body. The implementation is very well thought out - brush up on the Federalist Papers. Sometimes I think we should actually vote for the Electors rather than for president, and have their meeting in December actually be a meaningful debate and vote. This would make the EC what it was intended to be: a specially-convened single-purpose one-time convention.
What else might we change to fix our system meaningfully? Glad you asked. Specially note #4, which is most relevant to this story.
1) Condorcet voting. Duverger's Law is the suck. 2) Lower the thresholds to get on the ballot. The major parties don't like competition. High filing fees and petitioning requirements only benefit the entrenched establishment. They may say it's to keep "joke" candidates off the ballot, but...just take a look at the presidential race. Both the Ds and Rs are jokes, so obviously that doesn't work. 3) Proportional representation in the lower chamber of your state legislature. Bicameralism is great, if the two houses serve to balance differing points of view. Having both chambers allocated by district is pointless. There are Libertarians/Greens/Constitutionalists who are perpetually disenfranchised. They should have a voice somewhere commensurate to their size. 4) Increase the size of the (federal) House to 1000 (without increasing the total size of support staff). This solves two problems. First, small districts makes reps more responsive to citizenry. Second, it makes the EC distribution more equitable, so that calls to remove it (which would be disastrous) hopefully subside. 5) Repeal the 17th Amendment. Making senators into super-representatives through popular election makes them unaccountable to their states, and thus more beholden to special interests. Senate elections are insanely expensive because of this. If your motto is "get money out of politics" this should be a no-brainer.
equinox-project.org
Couldn't agree more. I've said for some time that if you're not voting third party (at least considering the candidates based on their merits), you're not paying attention. We need to implement a Condorcet voting system, too. And proportional representation in one chamber of bicameral state legislatures would probably be a good idea.
You have a right to speech, but you have to make your own speech. Just like you have to make your own money. Entitlements are not rights.
That's pretty cool. I was trying to port the pkgsrc framework to A/UX at one point. Nice to see lingering enthusiasm for A/UX out there. If you succeed, let me know, I'll update the FAQ.