An elected official egregiously voting against the interests of the people, of demonstrating a far greater loyalty to campaign contributions than to votes. The point being to punish those politicians who consider voters secondary to donors, and to tolerate politicians who consider donors secondary to voters. Ie to remind politicians where the true power lies. And "tolerate" doesn't necessarily mean voting for, it simply means returning to voting on a politician's stance on issues when neither candidate warrants punitive voting.

There is no need for a single issue, just a consensus as to how the politician ranks voters vs donors. And keep in mind we don't need agreement of 99%, just enough to remove a person from office. Hell, it might take nothing more than people stopping to vote loyally for their party. To just be perfectly willing to vote against their party's officials when those officials are obviously bought and paid for.

Nothing new here. Climate Change was identified as a global destabilization factor long ago by the US military. Crop failures, droughts, flooding, etc leading to mass migrations and the conflict and strife that will arise our of these migrations.

Absolutely correct. The true currency of politics is votes not money. Its still a one person one vote system, not a one dollar one vote system. The 99% actually have the power, they just fail to use it.

Money is just a tool to persuade the indifferent voters and money's influence is magnified by party loyalty. If you are loyal to your party you are irrelevant. Your party can ignore you because they have your vote, the other party can ignore you because they can not get your vote.

There is a simple way for the 99% to regain power. Punitive Voting. If a candidate misbehaves or egregiously fails to act in the best interests of the citizenry then vote against that candidate. Period. No exception. It is only through punitive voting that voters can teach politicians to fear the voters wrath.

Want example of punitive voting, look at the most powerful lobbies in the country. The NRA and the AARP. They do not control politicians through money, they control them with their literally millions of members who *will* show up on election day and vote punitively if the politician have voted against the lobby. This is why Democrats who never accept a single dollar from the NRA will vote the NRA's way. They fear the NRA membership (and like minded folks). This punitive voting scheme needs to be used on a larger scale by the public at large.

If a sufficient number of voters have decided to remove a candidate from office no amount of campaign contributions can save the candidate.

Note that this is a long term strategy. It relies on a darwinian process. Politicians need to be seen as losing office due to large scale punitive voting. Only them will they adapt and the 99% regain control.

If you think there is a quick solution, an easy fix, you have been deluded by the status quo. Its going to take time and the longer we delay the farther off regaining control is.

I'm not saying there is no parallelism in pattern/template matching, just probably a lot less relative to low level primitives like edge detection.

Far above "the level of individual neurons". Its conceivable that an individual neuron may be triggered by the magnitude of an edge, or the orientation of an edge. This is something that can be massively parallel. Now the matching of a collection of edges to a template, that could conceivably be paralleled -- testing some number of templates in parallel, but that would be something less massive than edge detection. I think this template matching, say collection of edges == cat, is getting to the point where its fair to speak of cognition. I don't want to defend the paper itself, but the notion that things at the cognition level are only modestly parallel is something plausible.

You are having a massive "woosh" moment. One person, one vote. The 99% ***have*** the power, they just fail to ***use*** it. I realize that you have been indoctrinated with this notion that we are powerless but you really need to step back and think about this. Seriously, what is so hard to grasp about the concept that it **is** one person one vote, it **is not** one dollar one vote. No one is preventing the 99% from exercising this power other than the 99% themselves.

Are they making this conversation go away? Do they stop conversations between you and family and friends? Classmates, coworkers, neighbors?

You are not following what I have said. In a punitive voting scheme you vote against the incumbent who misbehaves or drifts too far from the interests of the people, period, no exception. It is only the certainty that a large block of voters will vote **against them** in the next election that adjusts their behavior. Again, this is **exactly** what the most successfully lobby groups in the country do, the NRA and the AARP. Democrats who do not accept NRA money will still not support gun measures opposed by the NRA due to punitive voting. Punitive voting works. It just needs to be used on a wider scale by the ordinary citizenry.

Once the occurrence of punitive voting is recognized a darwinian effect will take place. Politicians will fear going t far astray since not amount of campaign contributions can save them. Only when the politician stays in bounds does positions on issues come into play. This is the price for regaining control.

The system is currently rigged but you have completely misdiagnosed it. It is loyalty to a political party that makes the system rigged. If you are loyal to a party then they can ignore you because they have your vote, and the other party can ignore you because they can not attain your vote. This is the simple truth. This is what enables politicians to focus on things other than the voter's wishes.

A vision system has multiple tasks to perform, low and high level tasks. The edge detection and motion detection that you describe are primitive feature extraction operators, low level tasks. Cognition, the interpretation of these features that allows the building of a model of what is being seen is something very very different, a high level task.

For example determining the magnitude of an edge and the direction of an edge by looking at a pixel and its immediate neighbors is a very simple mathematical operation. And because of the locality of the inputs, pixel and immediate neighbors, it lends itself to massive parallelization. Interpreting a large number of edges over perhaps a large part of the field of view to recognize the immediate environment using a memory of stored models and templates has completely different computational requirements and an entirely different opportunity (or relative lack of it) regarding parallelization.

If you say there is a strong likelihood after quickly visually scanning the boundaries of all the districts, then OK. :-)

If you want to say that X districts are gerrymandered after you take a look at their boundaries I'll accept that.

If you want to say X districts are gerrymandered after comparing statewide election results to the popular votes I'll reject that. Its not that simple.

Those natural and reasonable boundaries are not being used.

Well it is a historical fact that they were entirely male, and they had an important role in the creation of a nation.

So you are taking one of "those" classes in college :-). There is absolutely nothing inherently fascist about revering a "hero". "Heroes" of both sexes exist, of nearly all political schools of thought, of nearly all philosophies, of nearly all disciplines of science, or nearly all the arts, etc.

That is what a mob often is. Surrendering yourself to a charismatic leader(s) or to group thought.

And sophomoric political advocacy and debate as well. :-)

Aggregating/disaggregating voters based on social factors is an absolutely natural thing to occur when determining district boundaries using logical and reasonable methods. It is a big assumption on your part that these natural groupings should balance out. The world is far more complicated than that. Town and county lines and such do not necessarily map very well onto neighborhoods, business clusters, etc. Perhaps they did a couple of hundred years ago but today in much more heavily populated areas these natural boundaries are more often just lines on a map, a historical governmental administrative boundary. The boundaries defined by every day life and business are too fluid and changing in relatively small amounts of time.

Of course gerrymandering is a problem, re-read my first post.

The fancy electronics they are worried about are outside the ship, beyond their control, the GPS satellites. Electronics on board the ship are an entirely different story.

A non-gerrymandered congressional district, one with logical and natural borders -- say a town or county line, may split a cluster of people with like minded politics. Therefore you can't assume any such split is inherently gerrymandering, which is implied by your methodology.

Furthermore your notion that ideal districting preserves political blocks is flawed. Political blocks change with respect to locality, people migrate, neighborhoods evolve, etc.

However the most egregious assumption you have is that political affiliation and popular vote have some sort of 1:1 relationship. You are assuming that people vote strictly for their party's representatives. A district may be 55% Dem and 45% Rep, and the outcome of an election may be a Rep candidate with 55% of the vote. The outcome being the result of a large number of Dems voting for the Rep candidate.

I could go on but I think the point is made.

Thanks for the clarification, we now know your numbers are entirely bogus.