Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: sucks but as of now someones gotta do it (Score 2) 305

This would be an incorrect statement and you're basing it on a bill Pence signed into law.

This bill reclassified various criminal offenses, including "providing false information to a clerk of the circuit court" from a Class D to Level 6 felony. It didn't create any new crimes or make the crime in question any harsher.

The "crime" of applying for marriage licenses came about from the fact that the online method of applying for marriage licenses did not permit you to select male-male or female-female as a combination as the website was created in accordance with the Indiana law that made marriage between people of the same gender illegal. Thus you had to select one spouse as male and one as female. No one has ever been jailed or even prosecuted for doing such a thing so that claim falls short as well. This crime is not specific to homosexual couples as it is with regard to giving the court false information. A couple that submitted the male spouse as female and the female spouse as male would also be equally guilty of the crime. Perhaps the more damning point against your claim that "A bigot who once made it a criminal offense for gays to apply for marriage licenses" is that homosexual couples could still apply for marriage licenses without breaking the law in question by using the paper form and crossing out the male or female section and writing in the appropriate gender.

But hey, whatever, thanks for perpetuating a falsehood to push your own narrative and belief.

Comment Re:Free Motorcycles (Score 1) 295

It depends a lot on your accounting. A 20-year-old dumbass male might expect to have around 60 years ahead of him, most of which will be time spent in good health.

From an accounting perspective I would not credit the dumbass male any post retirement years (assume 67+) which are primarily consumptive years rather than productive and I would assume that organs would be targeted towards people who are in the age range of 16-50 (16-45 in the case of liver) to maximize the productive life of the organ transplanted. A 20 year old dumbass male would thus have lost about 46 productive years. In turn you get two kidneys (10 yrs each), 1 heart (10 yrs), 1 liver (20 yrs), lungs (5 yrs each) for a total benefit of 60 years of organ life bringing us to a net +14 years and we haven't even accounted for the rarer pancreas, or small intestine transplants. Then there's the whole topic of tissue transplants with heart valves, skin, corneas, bone, tendons, and other tissues.

Comment Re:Valuation and network effects (Score 1) 151

There are only so many drivers and cars to go around and they are going to tend to gravitate towards the company which is most likely to have the biggest user base. ...

Frankly the self driving car thing is nothing but a pointless distraction from building their network as far as I can tell.

I'm going to disagree with your assessment that self driving technology is a distraction. As you said, getting more players onto Uber is far more valuable. I don't think Uber is looking to make the capital investment into a fleet of self-driving cars but rather that they're looking at self-driving technology as a means to secure more drivers once self-driving vehicles become mainstream. If a driver has a self driving vehicle and has a choice between Uber, which allows him to send out his self-driving vehicle to earn money for him when he doesn't need to use it, or Lyft, which will only pay him when he's driving, I would believe the driver would select to use the Uber platform.

Comment Re: Liberals Can't Win Elections (Score 1) 858

Ok, ok, so you're about to say that you meant a victory. Well, guess what? Implementation of the Wyoming Rule AND proportional award by population in a state gets Hillary a win.

Adding extra electoral votes based on the Wyoming method ends up with 110 extra electoral votes of which Trump gains more than half. Distributing the electors within the state proportionally (Representative + Senator electors) based on the Wyoming rule results in the following.

Hillary (310), Trump (301), Johnson (18), Stein (2), McMullen (10). There is a deficit of 7 here, which is likely caused by rounding but with 648 electors you would need 325. If you distribute the electors granted by representatives proportionally and the state winner gets the extra two then you end up with the following results Clinton (310), Trump (313), Johnson (12), Stein (1), McMullen (10) with a deficit of 2. In neither case would either candidate secure the 325 necessary electoral votes to avoid going to Congress. Puerto Rico, since you brought it up, would inject another 7 or 9 electoral votes and bring the threshold up to 328 for 7 and 329 for 9. If Hillary had acquired the remaining balance on the rep+senators proportional and all of Puerto Rico's electoral votes then she would have sat at 324 of 328 or 326 of 329. And yes, she secures 270 electoral votes here but any sane person would be able to view in context and realize that 270 meant electoral college victory and would turn to 325 under the Wyoming rule.

There are plenty of distribution methods where Hillary fails to secure the electoral majority. You won't find a method that gives Hillary an electoral victory without somehow tying that to winning the popular vote nationwide. Anything proportional is going to give third party candidates enough electoral votes deny an electoral victory precisely because she failed to secure a majority of the popular vote and failed to secure a majority of states.

As to the other options you're talking about moving from a plurality to majority voting system, which is fine but as we don't actually vote that way you'd have to analyze and estimate the preferences of voters to determine who would have won. Such a system would also necessarily eliminate the electoral college, unless you're employing it to determine how you appropriate electors, in which case it would be outside the scope of my comment on how Hillary has little chance of an electoral college victory.

Comment Re:Liberals Can't Win Elections (Score 1) 858

If every state distributed its electoral votes like Nebraska and Maine which is probably the most reasonable way to express both the interest of the people and the states in the President then Trump would have still secured the 270 electoral votes required. I have heard of no configuration of the electoral college that would resulted in Hillary securing 270+ electoral votes without going with the "winner of the popular vote gets all the electoral votes" scheme.

Slashdot Top Deals

It's a poor workman who blames his tools.