An individual's laptop that was never even connected to the grid had some OMG malware
Are you familiar with Stuxnet?
You're aware there is a whole class of espionage that is aimed at causing harm to airgapped systems... And get this- it's been successfully done... by us.;)
Fuckheads, every one of us. Lol. How fucking ignorant can you be?
You have the hubris to call things you are too lazy to fix your ignorance of implausible or false? Do you understand how fucking useless this makes you as a voting citizen? You are literally one of the ignorant ass individuals that caused a significant portion of the founders to be afraid of letting everyone vote.
Oh, because you're a liar. The post didn't say that. He said "The US People preferred Clinton"
In a plurality voting system, that is in fact the case. Now, in the hypothetical situation where you want to turn it into what the majority wanted, anyone but Clinton, it renders the point you're trying to make void by pointing out that a *larger* majority voted AGAINST any other candidate. I poked a hole in your balloon full of hot air. Don't be so defensive over it- your point was shit to begin with.
You seem to think in a hypothetical situation wither California seceded, that "The USA" would consider the hill people of rural California theirs enough to fight over. I suspect that not to be the case. Now the Californians- they need water. They'd definitely be willing to fight over it.
It's the closest you can get to a quite- it's minute notes from the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention. Those notes are about James Madison, and include both a summary of his views, and quotes of what he said. I'd love to get the full speeches of everyone there- but sadly those do not exist. There are only notes from various people present (including Madison himself)
That is not, and never was the intention of the US Electoral system.
Use your head- how could it be when things like pledged electors are allowed? It has been a proxy for the popular vote for practical purposes, every election (that states actually held popular votes for)
To quote James Madison, the guy who basically invented the fucking system:
If it be a fundamental principle of free Govt. that the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers should be separately exercised, it is equally so that they be independently exercised. There is the same & perhaps greater reason why the Executive shd. be independent of the Legislature, than why the Judiciary should: A coalition of the two former powers would be more immediately & certainly dangerous to public liberty. It is essential then that the appointment of the Executive should either be drawn from some source, or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the Legislature. This could not be if he was to be appointable from time to time by the Legislature. It was not clear that an appointment in the 1st. instance even with an eligibility afterwards would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted. He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
A majority of Electors pledged to the result their state Legislature demands they be pledged to cast a vote for Trump. That system says *nothing* about the preference of the US people. The preference of the US people is only represented by the popular vote, by definition.
A correct way of saying it could be, A majority of states had pluralities in favor of Trump. But that, again, is no testament whatsoever of "The US people"
In short- you're wrong.
And I'm not arguing that the system is wrong, though I do have an argument on that topic, I'm just saying you yourself are wrong.
Our electoral system does *not* reflect the favor of the US people. Most of the time, it serves as a decent enough proxy for that, but it is not that.
I noticed you didn't use the phrase "people voted".
I remember this time, back in the 1800s, when the Americans sat there and just threw Massachusetts at the indian tribes. Or wait... maybe it was *people* from Massachusetts... With guns.
Your power isn't derived from the amount of land you sit on, friend. There is a de jure piece of law that allows the amount of land you sit on to have an electoral advantage- but the last time the people who benefited from that law rose up against the larger group of people, they lost. Really fucking badly.
CA would split if it tried to leave, most of the land and almost all of the water would stay in the USA.
I suspect you'd find that the overwhelming amount of capital and manpower would in fact prove your assertion to be stupid as fuck.
I get it that population density is shit out in the sticks, but it isn't amount of owned geographical terrain that makes power. Ask Russia. Or Canada.
The US is a group of 50 states with completely separate governments, ideals, constitutions. My point is that the ideals and size of the state of California account for the entirety of the difference.
100% true. It's more than just California, though;)
My state, Tennessee, is VASTLY different than California.
Sure is. And if the South still held slaves, you'd be very happy that the 3/5ths Compromise were still in place with the non-independent elector system. After all, it gives you more of a voice than one of those dirty Californians, which is important when your voting population is such a small chunk of your actual population. Smaller groups of people with power will invoke any logical fallacy to hold onto it.
Everybody is using a popular vote argument like the country is united against Trump, which is not accurate.
No, they're using the popular vote to say that a plurality of Americans are united against Trump, which is 100% accurate. A lot of people are extending that as an argument that the former 3/5ths Compromise Elector system has outlived its purpose, and has only been tolerated this long because it servers as a relatively stable proxy for the popular vote. An opinion that many people in Tennessee had before Nov 7. An opinion that almost-fucking-everyone has whenever their side has a close popular outcome and is trounced electorally. We all know the truth- that the EC is horse shit, outdated, and can't even legitimately be argued to serve the purpose you like to claim it serves when electors are pledged to state election outcomes- it's just that everyone is willing to be dishonest about that truth whenever their side slides in through the loophole.
Nobody is saying his win is illegitimate. It isn't. He won, by the rules. They're stupid rules, rules made to account for the fact that a large political bloc in the union had more slaves than voters, and they weren't going to play ball unless they had a larger voice than they were owed, but they are in fact the rules.
Are those three things enough to make up for the difference in votes? We don't have a way to measure those things accurately, but they surely played a big role. I work in SF, and the majority of the people I discussed politics with either didn't vote or voted Trump. The majority of the non-voters were afraid to vote Trump for fear of being blackballed.
And this is not easily attributable to selection bias? The fact that your acquaintances may be similarly braindead?
Here, let me try this one on- my friends in TX don't know anyone who voted Trump (after all, who'd admit to that?) ergo, Texas must be rife with voter fraud. Surely. Big role. Huge role.
Fucking geniuses everywhere. I can't believe we didn't elect a demagogue sooner.
Tell you what, you remove California from the voter rolls, and i'll remove an equivalent population worth of states that voted red from yours.
Come on, dude, people need to be smarter than this. You can't go around in polite society and make arguments that fucking stupid.
Shit logic.
Particularly in the domain of dirtiness that is the real concern, altering flux areas in the carbon cycle.
Certainly true that today, to make "clean" energy, one is largely stuck using "dirty", but this becomes less the case every single day, and will only continue becoming less the case as we progress in the direction we're progressing.
And frankly, the sun is a pretty free fucking lunch.
The "Are Bird's Dinosaurs?" debate, was absolutely a topic of argument for a century and a half,
Citation? I think that "debate" is an urban myth. Probably from too many of us having read Jurassic Park.
Sure, there were debates about where exactly they fit (theropods? crocodilians?) but Archaeopteryx isn't a new discovery, and was immediately recognized as some kind of link between dinosaurs and birds. I think it's fair to say that birds have *always* been considered some kind of evolutionary branch of Archosaur, with the extant groups being birds and lizards, at least for as long as we've had Darwinian evolution as a theory.
and trying to delegitimize the incoming administration is exactly that
No, it's not. No more than trying to deligitimize the *current* administration. (Damn, what will we do without Rush and Fox News???!!!)
Anything about those actions construed as rendering aid or comfort to enemies (as defined by who... you?) is nutso fascist horseshit.
You don't get to decide who enemies of the state are and what constitutes rendering them aid, because... well, nobody fucking cares about your jackass opinion.
Saurischians are dinosaurs, dinosaurs are saurischians. Birds are saurischians. Birds are dinosaurs.
Since the publication of The Origin of Species, and the flurry of evolutionary classification that took off after it, birds have been recognized as some kind of Archosaur or another. Birds have always been known to have been dinosaurs.
Reminds me of an Outsider Planetary Drive from Known Space. I always thought to myself, "If these things can turn a planetoid into relativistic shrapnel, they've got to make one hell of a signal for distant radio telescopes when they pop..."
That word... I do not think it means what you think it means. His passages about Jesus are also widely believed to be forgeries inserted by the Church later on.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you said a lot more about your own age than you did about Apple's market share...
The big problem: a lot of good people at Geek Squad get besmirched for the actions of some greedy fellow employees.
But I'm sure some of them are great people. Better build a wall around them.
I'm always suspicious of single parenthesis. Why'd the other leave?
An individual's laptop that was never even connected to the grid had some OMG malware
Are you familiar with Stuxnet? ;)
You're aware there is a whole class of espionage that is aimed at causing harm to airgapped systems... And get this- it's been successfully done... by us.
Fuckheads, every one of us. Lol. How fucking ignorant can you be?
You have the hubris to call things you are too lazy to fix your ignorance of implausible or false? Do you understand how fucking useless this makes you as a voting citizen? You are literally one of the ignorant ass individuals that caused a significant portion of the founders to be afraid of letting everyone vote.
Oh, because you're a liar. The post didn't say that. He said "The US People preferred Clinton"
In a plurality voting system, that is in fact the case. Now, in the hypothetical situation where you want to turn it into what the majority wanted, anyone but Clinton, it renders the point you're trying to make void by pointing out that a *larger* majority voted AGAINST any other candidate. I poked a hole in your balloon full of hot air. Don't be so defensive over it- your point was shit to begin with.
You seem to think in a hypothetical situation wither California seceded, that "The USA" would consider the hill people of rural California theirs enough to fight over. I suspect that not to be the case. Now the Californians- they need water. They'd definitely be willing to fight over it.
It's the closest you can get to a quite- it's minute notes from the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention. Those notes are about James Madison, and include both a summary of his views, and quotes of what he said. I'd love to get the full speeches of everyone there- but sadly those do not exist. There are only notes from various people present (including Madison himself)
And your neighbor is nice enough to not just... take... your water.
Use your head- how could it be when things like pledged electors are allowed? It has been a proxy for the popular vote for practical purposes, every election (that states actually held popular votes for)
To quote James Madison, the guy who basically invented the fucking system:
If it be a fundamental principle of free Govt. that the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers should be separately exercised, it is equally so that they be independently exercised. There is the same & perhaps greater reason why the Executive shd. be independent of the Legislature, than why the Judiciary should: A coalition of the two former powers would be more immediately & certainly dangerous to public liberty. It is essential then that the appointment of the Executive should either be drawn from some source, or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the Legislature. This could not be if he was to be appointable from time to time by the Legislature. It was not clear that an appointment in the 1st. instance even with an eligibility afterwards would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted. He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
Fuck you and your made-up history.
A majority of Electors pledged to the result their state Legislature demands they be pledged to cast a vote for Trump. That system says *nothing* about the preference of the US people. The preference of the US people is only represented by the popular vote, by definition.
A correct way of saying it could be, A majority of states had pluralities in favor of Trump. But that, again, is no testament whatsoever of "The US people"
In short- you're wrong.
And I'm not arguing that the system is wrong, though I do have an argument on that topic, I'm just saying you yourself are wrong.
Our electoral system does *not* reflect the favor of the US people. Most of the time, it serves as a decent enough proxy for that, but it is not that.
based upon how large swaths of territory voted..
I noticed you didn't use the phrase "people voted".
I remember this time, back in the 1800s, when the Americans sat there and just threw Massachusetts at the indian tribes. Or wait... maybe it was *people* from Massachusetts... With guns.
Your power isn't derived from the amount of land you sit on, friend. There is a de jure piece of law that allows the amount of land you sit on to have an electoral advantage- but the last time the people who benefited from that law rose up against the larger group of people, they lost. Really fucking badly.
CA would split if it tried to leave, most of the land and almost all of the water would stay in the USA.
I suspect you'd find that the overwhelming amount of capital and manpower would in fact prove your assertion to be stupid as fuck.
I get it that population density is shit out in the sticks, but it isn't amount of owned geographical terrain that makes power. Ask Russia. Or Canada.
The US is a group of 50 states with completely separate governments, ideals, constitutions. My point is that the ideals and size of the state of California account for the entirety of the difference.
100% true. It's more than just California, though ;)
My state, Tennessee, is VASTLY different than California.
Sure is. And if the South still held slaves, you'd be very happy that the 3/5ths Compromise were still in place with the non-independent elector system. After all, it gives you more of a voice than one of those dirty Californians, which is important when your voting population is such a small chunk of your actual population. Smaller groups of people with power will invoke any logical fallacy to hold onto it.
Everybody is using a popular vote argument like the country is united against Trump, which is not accurate.
No, they're using the popular vote to say that a plurality of Americans are united against Trump, which is 100% accurate. A lot of people are extending that as an argument that the former 3/5ths Compromise Elector system has outlived its purpose, and has only been tolerated this long because it servers as a relatively stable proxy for the popular vote. An opinion that many people in Tennessee had before Nov 7. An opinion that almost-fucking-everyone has whenever their side has a close popular outcome and is trounced electorally. We all know the truth- that the EC is horse shit, outdated, and can't even legitimately be argued to serve the purpose you like to claim it serves when electors are pledged to state election outcomes- it's just that everyone is willing to be dishonest about that truth whenever their side slides in through the loophole.
Nobody is saying his win is illegitimate. It isn't. He won, by the rules. They're stupid rules, rules made to account for the fact that a large political bloc in the union had more slaves than voters, and they weren't going to play ball unless they had a larger voice than they were owed, but they are in fact the rules.
Are those three things enough to make up for the difference in votes? We don't have a way to measure those things accurately, but they surely played a big role. I work in SF, and the majority of the people I discussed politics with either didn't vote or voted Trump. The majority of the non-voters were afraid to vote Trump for fear of being blackballed.
And this is not easily attributable to selection bias? The fact that your acquaintances may be similarly braindead?
Here, let me try this one on- my friends in TX don't know anyone who voted Trump (after all, who'd admit to that?) ergo, Texas must be rife with voter fraud. Surely. Big role. Huge role.
Fucking geniuses everywhere. I can't believe we didn't elect a demagogue sooner.
Tell you what, you remove California from the voter rolls, and i'll remove an equivalent population worth of states that voted red from yours.
Come on, dude, people need to be smarter than this. You can't go around in polite society and make arguments that fucking stupid.
Yes, and a larger majority of voters voted ABT ;)
Shit logic.
Particularly in the domain of dirtiness that is the real concern, altering flux areas in the carbon cycle.
Certainly true that today, to make "clean" energy, one is largely stuck using "dirty", but this becomes less the case every single day, and will only continue becoming less the case as we progress in the direction we're progressing.
And frankly, the sun is a pretty free fucking lunch.
The "Are Bird's Dinosaurs?" debate, was absolutely a topic of argument for a century and a half,
Citation? I think that "debate" is an urban myth. Probably from too many of us having read Jurassic Park.
Sure, there were debates about where exactly they fit (theropods? crocodilians?) but Archaeopteryx isn't a new discovery, and was immediately recognized as some kind of link between dinosaurs and birds. I think it's fair to say that birds have *always* been considered some kind of evolutionary branch of Archosaur, with the extant groups being birds and lizards, at least for as long as we've had Darwinian evolution as a theory.
* it's funny how "Americans" (not from the entire continent!) use only USA as example of "a country" :P
To be 100% fair, unless you're from just a few places, either your population, or your land mass makes you more akin to a "State" for us.
and trying to delegitimize the incoming administration is exactly that
No, it's not. No more than trying to deligitimize the *current* administration. (Damn, what will we do without Rush and Fox News???!!!)
Anything about those actions construed as rendering aid or comfort to enemies (as defined by who... you?) is nutso fascist horseshit.
You don't get to decide who enemies of the state are and what constitutes rendering them aid, because... well, nobody fucking cares about your jackass opinion.
Please- don't breed. Or teach constitutional law.
Fuckwit.
Saurischians are dinosaurs, dinosaurs are saurischians. Birds are saurischians. Birds are dinosaurs.
Since the publication of The Origin of Species, and the flurry of evolutionary classification that took off after it, birds have been recognized as some kind of Archosaur or another. Birds have always been known to have been dinosaurs.
Reminds me of an Outsider Planetary Drive from Known Space. I always thought to myself, "If these things can turn a planetoid into relativistic shrapnel, they've got to make one hell of a signal for distant radio telescopes when they pop..."
Since the source is so far away, the original emissions could have been higher up in the spectrum.
Shit! Good point- I bet the authors forgot to factor GR and Hubble constants into the calculations. You should send them an email....
Actually, the technical definition of signal requires no intelligent generation. It is merely a waveform that can be distinguished from noise.
Contemporaneous accounts of Jesus' life
That word... I do not think it means what you think it means. His passages about Jesus are also widely believed to be forgeries inserted by the Church later on.