Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:As someone who grew up disadvantaged (Score 1) 337

Uhm... okay, so care to explain to me how you know all the kids at the library are rich?

It's the designer sneakers, iPhones, and the glow of good nutrition and medical care.

Go out on the street and see what you can tell about the people who walk by from what they wear and the appearance of nutrition and medical care. It's pretty easy.

Comment Re:Background and the real issue (Score 1) 337

Allowing states to block issuance of lifeline broadband to the poor influences how they vote, whether they get jobs, and many other aspects of their lives.

Some providers just got ordered to disconnect their poor customers and let those customers wait for the states to provide them another way to connect - or more likely for the states to not provide them a way to connect.

Comment Re:Background and the real issue (Score 1) 337

Yes. If you had some variant of Condorcet as the voting process, you would have cast a valid first choice for Stein and a second choice for Clinton, and perhaps Clinton would have gotten the same number of votes overall but not more, and Stein would have had a fair chance

The proposition here that I have a problem with, however, is that Trump would have gotten more votes if some people were convinced that those votes did not matter. He would at best have gotten the same amount of votes, and other conservative candidates would have had at least a fair chance against him if they didn't win.

Comment Re:Background and the real issue (Score 1) 337

Supression of the Black vote is well documented, and doesn't particularly concern the race of the Black people, but the fact that they tend to vote Democratic and are an easy target for suppression because they are already disenfranchised and poverty-stricken.

If the Republicans suppress someone's vote, they can not shield themselves by saying that anyone who fights it is accusing them of racism. They have to face the well-documented evidence that those votes have been suppressed, and continue to be suppressed.

Comment Re:The law has changed since 1934 (ie 1996) (Score 1) 337

I think the problem that chairman Wheeler was trying to solve was states that attempted to block all provision of broadband service under the universal service rules. I'm still trying to figure out why a state would ever deny an internet provider permission to be a lifeline provider. It can't be a profit-maker for those internet providers. It can't be that there aren't poor people who need service in the provider's area, or there would be no lifeline business. It can only be that the state did not wish for there to be broadband at all under the universal lifeline rules.

Comment Re:Background and the real issue (Score 1) 337

Without electoral weighting, lots of people who don't bother to vote now because it is pointless (like in my state) would be up at the crack of dawn, in line at the polling places, waiting their turn to cancel out the votes of bicoastal pricks or flyover hicks.

You can't really have it both ways. Without the electoral college, the popular majority would be the list of counties here and we know how those counties voted. This would not have biased the election further in Trump's favor.

Comment Re:You may not like this (Score 2) 337

No, the founders who raped their slaves were not Democrats. The founders had a "Democratic-Republican" party, which is also referred to as "Jeffersonian Republicans" or "The First Republican Party" and isn't the Democratic party, and the other party at the time was the Federalist party.

Each of the amendments started out with the decision that the intent of the founders wasn't going to matter any longer. Any future amendment must do so as well.

Democrats fought to keep slavery, and they fought to prevent women from voting.

Well, that's really bad. But the Democrats wisely decided to stop doing those things. In the years that the Democrats cut their ties with the segregationist portion of Southern voters, spanning from the Goldwater to the Nixon campaigns, the Republicans took them up. So we're now in the position that the Republicans are the political heirs of the 1964 Democrats. So having taken over the bad stuff the Democrats used to do, you are not in a good position to revile us for our past sins.

Comment Re:Background and the real issue (Score 2) 337

We have no idea what would have happened if the election had been done by different rules.

Actually, we do. We counted the votes, and not just the Electoral College votes, but the votes in every district across the entire country.

If you are trying to say that people would have voted differently if the rules for counting votes were different, that might have been true if the rules gave the people a different way to actually influence the vote, for example the Condorcet method or its variants that are commonly called "ranked choice" or "instant run-off".

But you seem to be saying that the popular vote would have been substantially different if there was no electoral college. Which is difficult to buy given the polarity of this election. There wasn't much middle ground.

Slashdot Top Deals

You cannot have a science without measurement. -- R. W. Hamming

Working...