Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Anything but the proper solution (Score 1) 34

> Why not just build the proper infrastructure with what we know works?

I tried to do this locally. The government allows the pole owner (electric or telephone usually) to charge $50/mo/pole to the startup that wishes to hang wires.

The owner pays $5/mo in property taxes to the town.

There are exceptions for large corporations that are in the state's good graces.

It's just to keep competition limited to the cartel.

Short answer: corrupt government.

Comment Bye [Re:Make congress bigger? [Re:Approval vot...] (Score 1) 179

It is you who jumped from there to "you're an authoritarian!", not me.

What IS your alternative to self-government that is not some form of authoritarian.

You're not paying attention. What I said was that it is not beneficial to compel people who don't want to vote to do so anyway. Somehow you mutated that into "let's take away self-government!"

This is characteristic of your arguments: you take what I said, immediately jump to something different, and then shoot at that straw man.

I don't see that this discussion is going anywhere, since you seem to be primarily interested in not listening to anything. My thread was about the mathematics of voting, and you have hijacked it to be a platform for your ideas that it's important to make people vote whether they want to or not, that legislatures should be enormously huge, and that anybody who tries to analyze these ideas in any way is necessarily "authoritarian".

OK, those are your opinions. You're expressed them. I'm done. Bye.

Comment Re:Make congress bigger? [Re:Approval voting or R. (Score 1) 179

That's correct.

It is you who jumped from there to "you're an authoritarian!", not me.

The assumption that all people are perfectly rational is contradicted by vast amounts of actual experience. It would be nice to live in an ideal perfect world, but we don't.

And your logic fails. The objective is to find a system that works as well as possible in a world including imperfect people. Your core logical jump "if people are imperfect then autocracy must be the only possible solution!" (because autocrats can't be imperfect?) makes no sense.

Comment Re:Make congress bigger? [Re:Approval voting or R. (Score 1) 179

When I said that it is disadvantageous to try to make people who have no interest in voting to vote anyway, you immediately jump to "you are an authoritarian !"

No.

That's not what I said.

What I have been saying is that there are mathematically better ways of voting, but "force everybody to vote!" isn't one of them.

Comment Re:Good Idea (Score 1) 91

A guy I knew had an early Model S.

When he wanted to impress me with the acceleration he tapped a couple settings on the screen to put it into Ludicrous Mode

This was around 2013 or so.

I'm not seeing how this is a problem.

I have a V6 and a V8 truck and both need a manual low gear selection to take off like a rocket. OK, the V6 not so much but the V8 can spin the rear tires in 2WD mode.

I don't let the average drivers in my life use it.

They would hit a tree if they were given a Tesla that was always in Ludicrous Mode.

Comment Make congress bigger? [Re:Approval voting or R...] (Score 1) 179

This would tend to increase the number of apathetic voters, rather than knowledgable voters.

The typical voter is able to identify their own interests.

Why would you think that? Most voters are ill-informed. You want to forcing the ones who currently don't bother to even spend one hour going to the polls to vote? So, you want more votes from people who are guaranteed to not spend time learning about issues.

There isn't some group with better knowledge of those interests. In the current process people don't get any rational information because no one is trying to persuade them with reason.

That won't change.

...
there's no way 6,800 people could have a reasonable discussion.

You think congress is making decisions based on "reasonable discussion"? That is a complete fantasy.

Because congress has too many people.

Not too few.

Comment Wire (Score 1) 8

I'm not sure if Wire has new management but I just recently learned they've gone fully open source, are working on federation, and are using an RFC-specified tree-based efficient group chat encryption algorithm. RCS is eventually meant to adopt the same algorithm.

Folks using Telegram Groups (which are unencrypted, actually) might have a look. Yeah, somebody needs to run a server if you don't want intelligence agencies to provide one for you.

I uninstalled Wire years ago when they wouldn't take privacy seriously (yeah, I filed a bug) but it seems like a second look is warranted.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The voters have spoken, the bastards..." -- unknown

Working...