When there is no important application left that doesn't run well on Wine, people will more readily switch (Linux+Wine == Windows, from a user's point of view, but about 100-300 bucks cheaper).
And THEN it's time to ask software companies to develop for Linux, with it being the bigger market. I think you're confusing two sides of the issue.
At the point in time you describe, it will be easy for Windows users to switch to Linux, and there will be incentive for them to do so since it is generally cheaper and they would have more apps available (all Linux apps plus Windows apps under Wine) -- that much I agree with. However, one could argue that developing for the Windows API would still be the bigger market, since developing for Windows would give you an application which would work on Windows or Linux-with-Wine. Until the size of the Windows-only customer base is smaller than the Linux-only-and-I-won't-or-can't-use-Wine customer base, there will still be incentive to develop for Windows. There may be other reasons to develop for Linux instead (ease of development, more plentiful developers, etc), but a bigger market is not one of them as long as you continue to account for Wine.
On the other hand, having an easy-to-use and easy-on-developers Linux API available on Windows does the opposite -- software companies could develop for Linux and get apps that target both the Linux and Windows markets, thus targeting a bigger market than just Windows.
you don't give the being intelligence, rather you give it the ability to obtain intelligence from its experiences Exactly.
For a class project, I once created a genetic algorithm to evolve a Reversi-playing algorithm (Reversi is also known as Othello). I coded the system not to be able to consider more than X moves in advance, because I wanted to prevent it from using "computer tricks" (i.e. I didn't want it looking farther ahead than a typical human could do with a moderate amount of practice). I tried playing with that number just to see what would happen, but I eventually left it at 4.
By the time I was done with my evolving system, it could evolve in 4 days (using 4 ~2Ghz Intel servers and an island genetic model, for those who know about genetic algorithms) an algorithm which could handily and consistently beat myself and all of my friends.
The interesting thing here is that I didn't even "initialize" it with a basic strategy or any personal training -- it started with randomly-generated strategies (most of which were no better than randomly placing pieces in legal squares). It then played against itself for those 4 days, learning through trial and error (as opposed to training by playing against a human). By the end, it had learned enough without human feedback that it could defeat a group of fairly intelligent (though not very practiced) humans at Reversi.
I never analyzed the generated programs enough to fully understand how they worked, but I did inspect them a little. Each evolved algorithm consisted of no more than 40 lines of C code (which called various global helper functions such as get_opponent_score(), get_self_side_pieces(), etc which I had created). By inspecting algorithms that were able to beat me, I actually learned a thing or two about Reversi strategy.
I can provide a couple more anecdotes. I used to bike commute 12 miles to work. I had 1 close call and 1 wreck, both times at the same location under similar circumstances involving rather normal sedans. In my experience, the problem has more to do with drivers not expecting cyclists and/or not having experience sharing the road with cyclists.
Both times, the road was empty aside from myself and the car, and the problem occurred because the driver was turning right at a T intersection where I was going straight. They had a stop sign and I did not; they simply didn't pay enough attention to realize that even though I wasn't a car, I was still going ~20mph -- I think they saw an empty road aside from me, and just failed to think about how fast I was approaching the intersection. One driver pulled out in front of me so close I lost control and fell off my bike while trying not to run into the car, the other actually hit me in the side as they pulled out. Luckily, in the second case the car wasn't going very fast yet, so when I was hit I fell onto/against the hood of the car, and then I rolled off the hood and fell onto the road as they braked. I had some cuts, scrapes, and bruises, nothing serious.
The first car came back to check on me, the second stopped immediately and called 911 before I even had a chance to tell them I was fine, so in neither case would I say the accident happened because the driver didn't "give a flying fuck about anyone else on the road".
If you can't see the difference between laughing at someone for losing money buying a luxury good you find reprehensible and saying you're going to be happy when you run someone over and kill them with your vehicle, then you belong with that borderline sociopath and fellow SUV owner named Soporific. I don't think you know what 'reprehensible' or 'sociopath' actually mean. It seems you are the one who doesn't:
From Princeton's wordnet via google search, condemnable means "bringing or deserving severe rebuke or censure". GP was saying something along the lines of laughing at someone for losing money buying an SUV (when you feel doing so deserves severe rebuke).... Yep, that fits.
You also question the use of the term sociopath. Wikipedia indicates the term "sociopath" is loosely defined, and can mean, among other things, someone with "antisocial personality disorder". Let's look at the diagnostic criteria for that one:
Three or more of the following are required:
Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
[...]
[...]
Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
[...]
Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
The post in question, if taken literally, does have elements of those 4 criteria in my opinion, especially 4 and 7 (though I assume the post was merely flamebait, and not literal). Since 3 criteria are necessary for diagnosis, I think it's accurate to call that post borderline sociopathic, again if taken literally.
Seriously, loosen the tin foil hats [...] AHA! Clearly, you have a vested interest in whether I wear my tin foil hat or not!
Since you want me to take it off, it must work! That is, unless that's what you want me to think, and it actually acts as a locator so you can more easily trace my position. Or perhaps it's all a ruse to distract me from noticing something else even MORE sinister....
Yes, it's all becoming clear to me now. I'm on to you!
I'm not the original posted of the 1/3 number, but I had it in my head too, and I thought I read it someplace reliable. I searched my browser history and tracked it back to this article, which I read a few days ago. It's in the New York Times, but it's an Op-Ed piece and it says "nearly a third" not "one third" as I recalled.
So, I guess this is why it's always best to cite your sources. It's a small but very significant step from "a reliable source said 1/3" to "some op-ed piece in the NYT said 'nearly a third'".
Give seminars/lessons/tutorials on various, purely trivial topics. Teach the... origins of the Gin and Tonic. Blasphemy! There is nothing trivial about the Gin and Tonic. Perhaps it was 2 separate items:
Give seminars/lessons/tutorials on various, purely trivial topics.
Teach the history of the ampersand or the origins of the Gin and Tonic.
On a site like this one, where people from the outside would presume everyone is a pasty and pimply 34 year old living in their parent's basement, I really would expect (just a little) a little more tolerance and less assumption from the people involved. You must be new here!
You're aware that "criminals" are primarily investigated under local government, not federal government, yes?
Yes, but most criminals aren't going to be worth the time and expense for this sort of data recovery. Among those that are, I bet a higher proportion are within FBI jurisdiction than the general mass of criminal investigations.
The NSA certainly could have the capability to do this [...] organizations like the FBI do not have this capability.
You seem to be making a lot of statements as if you have 100% confidence. Unless you've got a Top Secret security clearance and you work for the FBI or the NSA in this area, the truth is that you just don't know. What's to say the capability wasn't developed by the NSA and then given/traded/contracted to the FBI?
Look, I'm not saying I'm confident the FBI has this capability, or even that I think it's likely; I'm saying that while you seem to think it is absolutely impossible, I see plenty of reason to think it might be possible. Maybe it's just my inner skeptic being aggravated by absolute statements, but it seems pretty silly to say unequivocally "the FBI can't do this".
If they can do something no one else can do, something that no one else even knows is possible in practice, you think they're just going to tell everyone? Yeah right. If they can do it, that fact would be classified. That's modus operandi for the US government (except when they're trying to show off). For something to be used against criminals and terrorists, you can bet your bottom dollar they'd keep it secret, in hopes that will lull people into lax security.
I'd also be willing to bet that, whether they've done it or not, they've spent more time and money on trying to do it than every other company, university, hacker, and law enforcement group combined; the fact that no one else can do it doesn't convince me they can't.
Ok, I can see where you're coming from, though I would argue that your problem is more with the American political system as a whole than with the Republicans and Democrats in particular. On the other hand, Republicans and Democrats are the ones put in power by the current system, and are therefore extremely resistant to any significant change to the way the system works (for fear they won't have as much power in the new system).
Yes, American politics are broken. Is there an easy way to fix it? No, not really. I fear that things will have to continue getting worse until discontent precipitates a revolution. Unfortunately, that won't happen any time soon, as we Americans (as a whole) have become far too apathetic and content with economic prosperity; a large proportion of people won't be spurred to action until they can't afford the materialistic distractions they've become used to.
And every politician get busted for that type of stupid words. Like CLinton for her Bosnia, like Obama for "bitter". Should i continue?
Remember how I said "Therefore I think the continuation of this meme is based more on a mistake of wording than on intentional misrepresentation of his merits."? I think it's perfectly fine that he got some bad press for it at the time. Clinton's Bosnia and Obama's bitter are both less than a few months old; there's no real comparison there. People will get over both those things in a couple years or less, I can almost guarantee it. On the other hand, people still haven't gotten over Gore's misstatement almost 10 years later.
The difference is the public wave of left-wing defence for Gore inthe epizode not particularly hurting his carrier.
It didn't particularly hurt his career? Given that he was so close to winning the 2000 election, I think it's hard to say so confidently that the attention paid to the episode didn't hurt his career -- lots of people think Gore's an idiot just because of that episode. The lefties would have voted for him anyway, and the righties would have voted for Bush anyway. But the swing voters, the moderates and independents, who were convinced he's an idiot because of that one misstatement, they might have made the difference between him being president and him being just another also-ran. It's stupid that elections are won and lost based on those sorts of things, but they are (at least in the US).
By the way, as a Muslim I despise equally both of the idiotic parties.
Great, at least we can agree on something. I think big time politicians in general are mostly power-hungry, dishonest, superficial elitists. (The rest are probably unrealistic idealists at best.) Those in the big two parties tend to be group-think bureaucrats in addition.
Though I have to add that I don't really see what being a Muslim has to do with thinking both the Democrats and Republicans are losers. Maybe I just don't have a good understanding of typical Muslim political interests.
Finally, a lefty acknowledging his screw-up. [...] That was some pathetic apology of Gore.
Um, what? That wasn't supposed to be an apology. You really show your bias when you acknowledge that I agree Gore screwed up, but then assume that just because I didn't hold to the right-wing talking points I must be a "lefty" Gore apologist.
Here's a bit more info on that.
Here's a clue: Some people don't hold 100% to either "lefty" or "righty" talking points without critically analyzing them. Some people actually listen to what both sides say (though most of us probably disregard at least 95% of what they hear from boths sides as lies and/or posturing).
The point is not that he "stuttered" or "make a mistake". Yeah, right...
Ah, but it is. It's pretty ridiculous to think that Gore tried to claim he is personally responsible for creating the Internet. When you actually look at the context, it becomes pretty clear (to me, at least) that he probably tried to claim only that he was personally responsible for promoting the creation of the Internet, or even only that he was a legislative leader in promoting the creation of the Internet. I think it was a mistake of wording that it came out one way and not the other -- I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here, because it seems so much more reasonable than the alternative. If he had said "I took the initiative in promoting the creation of the Internet", then it all would have been forgotten long ago. Therefore I think the continuation of this meme is based more on a mistake of wording than on intentional misrepresentation of his merits.
Did you ever hear politicians making an opposite mistake of not mentioning their "merits"?
That's exactly my point -- every politician does this sort of thing. The only reason this particular exaggeration gets so much attention is because of the additional mistake made in expressing it. Get. over. it. Or, make as big a deal as possible over anything the "other side" does by viewing it in the worst possible light, even when there's a more reasonable explanation. That's politics as usual, I suppose. You "righty"s do it just as much as the "lefty"s.
WOLF BLITZER: Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process?
AL GORE: Well, I will be offering -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.
But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. [...]
In context, it's quite clear that he doesn't think he "invented" the Internet, which is what the meme says/implies. He thinks he was instrumental in helping get the Internet going, and as a legislator, he was. The fact that he stutters a little and used a bit of unfortunate wording while responding to an unexpected question doesn't change that.
This wasn't a prepared speech, this was a live interview. Have you ever said something that came out the wrong way? That's all that happened here, get over it.
Blacksmiths, buggy whip makers and all the other usual old time jobs that Slashdotters trot out each and every time they wish to denigrate a business case did not face competition from their own product being hawked with no requirement for any return on investment.
It's not a perfect analogy, sure. But you ignore the point -- the world changes, and demand changes. The fact that this change is different in some ways from the changes that obsoleted blacksmiths and buggy whip makers doesn't mean it is different in all ways.
If people no longer feel the need to shop at brick-and-mortar record stores because they want MP3s rather than CDs (which often force them to buy songs they don't want along with the ones they do), then brick-and-mortar record stores will find staying in business difficult. That doesn't mean you can't make money selling music, just that you have to change your business model -- sell MP3 singles instead of CD albums.
How's iTunes doing? Are they struggling to stay afloat as well, or is business doing fine?
You don't have to live in Arizona for cost of the extra cooling to outweigh the gain from the extra heating -- I actually live in Kentucky, where the humidity makes cooling harder on A/C systems than similar temperature air in Arizona would be (since it tends to be very dry there).
Though I agree, if you live in Alaska, for example, this is a non-issue.
Then, during summer, don't forget to count the fact that those incandescents are generating waste heat, which most people counteract by running their A/C unit harder. Granted, in the winter you are saved a little on your heat bill by incandescents (in comparison to running CFLs just as long), but I imagine the cooling cost will outweigh the heating savings by a good margin.
1) they are unrelated
2) more drinking => bad scientist
3) bad scientist => more drinking
There is another possibility people often forget:
4) (some other circumstance "X" => bad scientist) AND (some other circumstance "X" => more drinking)
For example, there is a strong correlation between eating ice cream on a given day and drowning on that same day; this is true because eating ice cream and swimming are both activities more likely to occur when spending a hot day outside, particularly while vacationing; the correlation is not the result of causation one way or the other, but neither are they unrelated -- both stem from a common cause.
Also, I would ammend 1) to say "they are unrelated, and the correlation is either a result of bias in the testing methodology, or merely a coincidence", as "they are unrelated" does not, by itself, explain the correlation.
The actual things that constitute [trespassing upon Intellectual Property] are things that are, conceptually at least and often in practice, just as subject to vigilante enforcement as are the exclusive rights in real or personal property [...] There no meaningful way I can see that IP differs from real and tangible personal property (or other intangible personal property) in this regard [...]. I think we'd do a lot better to examine the actual problems with how our systems of property are implemented rather than making spurious and largely semantic arguments against certain classes of property really being "property".
While I see what you are saying about an idealistically better approach being an examination of our property systems, there is a practical side to consider as well.
People generally have this set of ideas about what rights they have with regard to anything they consider "their property"; these ideas were largely developed with tangible property in mind. When those preconceived ideas don't mesh well with a new category of "their property", it may be easier to convince them "this new stuff (IP) isn't really property, and therefore doesn't automatically get the rights you associate with property" than to convince them "this new stuff (IP), while still your property, isn't subject to the same rules as your other property". This may seem like an unimportant semantic difference to a thoughtful and intelligent person, but in practice minor semantic differences can greatly affect popular acceptance of an idea.
Or, to put this more succinctly, the spin you put on the idea can make a world of difference when you're trying to persuade someone to change their mind.
A small tweak could help fix that -- allow the seller and buyer to each leave feedback, but keep feedback hidden until after both have left their feedback, or until the window for leaving feedback has ended, whichever comes first. That way even the seller from your example would get bad feedback; not leaving feedback for the buyers would only grant them a window where the feedback isn't visible.
>.Since this car would have both an internal combustion engine and a compressed-air engine, I would guess you can get either heating or cooling fairly cheaply.
Ah, but there's the rub. From what I read, I don't think there is an internal combustion engine. Unlike current gas/electric hybrids which use the gasoline for propulsion, in this case they're simply burning the gasoline (or other fuel) as a source of heat to improve the efficiency of the compressed air charge.
My mistake -- I guess that's what I get for failing to RTFA, heh.
Subtract parasitic losses such as alternator (headlights, heating??) or a/c compressor drag (-5 hp) and it's anemic at best.
Actually, I don't think heating is usually a significant loss for an internal combustion engine that's driving at 30mph or more -- the engine produces waste heat. (Which is not to say that it couldn't be a loss, just that I don't think it typically is.) In fact, I think if your car is struggling with overheating for some reason, turning on the "heater" helps cool the engine. You've got to turn a fan, but other than that the heating is mostly free.
Ironically, for a compressed-air engine, the opposite is true -- releasing compressed air naturally produces cool air (which is generally how A/C units work, I believe). So, cooling is much more efficient for this sort of engine than the alternative -- burning fuel to produce electricity to power a compressor. You may not even need a fan, since you already have air moving in this design.
Since this car would have both an internal combustion engine and a compressed-air engine, I would guess you can get either heating or cooling fairly cheaply. I do agree with the rest of your post, however.
Perhaps I should have been more explicit -- I was applying Occum's Razor [wikipedia.org], which is a rule of thumb that (to paraphrase) states that the explanation or theory which requires the least amount of unsupported assumptions (a subjective determination, I agree) is most likely to be correct.
You are misapplying the rule here since there are multiple theories all of which require unsupported assumptions. The correct solution is not to exclude any theory that don't require a lot of unsupported assumptions. Otherwise, you are making unwarranted assumptions by selectively excluding theories.
I would argue that Occum's Razor is no less valid in this situation. The key, as you said, is not to exclude any theory that doesn't require an unreasonable amount of unsupported assumptions. However, I'm not trying to compile a list of all possible theories, or even all plausible ones. I was merely making the case that, at first blush, the data suggests that election fraud may have occurred. If further information seems to indicate another cause, that does not weaken my case.
So yes, the numbers can be explained by improper sampling. And there seems to be some sampling problems precisely with the two elections you mention.
I never said anything to the contrary. And in fact, this is the third time in this thread that I've said the numbers can be explained by improper sampling -- I am in no way trying to exclude that theory as a possibility, so you don't need to convince me otherwise. You have provided some additional information, which (just to make sure we're clear) means we're now talking about what seems most likely after further investigation -- a totally separate issue from what prompted my original comment. With that said, the fact that a new polling service took over could indeed mean that sampling procedures changed, and provides a plausible rationale for why sampling biases may have been introduced which were not present before. So, I'll agree that improper sampling looks more likely with the new information.
However, the pdf link I found and posted earlier seems to provide a very different explanation for the changed statistical weighting, so your new information may not be quite as supportive of the improper sampling theory as it seems. Check out page 3, the section titled "Calibrated and Uncalibrated Exit Poll Data". Apparently, it is standard procedure to change the statistical weighting of the exit data to match the reported vote counts once that information is available, and so it does not indicate backtracking. The controversial data was the uncalibrated data -- calibrated data is apparently quite useless for detecting either election fraud or improper sampling, since calibration forces it to match the reported vote count.
For transparency, I'd also like to point out that neither your sources nor mine are probably the best starting places to gain a thorough understanding of the controversy -- yours are just a couple of very short Wikipedia links about two polling consortiums, and mine is a possibly biased pdf created more than 3 years ago. I wasn't interested enough to thoroughly research the controversy and form an opinion on it 3 years ago, and I don't plan on doing it now, but I wouldn't rely on any of our 3 links if I were.
Slashdot Mirror
At the point in time you describe, it will be easy for Windows users to switch to Linux, and there will be incentive for them to do so since it is generally cheaper and they would have more apps available (all Linux apps plus Windows apps under Wine) -- that much I agree with. However, one could argue that developing for the Windows API would still be the bigger market, since developing for Windows would give you an application which would work on Windows or Linux-with-Wine. Until the size of the Windows-only customer base is smaller than the Linux-only-and-I-won't-or-can't-use-Wine customer base, there will still be incentive to develop for Windows. There may be other reasons to develop for Linux instead (ease of development, more plentiful developers, etc), but a bigger market is not one of them as long as you continue to account for Wine.
On the other hand, having an easy-to-use and easy-on-developers Linux API available on Windows does the opposite -- software companies could develop for Linux and get apps that target both the Linux and Windows markets, thus targeting a bigger market than just Windows.
For a class project, I once created a genetic algorithm to evolve a Reversi-playing algorithm (Reversi is also known as Othello). I coded the system not to be able to consider more than X moves in advance, because I wanted to prevent it from using "computer tricks" (i.e. I didn't want it looking farther ahead than a typical human could do with a moderate amount of practice). I tried playing with that number just to see what would happen, but I eventually left it at 4.
By the time I was done with my evolving system, it could evolve in 4 days (using 4 ~2Ghz Intel servers and an island genetic model, for those who know about genetic algorithms) an algorithm which could handily and consistently beat myself and all of my friends.
The interesting thing here is that I didn't even "initialize" it with a basic strategy or any personal training -- it started with randomly-generated strategies (most of which were no better than randomly placing pieces in legal squares). It then played against itself for those 4 days, learning through trial and error (as opposed to training by playing against a human). By the end, it had learned enough without human feedback that it could defeat a group of fairly intelligent (though not very practiced) humans at Reversi.
I never analyzed the generated programs enough to fully understand how they worked, but I did inspect them a little. Each evolved algorithm consisted of no more than 40 lines of C code (which called various global helper functions such as get_opponent_score(), get_self_side_pieces(), etc which I had created). By inspecting algorithms that were able to beat me, I actually learned a thing or two about Reversi strategy.
I can provide a couple more anecdotes. I used to bike commute 12 miles to work. I had 1 close call and 1 wreck, both times at the same location under similar circumstances involving rather normal sedans. In my experience, the problem has more to do with drivers not expecting cyclists and/or not having experience sharing the road with cyclists.
Both times, the road was empty aside from myself and the car, and the problem occurred because the driver was turning right at a T intersection where I was going straight. They had a stop sign and I did not; they simply didn't pay enough attention to realize that even though I wasn't a car, I was still going ~20mph -- I think they saw an empty road aside from me, and just failed to think about how fast I was approaching the intersection. One driver pulled out in front of me so close I lost control and fell off my bike while trying not to run into the car, the other actually hit me in the side as they pulled out. Luckily, in the second case the car wasn't going very fast yet, so when I was hit I fell onto/against the hood of the car, and then I rolled off the hood and fell onto the road as they braked. I had some cuts, scrapes, and bruises, nothing serious.
The first car came back to check on me, the second stopped immediately and called 911 before I even had a chance to tell them I was fine, so in neither case would I say the accident happened because the driver didn't "give a flying fuck about anyone else on the road".
From Princeton's wordnet via google search, condemnable means "bringing or deserving severe rebuke or censure". GP was saying something along the lines of laughing at someone for losing money buying an SUV (when you feel doing so deserves severe rebuke)
You also question the use of the term sociopath. Wikipedia indicates the term "sociopath" is loosely defined, and can mean, among other things, someone with "antisocial personality disorder". Let's look at the diagnostic criteria for that one: Three or more of the following are required:
- Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
- [...]
- [...]
- Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
- Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
- [...]
- Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
The post in question, if taken literally, does have elements of those 4 criteria in my opinion, especially 4 and 7 (though I assume the post was merely flamebait, and not literal). Since 3 criteria are necessary for diagnosis, I think it's accurate to call that post borderline sociopathic, again if taken literally.Perhaps, in lieu of making copies of itself, it just dupes articles about itself on /.
Since you want me to take it off, it must work! That is, unless that's what you want me to think, and it actually acts as a locator so you can more easily trace my position. Or perhaps it's all a ruse to distract me from noticing something else even MORE sinister....
Yes, it's all becoming clear to me now. I'm on to you!
I'm not the original posted of the 1/3 number, but I had it in my head too, and I thought I read it someplace reliable. I searched my browser history and tracked it back to this article, which I read a few days ago. It's in the New York Times, but it's an Op-Ed piece and it says "nearly a third" not "one third" as I recalled.
So, I guess this is why it's always best to cite your sources. It's a small but very significant step from "a reliable source said 1/3" to "some op-ed piece in the NYT said 'nearly a third'".
You're aware that "criminals" are primarily investigated under local government, not federal government, yes?
Yes, but most criminals aren't going to be worth the time and expense for this sort of data recovery. Among those that are, I bet a higher proportion are within FBI jurisdiction than the general mass of criminal investigations.
The NSA certainly could have the capability to do this [...] organizations like the FBI do not have this capability.
You seem to be making a lot of statements as if you have 100% confidence. Unless you've got a Top Secret security clearance and you work for the FBI or the NSA in this area, the truth is that you just don't know. What's to say the capability wasn't developed by the NSA and then given/traded/contracted to the FBI?
Look, I'm not saying I'm confident the FBI has this capability, or even that I think it's likely; I'm saying that while you seem to think it is absolutely impossible, I see plenty of reason to think it might be possible. Maybe it's just my inner skeptic being aggravated by absolute statements, but it seems pretty silly to say unequivocally "the FBI can't do this".
If they can do something no one else can do, something that no one else even knows is possible in practice, you think they're just going to tell everyone? Yeah right. If they can do it, that fact would be classified. That's modus operandi for the US government (except when they're trying to show off). For something to be used against criminals and terrorists, you can bet your bottom dollar they'd keep it secret, in hopes that will lull people into lax security.
I'd also be willing to bet that, whether they've done it or not, they've spent more time and money on trying to do it than every other company, university, hacker, and law enforcement group combined; the fact that no one else can do it doesn't convince me they can't.
Ok, I can see where you're coming from, though I would argue that your problem is more with the American political system as a whole than with the Republicans and Democrats in particular. On the other hand, Republicans and Democrats are the ones put in power by the current system, and are therefore extremely resistant to any significant change to the way the system works (for fear they won't have as much power in the new system).
Yes, American politics are broken. Is there an easy way to fix it? No, not really. I fear that things will have to continue getting worse until discontent precipitates a revolution. Unfortunately, that won't happen any time soon, as we Americans (as a whole) have become far too apathetic and content with economic prosperity; a large proportion of people won't be spurred to action until they can't afford the materialistic distractions they've become used to.
And every politician get busted for that type of stupid words. Like CLinton for her Bosnia, like Obama for "bitter". Should i continue?
Remember how I said "Therefore I think the continuation of this meme is based more on a mistake of wording than on intentional misrepresentation of his merits."? I think it's perfectly fine that he got some bad press for it at the time. Clinton's Bosnia and Obama's bitter are both less than a few months old; there's no real comparison there. People will get over both those things in a couple years or less, I can almost guarantee it. On the other hand, people still haven't gotten over Gore's misstatement almost 10 years later.
The difference is the public wave of left-wing defence for Gore inthe epizode not particularly hurting his carrier.
It didn't particularly hurt his career? Given that he was so close to winning the 2000 election, I think it's hard to say so confidently that the attention paid to the episode didn't hurt his career -- lots of people think Gore's an idiot just because of that episode. The lefties would have voted for him anyway, and the righties would have voted for Bush anyway. But the swing voters, the moderates and independents, who were convinced he's an idiot because of that one misstatement, they might have made the difference between him being president and him being just another also-ran. It's stupid that elections are won and lost based on those sorts of things, but they are (at least in the US).
By the way, as a Muslim I despise equally both of the idiotic parties.
Great, at least we can agree on something. I think big time politicians in general are mostly power-hungry, dishonest, superficial elitists. (The rest are probably unrealistic idealists at best.) Those in the big two parties tend to be group-think bureaucrats in addition.
Though I have to add that I don't really see what being a Muslim has to do with thinking both the Democrats and Republicans are losers. Maybe I just don't have a good understanding of typical Muslim political interests.
Finally, a lefty acknowledging his screw-up. [...] That was some pathetic apology of Gore.
Um, what? That wasn't supposed to be an apology. You really show your bias when you acknowledge that I agree Gore screwed up, but then assume that just because I didn't hold to the right-wing talking points I must be a "lefty" Gore apologist. Here's a bit more info on that.
Here's a clue: Some people don't hold 100% to either "lefty" or "righty" talking points without critically analyzing them. Some people actually listen to what both sides say (though most of us probably disregard at least 95% of what they hear from boths sides as lies and/or posturing).
The point is not that he "stuttered" or "make a mistake". Yeah, right...
Ah, but it is. It's pretty ridiculous to think that Gore tried to claim he is personally responsible for creating the Internet. When you actually look at the context, it becomes pretty clear (to me, at least) that he probably tried to claim only that he was personally responsible for promoting the creation of the Internet, or even only that he was a legislative leader in promoting the creation of the Internet. I think it was a mistake of wording that it came out one way and not the other -- I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here, because it seems so much more reasonable than the alternative. If he had said "I took the initiative in promoting the creation of the Internet", then it all would have been forgotten long ago. Therefore I think the continuation of this meme is based more on a mistake of wording than on intentional misrepresentation of his merits.
Did you ever hear politicians making an opposite mistake of not mentioning their "merits"?
That's exactly my point -- every politician does this sort of thing. The only reason this particular exaggeration gets so much attention is because of the additional mistake made in expressing it. Get. over. it. Or, make as big a deal as possible over anything the "other side" does by viewing it in the worst possible light, even when there's a more reasonable explanation. That's politics as usual, I suppose. You "righty"s do it just as much as the "lefty"s.
In context, it's quite clear that he doesn't think he "invented" the Internet, which is what the meme says/implies. He thinks he was instrumental in helping get the Internet going, and as a legislator, he was. The fact that he stutters a little and used a bit of unfortunate wording while responding to an unexpected question doesn't change that.
This wasn't a prepared speech, this was a live interview. Have you ever said something that came out the wrong way? That's all that happened here, get over it.
If people no longer feel the need to shop at brick-and-mortar record stores because they want MP3s rather than CDs (which often force them to buy songs they don't want along with the ones they do), then brick-and-mortar record stores will find staying in business difficult. That doesn't mean you can't make money selling music, just that you have to change your business model -- sell MP3 singles instead of CD albums.
How's iTunes doing? Are they struggling to stay afloat as well, or is business doing fine?
... I present the Penny Arcade comic about that game.
You don't have to live in Arizona for cost of the extra cooling to outweigh the gain from the extra heating -- I actually live in Kentucky, where the humidity makes cooling harder on A/C systems than similar temperature air in Arizona would be (since it tends to be very dry there).
Though I agree, if you live in Alaska, for example, this is a non-issue.
Then, during summer, don't forget to count the fact that those incandescents are generating waste heat, which most people counteract by running their A/C unit harder. Granted, in the winter you are saved a little on your heat bill by incandescents (in comparison to running CFLs just as long), but I imagine the cooling cost will outweigh the heating savings by a good margin.
4) (some other circumstance "X" => bad scientist) AND (some other circumstance "X" => more drinking)
For example, there is a strong correlation between eating ice cream on a given day and drowning on that same day; this is true because eating ice cream and swimming are both activities more likely to occur when spending a hot day outside, particularly while vacationing; the correlation is not the result of causation one way or the other, but neither are they unrelated -- both stem from a common cause.
Also, I would ammend 1) to say "they are unrelated, and the correlation is either a result of bias in the testing methodology, or merely a coincidence", as "they are unrelated" does not, by itself, explain the correlation.
People generally have this set of ideas about what rights they have with regard to anything they consider "their property"; these ideas were largely developed with tangible property in mind. When those preconceived ideas don't mesh well with a new category of "their property", it may be easier to convince them "this new stuff (IP) isn't really property, and therefore doesn't automatically get the rights you associate with property" than to convince them "this new stuff (IP), while still your property, isn't subject to the same rules as your other property". This may seem like an unimportant semantic difference to a thoughtful and intelligent person, but in practice minor semantic differences can greatly affect popular acceptance of an idea.
Or, to put this more succinctly, the spin you put on the idea can make a world of difference when you're trying to persuade someone to change their mind.
A small tweak could help fix that -- allow the seller and buyer to each leave feedback, but keep feedback hidden until after both have left their feedback, or until the window for leaving feedback has ended, whichever comes first. That way even the seller from your example would get bad feedback; not leaving feedback for the buyers would only grant them a window where the feedback isn't visible.
Ironically, for a compressed-air engine, the opposite is true -- releasing compressed air naturally produces cool air (which is generally how A/C units work, I believe). So, cooling is much more efficient for this sort of engine than the alternative -- burning fuel to produce electricity to power a compressor. You may not even need a fan, since you already have air moving in this design.
Since this car would have both an internal combustion engine and a compressed-air engine, I would guess you can get either heating or cooling fairly cheaply. I do agree with the rest of your post, however.
However, the pdf link I found and posted earlier seems to provide a very different explanation for the changed statistical weighting, so your new information may not be quite as supportive of the improper sampling theory as it seems. Check out page 3, the section titled "Calibrated and Uncalibrated Exit Poll Data". Apparently, it is standard procedure to change the statistical weighting of the exit data to match the reported vote counts once that information is available, and so it does not indicate backtracking. The controversial data was the uncalibrated data -- calibrated data is apparently quite useless for detecting either election fraud or improper sampling, since calibration forces it to match the reported vote count.
For transparency, I'd also like to point out that neither your sources nor mine are probably the best starting places to gain a thorough understanding of the controversy -- yours are just a couple of very short Wikipedia links about two polling consortiums, and mine is a possibly biased pdf created more than 3 years ago. I wasn't interested enough to thoroughly research the controversy and form an opinion on it 3 years ago, and I don't plan on doing it now, but I wouldn't rely on any of our 3 links if I were.