We didn't find any big problems with the electronic voting machines! Only a few small glitches! Isn't that great!?!
No. No its not. That not only says that you don't know if there were big problems, it means that you don't understand the concepts behind the problems we're worried about.
Oh and this problem of about 10,000 people who probably didn't abstain in Florida, isn't the worrisome kind. Because we can tell that something may have gone awry.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Activate Stealth Driving Mode.
Forget about having to install tracking software in your car; pretty much everyone in the country is already carrying a tracking device. While it might be a good idea to re-purpose existing technology, how do we toe the line between privacy and the common good? It would be very useful to be able to track traffic on a large scale, and we have the technology currently in place. No lane counters or morons in helicopters needed. But we also value anonymity in this country, something that you probably assume your phone company respects. But I can't help thinking that a program will soon be monitoring my speed and mailing me a ticket. That would technically satisfy my beef about speed cameras not providing ubiquitous enforcement, but I think I'm smart enough to turn my phone off when I drive. At least after the first five or six tickets.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Feline BASE Jumping.
You learn something new every day. Sure, cats always land on their feet, but did you know that enough of them do it from buildings that there's a term for it? "High-rise syndrome" is meant to describe the propensity for cats to pounce or slip from great heights to the ground below. And by great heights, we're talking up to forty-six stories. Obviously at extremes the higher a cat is, the less his chances are. But there's an interesting phenomenon at about the sixth story. It seems less dangerous for cats to fall from sufficient heights because it takes them about 2 seconds to orient themselves. Its pretty much the drunk driver survival tactic, because the cats with more time can relax after getting their feet down. So go look for your cat cause they might fair better than you'd expect after a swan dive.But the take-home lesson here is close your damn sliding door; cats can't fly.
Stop The Presses!
Get the BBC on the Phone! We've gotta tell people about this. Britney and what's-his-face are splitting. Or something. I haven't been this broken up since Nick and Jessica started banging other people. *sniff* Why Britney, why?
Dammit, I could have used those braincells to learn Italian. I guess my only option is to try and take them out with a laser-guided precision beer strike.
Dammit, I could have used those braincells to learn Italian. I guess my only option is to try and take them out with a laser-guided precision beer strike.
Feline Disobedience.
Well that was fun. Everyone get a chance to feel like a responsible citizen? I'm actually kinda proud of Maryland; since we've been using these new fangled machines for a while we know how to turn them on and actually have an election. Unlike the folks in Cleveland or Hartford.And the poll workers' touch screen voter database seemed like a nice improvement. Last time I worked a poll we had a box of cards with people's names on them; which worked great until someone didn't have a card. But when I told the poll workers that I needed a provisional ballot, they just looked up my old address and confirmed where I live now, printed me out a ticket and sent me over to the paper ballot corner. See, I've stumbled onto a non absentee ballot paper alternative, just rock out the provisional ballot. So no, I didn't make a big fuss about having to use a flawed and unconformable device.
But some people did. Like a guy in PA who (might be a little crazy) smashed his Diebold machine with a metallic cat paperweight. It doesn't really destroy any of the votes, but it does say 'I don't like this'. Maybe next time three people will do it. In harmony. And they may think its a movement - the smash a diebold with a metal cat movement. And all ya gotta do to join is just sing it the next time it comes around on the guitar...
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Water Power Update.
I can't believe how many ideas there are for getting electricity from water movement. Wait; yes I can. I can't believe how few of them we use. Tide, current, wave, and different mechanical implementations for each. Add these to the list:New Diesel: Better Than New Coke. It Has To Be.
(Update: Ultra) low sulfur diesel sounds pretty badass. Its sposed to be 97% cleaner than diesel 'classic'. Which is so high it makes me skeptical. There are 8,000,000 trucks, buses and cars in the US that will benefit from the formula. Its pretty much like when they rolled out unleaded gas
in the 70's.The initiative started under the Clinton administration and wasn't fucked up by the Bush administration. Ten years in the making and we finally have new diesel that cut emissions in any diesel vehicle by 10%. Combining this fuel with new diesel technology produces an astonishing 95% reduced emissions. Combine these reductions with the fact that diesel engines have always been 20-40% more efficient than gas engines and you should start seeing why this is so great. Get excited even if you'd never buy a diesel car, because everything you consume is transported by diesel engines. Cutting emissions at any level is great news for everyone.
Fatal Over-Seasoning.
Strange New Products is in rare form. First there's this shotgun shell seasoning idea. No, its not just a new Ronco flavor injector for the lazy; its actually for hunting. Why kill with lead that you might bite into, when you could down that bird with garlic and honey mustard? Imagine if Dick Chaney'd been using this.
Next we've got poop soap. Just in case you like rubbing turds all over yourself, but want to be cleaner afterwards. Or maybe these are like those special guest soaps; only out for special occasions.And lastly we've got a metal basket that you're sposed to strap onto your car window so your dog doesn't jump out. The inventor, Sue Stipanovich, saw a dog's head sticking out a truck window and was "shocked" into creating a $250 laundry basket with door straps. I'm not saying that some dogs aren't stupid enough to jump out the window of a moving car. But are there people stupid enough they can't keep the window closed enough to contain their little shnookums?
Monday, November 06, 2006
Mathematicians Claim To Solve Party Problem; Only Reveal That They Have No Idea What Happens At Parties.
Alright, fine, its just the article that mentions parties, the math guys are talking about cake. They claim to have a new and better way to divide something up. Basically you give everyone half of what they "value most" and continue to value and divide the cake in that fashion. I really hope I'm missing something
First off it relies on numerically quantifying desire, or I spose being able to prioritize your needs. Secondly, what happens if two parties want some mutually inclusive portion? Maybe someone likes to look at cakes cause they're pretty and I like the moist center. Does looking at half a cake still provide half the aesthetic appeal they originally desired?
Someone likes the flowers on top of the cake, while I value the entire cake (lets say for its roundness or weight) do they get half the flowers while I get half the cake? (everything they got and half a cake) And then we go on to divide the remaining flowerless half of the cake, right?
Or if some valuable attribute is intertwined with another? Sometimes its infeasible to separate real elements. I just want the butter from the cake and nothing else, that'll pretty much just ruin it for everyone else, if you could even find a way to appease me.
What if I wanted to be the only one with a flower because I wanted to feel special, or corner the flower market and sell my property at high value because of its small supply? Giving me half the flowers gives me zero bargaining position.
Finally this isn't actually a means for cutting the cake into the necessary portions, who's to say that their flowers won't have some of my frosting on them by mistake? If we could cut perfect pieces, then everyone would get an physical equal share. But we can't and this system is supposed to fix that problem by distributing pieces of varying content; but it doesn't propose any method for ensuring precision of allocation.
What if what I value most is screwing the other people out of their desires? (because it usually is)
Mostly, by the end of all this rigamarole, no one has any interest left in cake.
Alright, the cake is just a metaphor that I'm beating to death. This is supposed to be sued to divide anything up. How about I take the Solomon route and talk about a child custody hearing? Obviously we're not cutting up children; we could divide his time though. But what if a parent's motivation is to provide a stable environment, or to start a new life? Again half of what they want is not valuable to them.
The article mentions that this concept could be used in dividing land or water, but how can we expect this to apply when there are so many reasons it might fail? The premise might succeed when used on parallel concepts, but people can place value in so many things that you might never be comparing apples to apples.
First off it relies on numerically quantifying desire, or I spose being able to prioritize your needs. Secondly, what happens if two parties want some mutually inclusive portion? Maybe someone likes to look at cakes cause they're pretty and I like the moist center. Does looking at half a cake still provide half the aesthetic appeal they originally desired?
Someone likes the flowers on top of the cake, while I value the entire cake (lets say for its roundness or weight) do they get half the flowers while I get half the cake? (everything they got and half a cake) And then we go on to divide the remaining flowerless half of the cake, right?
Or if some valuable attribute is intertwined with another? Sometimes its infeasible to separate real elements. I just want the butter from the cake and nothing else, that'll pretty much just ruin it for everyone else, if you could even find a way to appease me.
What if I wanted to be the only one with a flower because I wanted to feel special, or corner the flower market and sell my property at high value because of its small supply? Giving me half the flowers gives me zero bargaining position.
Finally this isn't actually a means for cutting the cake into the necessary portions, who's to say that their flowers won't have some of my frosting on them by mistake? If we could cut perfect pieces, then everyone would get an physical equal share. But we can't and this system is supposed to fix that problem by distributing pieces of varying content; but it doesn't propose any method for ensuring precision of allocation.
What if what I value most is screwing the other people out of their desires? (because it usually is)
Mostly, by the end of all this rigamarole, no one has any interest left in cake.
Alright, the cake is just a metaphor that I'm beating to death. This is supposed to be sued to divide anything up. How about I take the Solomon route and talk about a child custody hearing? Obviously we're not cutting up children; we could divide his time though. But what if a parent's motivation is to provide a stable environment, or to start a new life? Again half of what they want is not valuable to them.
The article mentions that this concept could be used in dividing land or water, but how can we expect this to apply when there are so many reasons it might fail? The premise might succeed when used on parallel concepts, but people can place value in so many things that you might never be comparing apples to apples.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)