prev <-> next
[2015-04-02 18:43:29] - a: that analogy comes up a lot, but I think an important distinction, is that a lot of those previous discriminatory practices were not just sanctioned by government, but in a lot of cases, mandated. Considering the rapid progress that is being made against government mandated discrimination for gay couples to be married, does whether a photographer wants to shoot
[2015-04-02 16:54:31] - of course. i like to think of gay couples as parallel to interracial couples. if it's something most people would consider illegal regarding interracial couples, then (IMO) it should be illegal regarding gay couples. sure, some find gay weddings objectionable, but go back far enough and there would be many that would have found my wedding objectionable. ~a
[2015-04-02 16:21:20] - services to wedding ceremonies they find objectionable. That's not persuasion, that's force, and force tends to be the anti-persuasion among those who are on the receiving end of it." -mig
[2015-04-02 16:20:20] - "The bad news, for those of us on the suddenly victorious side of the gay marriage debate, is that too many people are acting like sore winners, not merely content with the revolutionary step of removing state discrimination against same-sex couples in the legal recognition of marriage, but seeking to use state power to punish anyone who refuses to lend their business
[2015-04-02 16:19:22] - a: http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/02/burn-her-she-would-act-like-a-witch-in-a I'm curious about your thoughts on the following passage... - mig
[2015-04-02 10:37:31] - mig: That was last week, though. I was just late to the party. Also, apparently my birthday is #NationalClevageDay. I wish I'd known this. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-01 22:47:03] - xpovos: the sjws are on the warpath this week. - mig
[2015-04-01 21:24:20] - Really? Have they played their games? http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fable-dev-apologizes-for-cleavage-tweets/1100-6426223 -- Xpovos
[2015-04-01 11:14:21] - mig: "a daily 1/2-1hr ritual in which they mindlessly cheer the affirmation of their own beliefs" "fair and balanced / we give you both sides of the story / we report, you decide" vs "fake news" ~a
[2015-04-01 10:31:07] - As the resident racist white right-winger, I can say I've been amused by the Trevor Noah bits I've watched. I was actually going to link to one of his stand-up routines a few days ago as it was relevant to a conversation of the day, though I forget the context now. -- Xpovos
[2015-04-01 09:50:41] - You can see it in the first Salon headline praising Noah's hire, basically saying, "Oh boy, those racist white right wingers are going to get so mad at Noah!" - mig
[2015-04-01 09:33:39] - It's sort of sad because it does seem that a lot of progressives seem to view Stewart and TDS in the same vein as a lot of conservatives view people like O'Reilly and Hannity: a daily 1/2-1hr ritual in which they mindlessly cheer the affirmation of their own beliefs. - mig
[2015-04-01 09:31:55] - paul: What really amused me was Salon and Vox immediately hailing Noah's hire and then starting to wonder if he'll be fired before he even does his first show once the tweets became a story. - mig
[2015-04-01 09:22:23] - daniel: he's set to host once Stewarts contract runs its course. I'm unsure of when that happens. Couple months I think? - mig
[2015-04-01 09:19:33] - Is he hosting TDS already? I haven't watched an episode in a bit. -Daniel
[2015-04-01 09:19:21] - I didn't think those tweets were that bad. -Daniel
[2015-04-01 09:18:13] - paul: well except not really, since it seems like most of the outrage about Noah seems to be coming from progressive minded folks. - mig
[2015-03-31 22:52:53] - mig: http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/31/new-daily-show-host-trevor-noah-already Surprised you didn't use this link. It touches on the whole "Team A / Team B" dynamic that I think you hate.
-Paul[2015-03-31 15:25:08] - https://support.google.com/gmm/answer/6178227?p=insert_coin&rd=1 google maps lets you play pac-man now! i couldn't get it to work out in the suburbs, but it works near the whitehouse - aaron
[2015-03-31 15:12:39] - a: that could be quite a problem. A big part of Stewart's success was in his delivery. - mig
[2015-03-31 14:18:07] - mig: i actually don't think he has very good comedic timing. honestly, i wish they'd just end the daily show. otoh, i think most of those tweets are pretty funny, but that's because i have a pretty crude sense of humor. ~a
[2015-03-31 12:37:25] - Looks likes Hearthstone on phones alpha made good progress. Datamined strings from the latest patch indicates new pack rewards for playing on the new platforms, just like previous new platforms. I'd assume that means they're close to release. -- Xpovos
[2015-03-31 11:25:47] - http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/03/new-daily-show-host-under-fire-for-tweets-204788.html?hp=r4_4 I suspect at some point in the not to distant future, all comedy will be outlawed (unless the target is a conservative white male). We can't be hurting people's precious f-e-e-l-i-n-g-s. - mig
[2015-03-30 14:20:26] - two federal agents in silk road case face fraud charges. is theft a subset of fraud? for some reason i always thought it was not. anyways, corrupt cops have now turned to stealing bits. ~a
[2015-03-30 13:00:06] - another interesting thing is that Clinton has been asked if his opinions on gay rights has changed, but not whether he regrets signing RFRA into law specifically. Or DOMA for that matter. - mig
[2015-03-30 12:43:06] - "team bonding trip to Vegas" hah, i think you need to reconsider your plan already.
~a[2015-03-30 12:38:37] - Actually I'm kind of surprised there isn't some sort of movement to repeal RFRA given the role it played in the Hobby Lobby case. - mig
[2015-03-30 12:34:21] - the laws they supported are still on the books though. And as far as I know there isn't a big outcry to repeal RFRA (that I know of). - mig
[2015-03-30 12:16:16] - http://time.com/3762708/indiana-gay-religious-pence-clinton/ "Obama, Clinton have backed similar religious-freedom bills". I do, however, think the press secretary had a good point when he said, "Look, if you have to go back two decades to try to justify something you are doing today, it may raise some questions about the wisdom of what you’re doing". -Paul
[2015-03-30 10:02:17] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/03/27/jury-finds-no-discrimination-against-ellen-pao-in-case-that-captivated-silicon-valley/ url pretty much says it all. - mig
[2015-03-29 22:41:56] - For the record, Amazon's job application form seems to define Hispanic/Latino (apparently they consider them the same) as "Persons of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race"... which I think just confuses me more. -Paul
[2015-03-29 20:25:04] - a: Yeah, I agree, I just can see how it can be sort of a bummer to some people, and it seems like it could be a hard thing to control. Sponsor a team bonding trip to Vegas where the group is 90% women, get the drinks flowing, and it seems impossible that somebody doesn't eventually say something inappropriate. -Paul
[2015-03-29 11:16:10] - mig: i read the first few paragraphs but i still have no idea what he did. ~a
[2015-03-29 10:11:33] - i didn't read your link, but i've been thinking about your question a lot since then. if it's a work event, you invite everybody. if your conversation topic will make someone there uncomfortable you pick a different topic. seems simple enough. if you want to be able to talk about whatever shit you want, don't make it a work event? ~a
[2015-03-29 09:58:49] - paul: on tuesday you posted a link about a court case and some of your thoughts on the link: "I guess the question I have is whether there is any way a company can have some event for it's employees where they are allowed to cut loose and talk about stuff like the playboy mansion and porn stars without it being sexist/illegal/wrong/etc?" ~a
[2015-03-27 12:28:28] - http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/as-questions-mount-mcauliffe-and-hillary-clintons-brother-stay-mum-116407.html?ml=ri what was the over/under I had on a McAuliffe cronyism scandal again? - mig
[2015-03-27 09:47:15] - or my mistake, i think it's actually a system of 125,000 linear equations with 999 variables. hey who wants to solve a system of 125,000 linear equations for me? it'll be fun - aaron
[2015-03-27 09:46:39] - http://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/30elcb/can_you_think_of_an_algorithm_for_picking_three/ people came up with two solutions to my 1-999 problem: one involves arranging the number into a set of 333 unique triples (impressive!) and the other involves solving a system of 999 linear equations (ouch) - aaron
[2015-03-26 23:57:59] - a: Resume is done. I've started sending it out.
-Paul[2015-03-26 17:57:10] - don't overthink the resume. (i tried once to work with some dude looking for a job and it took years to get his damn resume). just fuckin' send it out today. ~a
[2015-03-26 16:59:38] - I'm working on my resume now, but if anybody knows of any openings at their company (or anywhere) that they think I might be a good fit for, please let me know. Thanks. -Paul
[2015-03-26 16:59:11] - Also, it case word hasn't spread, the reason I'm looking for new employment is because I was laid off as part of a restructuring at Learning Tree, so there is a little more urgency than normal.
-Paul[2015-03-26 16:55:53] - a: Only if you wanted to help me win.
-Paul[2015-03-26 16:37:11] - politics, jesus christ, we'll have to password-protect the message board history. ~a
[2015-03-26 16:35:21] - a: My plan is to update my resume and cast a wide net to see what's out there. Assuming I don't decide to go wild and jump into politics or starting my own business, then I hopefully plan to find a decent-paying job close by that I can do fulfilling work at.
-Paul[2015-03-26 15:51:13] - xpovos, i always thought you did computer related stuff on the side, but i guess i was just making that up in my head. anyways, i added "pretty much" for just such a situation.
~a[2015-03-26 15:50:16] - daniel: he is seeking new employment opportunities. ~a
[2015-03-26 15:50:12] - a: I'm not in IT!
-- Xpovos[2015-03-26 15:45:24] - a / paul: Whats happening on facebook?! I could check but try to avoid it at work. -Daniel
[2015-03-26 15:34:20] - paul: oh my, i read on facebook! what's your plan? have you sent your updated resume to your network? a/mig/xpovos/aaron/daniel/g/nina/amy/vinnie/dewey/pierce/dave/etc? it's (maybe?) weird that pretty much everybody on the message board does stuff in IT? ~a
[2015-03-26 14:34:14] - daniel: yeah, that was my thought. that's where i thought, "let's shuffle a giant deck of cards numbered 999 in such a way that the top three cards add up to 1500, and so do the next three and the next three." but, i'm worried that's solving the problem by creating another different, more difficult problem
- aaron[2015-03-26 14:33:15] - xpovos: so, total it should be about 55,750 unique triplets. (i think it makes a pyramid shape, going up slowly from 1 to 125 and crashing back down to 251. it's a bit of a guess but i'd be surprised if it was incorrect) - aaron
[2015-03-26 14:32:20] - xpovos: there's 249 triplets with the number 3 which don't involve numbers under 3, 312 triplets with 125 which don't involve numbers under 125... and only one triplet involving 250 which don't involve numbers under 250... no triplets involve 251 without numbers under 251. - aaron
[2015-03-26 13:35:55] - aaron: My point is to limit your set of possibilities to only those triplets where the numbers are evenly spread out. Not the complete set of triplets. Though perhaps that just moves the problem to how do you come up with that set... -Daniel
[2015-03-26 13:01:48] - aaron: Redundancies? E.g. (333 + 666 + 401) is equivalent to 6 other possibilities (401 + 333 + 666). That definitely reduces it, but to 75K? -- Xpovos
[2015-03-26 12:45:19] - xpovos: on the bright side it's much fewer than 1500^3 possibilities, it's probably closer to 75,000 - aaron
[2015-03-26 12:43:09] - xpovos: likewise for the numbers 1-999, there's about 250 triplets with the number 1 (1-500-999... 1-501-998... 1-774-775), but about 500 triplets with the number 500 (1-500-999, 2-500-998... 499-500-501) - aaron
[2015-03-26 12:38:41] - xpovos: sorry, i lost myself there: there's one triplet with 1 (135) but two triplets with 3 (135, 234) so it's the same conclusion, even if my example made no sense. - aaorn
[2015-03-26 12:37:05] - xpovos: actually that doesn't quite work either, because the middle values are represented in more triplets. for example, when picking 3 numbers from 1-5 that add up to 9, there's only two triplets with 1 (126, 135) but four triplets with 5 (159, 258, 357, 456) - aaron
[2015-03-26 12:36:15] - Xpovos: Yeah I think thats what I was trying to say too. -Daniel
[2015-03-26 11:39:36] - aaron: I think if you want even representation you'll need to iterate all possible triplets that meet your criteria and then select randomly from that set. So that would be 1500^3 possibilities? 3.4B or so? -- Xpovos
[2015-03-26 11:36:56] - possible triplet comibinations. I think.... -Daniel
[2015-03-26 11:36:40] - aaron: I'm not sure the numbers are evenly weighted so I think if you are always choosing from the whole set of 1-999 I'm not sure it works out right. I think you could come up with a set of triplets that all add up to 1500 and contain an even sample of all numbers between 1-999 and choose randomly among those sets but I dont think the sets would include all...
[2015-03-26 11:13:04] - a: and xpovos is right, my algorithm actually isn't weighted evenly either, it's weighted but in a much goofier way. the numbers 1-333 are weighted evenly, then there's a little bell curve from 334-666, then another little bell curve from 667-999 - aaron
[2015-03-26 11:10:29] - a: i ran your algorithm 100,000 times. it should pick all numbers about 0.3% of the time. but, it picked edge numbers like "1" and "999" about 0.2% of the time, while it picked middle numbers like "500" about 0.4% of the time. your algorithm is weighted towards numbers in the middle - aaron
[2015-03-26 10:55:15] - actually, i take it all back! maybe i don't understand your problem, now. ~a
[2015-03-26 10:54:27] - in my algurithm all three numbers are as equally likely to produce 1 as 999. ~a
[2015-03-26 10:53:12] - aaron: you are incorrect. please read it again. it doesn't do what you think it does. ~a
[2015-03-26 10:45:23] - xpovos: i ran a test and it seemed to be weighted evenly. i pick the first number randomly (e.g 206), then i pick the second number among the remaining valid range of possible numbers (e.g 333-628) and the third number is predetermined... i'm not sure why that works out evenly, it's easy to demonstrate but hard to figure out - aaron
[2015-03-26 10:20:48] - aaron: Mathematically, that doesn't seem to be the case, but maybe there's some strange Monty Hall exclusion in play that I'm not seeing? -- Xpovos
[2015-03-26 10:18:02] - aaron: Sure, but is that actually true in the set of all answers? If you pick three random numbers (can they be the same number multiple times, btw?) most of the time it won't add up to 1,500... but in the subset where they do, are all numbers actually equally represented, or does 333 (e.g.) appear more often for some unknown reason. -- Xpovos
[2015-03-26 09:28:57] - xpovos: if they don't have to be evenly weighted, it's a much easier problem. but the problem i want to solve is, you want to pick three random numbers from 1 to 999 which add up to 1,500. you want all numbers to have an equal chance of being picked. - aaron
[2015-03-26 09:24:45] - aaron: Should the answers be evenly weighted? -- Xpovos
[2015-03-26 09:06:50] - a: but, you'll never ever get [300,301,899], the algorithm would never come up with that. so far it's the only algorithm i've been able to put into code which is evenly weighted among all values - aaron
[2015-03-26 09:05:43] - a: the most practical solution i'ive come up witih is just that you start by picking [0,333,666] for your triplet... that adds up to 999, so you add 501 randomly among those three values. so you might get [1,616,881] or [190,518,790] - aaron
[2015-03-26 09:02:08] - a: that algorithm still results in a bell curve distribution, because a lot of combinations of two low or high numbers, like [40,105,?] and [800, 915,?] have no possible triplet, while any combination of two middling numbers has a triplet - aaron
[2015-03-25 18:24:54] - i have some other solutions, but that one is the simplest (and slowest). ~a
[2015-03-25 18:21:46] - aaron: int i,j,k;for(;i=rand()%999+1,j=rand()%999+1,k=rand()%999+1,i+j+k!=1500;); just keep picking random numbers over and over again until the sum satisfies the 1500 requirement. ~a
[2015-03-25 15:47:01] - mig: Some things have restrictions to certain races or classes so maybe something was inquisitor only but its certainly not the rule. -Daniel
[2015-03-25 15:40:27] - daniel: maybe it was patched out? I remember creating a plate piece for one of my warrior characters and saw it was restricted to be only wearable by my rogue inquisitor and i haven't tried to do any crafting after that. - mig
[2015-03-25 15:39:09] - mig: Crafted items can only be used by inquisitor? ?? I crafted a lot that is used by others. I made a dagger for Sera and a Staff for Viv, armor for Dorian. I crafted lots of stuff for people. -Daniel
[2015-03-25 15:28:30] - Aaron: Oh, sorry. I missed that constraint. Bad reading comprehension. -Paul
[2015-03-25 15:13:01] - I'm not sure I bothered much with crafting, especially after I realized that any crafted item can only be used by your Inquisitor. - mig
[2015-03-25 15:05:17] - paul: you want to pick three numbers from 1 to 999 which add up to 1,500, it's stated in the constraints of the problem. 1,497 is not a valid choice - aaron
[2015-03-25 10:04:56] - a: Are you able to plan ultimate this weekend, or do you need me to do it? -Paul
[2015-03-25 10:03:18] - If I start dying more... then I might worry about it. -Paul
[2015-03-25 10:03:07] - Daniel: Well, I apparently did something this morning that I hadn't done before (maybe upgrading a weapon with a master rune?) because I got an achievement. I'm not too concerned with getting the best gear right now. Except for dragons, I've had no problem with any fights, so I'm more worried about being overpowered than underpowered. -Paul
[2015-03-25 09:57:07] - I was able to craft some stuff that was better than loot, but once I started to kill dragons it became pretty moot. Tier 3 stuff made with dragon bone is pretty strong though. -Daniel
[2015-03-25 09:39:49] - Second dragon (Crestwood) down. Next up is the Western Approach. Used Vivienne instead of Solas this time. Might try using Cole next time. Also, I crafted some stuff which was actually better than what I had. Who knew formal attire was actual good armor? -Paul
[2015-03-24 16:58:53] - Aaron: Although I do kind of like your method better. 1,500 is a small enough number that saving all the triplets would be pretty simple, right? -Paul
[2015-03-24 16:58:13] - aaron: Why couldn't it be 1, 2 and 1,497? -Paul
[2015-03-24 16:57:33] - paul: and for the gambling case, you could just pick the first triplet, then shuffle the numbers 1-999 again or something. it's really complicated to implement though, and sorting the numbers 1-999 into non-overlapping triplets is a surprisingly difficult task on its own - aaron
[2015-03-24 16:56:15] - paul: i don't think the algorithm works anyways. like if your two random numbers were 1 and 2 you'd be screwed too. i think one possible intuitive algorithm would involve like -- shuffling the numbers 1-999 like a deck of cards, and sorting them into triplets, that way each number would come up once, since you'd go through the deck once... - aaron
[2015-03-24 16:45:41] - aaron: Damn zero. Can we just create a special scenario for that case? Or is the whole thing too fundamentally flawed to bother trying to save? -Paul
[2015-03-24 16:29:16] - after doing some testing, the "naive algorithm" is biased towards middling numbers like 500. because for example, there are triplets with [500, 501] or [400, 401] but no triplets with [0, 1] or [998, 999]. so the middling numbers are more likely to come up - aaron
[2015-03-24 16:08:55] - paul: that algorithm doesn't always resolve, like if the random numbers i picked were 800 and 700... then i'd subtract 0 from the largest number and be kind of stuck... even if it did resolve, i'm not sure if it fixes the problem! i'm not even sure whether there's a problem in the first place, the "naive algorithm" might actually be unbiased - aaron
[2015-03-24 15:52:08] - Aaron: And if it's not, then... maybe you subtract the sum mod 1,500 from the largest number chosen or something? Does that make it non-random? -Paul
[2015-03-24 15:50:45] - Aaron: Could you use modulus somehow? Maybe pick a random number between 1 and 1,500. Then pick a second number between 1 and 1,500 and if the sum is less than 1,500, I guess you're set (with your third number being determined)? -Paul
[2015-03-24 15:48:25] - Daniel: I couldn't follow her logic at all about how the mages (who seem to mostly just want their freedom) are responsible for mass murder. And it's one thing to disagree with somebody's methods, but just because you disagree doesn't mean that person is incompetent... -Paul
[2015-03-24 15:45:40] - paul: yes, all three numbers have to be integers - aaron
[2015-03-24 15:45:36] - Daniel: But she also seems to be wildly prone to hyperbole. I was talking to her about grand enchanter Fiona and she kept going on about how Fiona was incompetent and had cast her lot with mass-murderers. -Paul
[2015-03-24 15:45:24] - daniel: when you say "move away from random", i'm not sure what you mean. i mean that if you were betting on which numbers would come up, and you bet on "1", you'd have as likely a chance to win as if you bet on "999". it's still random, in the same way a poker hand is random, even though certain cards are illegal (two ace of spades) - aaron
[2015-03-24 15:42:45] - Daniel: More seriously, it's because she's so snobby (I disagreed with her support of the circles and she started lecturing me about why I was wrong) and I do find myself mildly offended by her political stances (and this is coming from somebody who romanced the supposedly racist Ashley in ME). -Paul
[2015-03-24 15:41:25] - Daniel: Ah, you're one of THEM, are you? Yes, it's because she's a psycho, self-loathing fascist who wants to imprison all mages.
-Paul[2015-03-24 15:38:49] - Paul: Having Iron Bull and Viv both in my party made me chuckle on occasion. Why does she make you want to punch her? Is it because she points out the truth about mages and why they are crazy? -Daniel
[2015-03-24 15:38:44] - aaron: I assume the random numbers have to be integers? -Paul
[2015-03-24 15:37:26] - aaron: You want 999 to be as likely to show up in the results as 1? I think you are going to quickly move away from random in that case since 1 is going to be used in a lot more sets of numbers that add up to 1500 than 999. -Daniel
[2015-03-24 15:31:47] - because no matter what, the number 1 is an option for the first two random drawings, while the number 999 might often be eliminated as a choice from the second drawing. so i feel like the algorithm has to account for that in a weird way. - aaron
[2015-03-24 15:30:29] - the first thing that comes to mind is something naive like, "pick the first random number from 1 to 999, it doesn't matter. say it's 800. then pick your second random number from 1 to 699, and your third number is obvious." but, it seems like there would be a slightly reduced chance for numbers over 500, right? - aaron
[2015-03-24 15:29:12] - here's a math problem i haven't thought about very much: you want to pick three random numbers from 1 to 999 which add up to 1,500. you want all numbers to have an equal chance of being picked. what's your algorithm?- aaron
[2015-03-24 14:57:31] - Daniel: I can't stand Vivienne, and hardly ever bring her in my party. I want to punch her every time she opens her mouth. Maybe that's because I played as a mage in DA2 and DA3... -Paul
[2015-03-24 14:56:46] - Daniel: By necessity, if not design. He's using a two handed weapon and he doesn't have a ton of skills to attract attention, but he seems to work out okay as a tank. I generally prefer Cassandra or Blackwall as my tanks, but for some reason I always felt like Iron Bull was the guy to bring dragon hunting. -Paul
[2015-03-24 14:42:09] - Paul: Is Iron Bull a tank for you? -Daniel
[2015-03-24 14:41:31] - Iron Bull / Sera / Viv was my part first time I tried. Viv and I made it awhile but Sera and Iron Bull ate it way before Viv and I did. Once I switched to Varric / Dorian / Viv with me tanking it was easier. -Daniel
[2015-03-24 14:38:17] - Never felt like I was in trouble, although I did end up with one character downed and no potions left... -Paul
[2015-03-24 14:37:44] - Daniel: Thanks. I brought Iron Bull (he apparently loved being brought along, as I got approval once we killed the dragon), Sera and Dorian (my rogue and made with the best gear). My inquisitor is a knight-enchanter mage (meaning she can do ranged but is also super-comfortable fighting in close quarters too). -Paul
[2015-03-24 14:32:44] - Paul: Congrats, what party did you use to take it out? I tried a melee party first time around and it didn't go so well. Went better once I switched to a ranged party. -Daniel
[2015-03-24 14:13:12] - Also, in case anybody cares, I killed my first high dragon in Dragon Age: Inquisition this morning. The Ferelden Frostback in the Hinterlands. Going to try for the one in Crestwood next, I think. -Paul
[2015-03-24 14:12:31] - I thought the same thing as Daniel, so in my world Brazilians are hispanic and Spaniards are not. I use that term and latino interchangeably, although I would not be surprised at all if I was using one or both terms incorrectly. -Paul
[2015-03-24 13:07:30] - Latino seems to be a more proper term, but I also see objections to using that as a racial identification as well. - mig
[2015-03-24 13:06:08] - daniel: I've generally held to that definition, but it does seem some tend to use it as more of a cultural term, which is why you see it sometimes applied to Spaniards and why some people consider Brazilians (and I would assume Haitians as well) to "not count". - mig
[2015-03-24 13:02:49] - mig: I thought Hispanic was south or central america or descendant thereof but I also could be wrong. -Daniel
[2015-03-24 13:01:59] - Though they possibly could be if Brazil wasn't such an oddity amongst the Latin American countries. - mig
[2015-03-24 13:00:39] - paul: Brazilians I believe don't consider themselves "Hispanic" but do identify as Latino I believe. And yes, those terms aren't interchangeable. - mig
[2015-03-24 12:46:32] - mig: I was talking to Gurkie, and I made reference to people from Brazil being hispanic and she responded that they weren't because they didn't speak Spanish, which I thought was odd. -Paul
[2015-03-24 11:52:03] - the implication in this context I read this seemed to suggest to consider Latin Americans to be "white" because of partial European origins, something I find absolutely ludicrous. - mig
[2015-03-24 11:50:26] - So I've been introduced to the concept of "Hispanic is not a race", and I'm just utterly confused by it. I sort of get that because the term can encompass a wide swath of people including white europeans (though personally I've never considered Spaniards and Portuguese to be "Hispanic"). But then what are people who are of Latin American lineage such as myself? ...
[2015-03-24 10:07:12] - I guess the question I have is whether there is any way a company can have some event for it's employees where they are allowed to cut loose and talk about stuff like the playboy mansion and porn stars without it being sexist/illegal/wrong/etc? -Paul
[2015-03-24 10:05:38] - I'm not sure how to phrase what I'm thinking, but I thought it was interesting taking those two sentences together. Considering her statement about feeling uncomfortable with male coworkers discussing porn stars and the playboy mansion, apparently that partner was "right" in a sense that inviting women could "kill the buzz". -Paul
[2015-03-24 10:03:15] - and "She also testified that she felt uncomfortable on a plane ride with her male co-workers who openly talked about porn stars and the Playboy mansion." -Paul
[2015-03-24 10:03:09] - http://www.cnet.com/news/all-about-the-ellen-pao-kleiner-gender-discrimination-trial/#ftag=CAD590a51e "Her attorneys claimed one former Kleiner Perkins partner didn't invite women to the Gore dinner because 'women kill the buzz.'" -Paul
[2015-03-24 09:55:46] - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/we-know-where-youve-been-ars-acquires-4-6m-license-plate-scans-from-the-cops/1/ An interesting article about license plate readers in Oakland. -Paul
[2015-03-23 14:49:04] - paul: I did think it was really weird a university would require attendance to an overtly political event, but that clears things up. - mig
[2015-03-23 14:45:07] - mig: Ah, so apparently they weren't required to attend because it was Cruz speaking. I read that there is a weekly thing all students have to attend, and Cruz decided to announce his candidacy at one of those. -Paul
[2015-03-23 12:06:47] - paul: eh, maybe. But it might have looked really bad for Cruz if the university started strong-arming students more than they have already. - mig
[2015-03-23 12:03:28] - mig: If that's true, I'm a little shocked they didn't require them to change their shirts. -Paul
[2015-03-23 11:59:31] - speaking of compulsory participation, reportedly the students at Liberty were required by the school to attend the Ted Cruz announcement. - mig
[2015-03-23 11:58:13] - http://www.mediaite.com/online/hats-off-to-these-two-guys-wearing-stand-with-rand-shirts-during-cruzs-announcement/ lol. - mig
[2015-03-23 11:55:39] - I believe the writer of the article is libertarian-leaning, but it was written up in the generally left-leaning Washington Post... -Paul
[2015-03-23 11:55:09] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/20/jason-brennan-on-compulsory-voting/ An article theorizing what might happen with compulsory voting, it also agrees with my theory that non-voters tend to be less educated in politics. -Paul
[2015-03-23 11:49:20] - Looks like Ted Cruz is the 1st to officially announce he's running for president. The long terrible national nightmare of election 2016 looks like will finally begin. - mig
[2015-03-23 11:48:59] - I was reading an article and saw an interesting use of web development. As happens normally enough past the link to the comments thread there were 'suggested' posts and ads at the bottom of the page. But that wasn't the "bottom" of the page, I kept scrolling, and it kept generating more 'suggested' posts. I never did hit the bottom. -- Xpovos
[2015-03-23 11:29:29] - Aaron: The voting surrogate? Sure. Not in a serious way, because I'm sure it could easily be abused, and it seems like a complicated solution to a non-existent (or very minor) problem (for me), but sure.
-Paul[2015-03-23 11:23:43] - paul: okay is that our agreed compromise then? because i'm on board with it, it gets us the 95%-100% voter representation thing with the added vote shaming when you find out your mom voted for hillary clinton or whatever - aaron
[2015-03-23 11:23:25] - Aaron: So... that's a John Roberts way of saying that the fine would be somewhere between $12 and $120,000
-Paul[2015-03-23 11:22:35] - paul: the voting surrogate idea? it would be a fun programming problem anyway, i'm already thinking about how to solve it or what data structure i would use. man, with 400 million people!! how would i store it - aaron
[2015-03-23 11:21:45] - paul: or the compromise thing
- aaron[2015-03-23 11:21:39] - Aaron: Hahaha, I think that's awesome. Probably going to cause a huge host of problems and would never work.... but I love the idea. -Paul
[2015-03-23 11:21:37] - paul: or if that's not enough, you could hike taxes $30,000/person and every 4 years, you get a $120,000 tax credit. or some number in between - aaron
[2015-03-23 11:21:01] - paul: i was envisioning you just hike income taxes like $3/person and every 4 years, if you vote, you get a $12 tax credit - aaron
[2015-03-23 11:20:38] - Aaron: Because that's one of the biggest hangups for me. Mandatory only works if there is a punishment for not doing it, and I have a really hard time stomaching any sort of law that would punish people who don't want to wait in an line for hours just to say "I don't care". -Paul
[2015-03-23 11:20:26] - paul: okay how about no mandatory voting BUT when you turn 18, you register a voting surrogate. and if you don't register to vote, you automatically vote in tandem with your surrogate, or their surrogate, or their surrogate and so on until someone voted - aaron
[2015-03-23 11:19:50] - aaron: Well, what would be the penalty for not voting under your mandatory voting idea? My concern is that those same people we were worried about before (those too busy to vote despite caring) are now going to be fined in addition to not voting... -Paul
[2015-03-23 11:17:56] - paul: aww i thought mandatory voting with the "i don't care" option was a good compromise. let me think. - aaron
[2015-03-23 11:16:11] - Aaron: How about this as a compromise? No mandatory voting, but we move elections to an entire weekend (maybe we start Friday morning and end Sunday evening) so pretty much everybody should be able to find SOME time to vote if they want to. -Paul
[2015-03-23 11:15:25] - paul: i agree that "on average" they care less about politics, in the same way that people who eat meat "on average" care less about their diet. but that's only one reason to not vote, and i think it's naive to think that someone who votes more cares more - aaron
[2015-03-23 11:15:19] - Aaron: Your comment makes much more sense now.
-Paul[2015-03-23 11:15:04] - Aaron: Oh, I misunderstood you. I re-read what you were saying and I forgot your comment about adding the third "I don't care" choice, so I thought you were saying people who don't care wouldn't vote. My bad. -Paul
[2015-03-23 11:14:03] - aaron: Well, I think it's a combination of the two, but yes, I think the voters on average care more. I'm not retired or unemployed, but I don't think I've missed a single congressional or presidential election (and have voted in primaries and other smaller elections). -Paul
[2015-03-23 11:13:26] - "You said if we had mandatory voting, then the people who WOULDN'T vote..." wait did i say that? sorry i don't remember saying that. can you quote me? maybe i phrased something incorrectly. ii'm imagining if we had mandatory voting, 99%-100% of people would vote. i don't remember talknig about mandatory nonvoters - aaron
[2015-03-23 11:12:23] - Aaron: I don't know if the pool of non-voters is arbitrary. Yes, I do agree that the timing of elections makes certain groups over or under represented, but I think the non-voters are people who on average don't care as much as the voters. -Paul
[2015-03-23 11:11:43] - like i think you could take 5 random non-voters and if you turned them into 68-year-old retirees with no responsibilities, one or two of them would find the time to vote. - aaron
[2015-03-23 11:10:33] - paul: right, that's our difference in opinion. you think the people who vote consistently now are diligent and care. i think the people who vote consistently now just have more free time - aaron
[2015-03-23 11:10:08] - Aaron: You said if we had mandatory voting, then the people who WOULDN'T vote are the ones who don't care, while the people who have too many DUIs would vote, right? I think it would be the opposite. Who is going to pay a fine or go to jail (not sure what the punishment would be) just because they don't care about who wins an election? -Paul
[2015-03-23 11:08:30] - I don't think there's a big pool of people who are educated and/or care about the outcome but just don't vote because it's not mandatory. -Paul
[2015-03-23 11:08:05] - Aaron: My thinking is that most of the people who would vote if it became mandatory but who don't vote now are either the ones who are lazy or don't care. I don't think those people are going to have good, meaningful contributions to elections. -Paul
[2015-03-23 11:06:43] - paul: i don't understand, if voting was mandatory how wuld it be "the opposite"? i don't understand that point - aaron
[2015-03-23 11:05:53] - paul: exactly, i'm saying currently, the pool of non-voters is an arbitrary set of people who aren't worse or better than other people, but their opinion is underrepresented. like, when deciding what board game to play, if you said "let's hear from everybody who's not wearing a green shirt" - aaron
[2015-03-23 11:05:44] - Aaron: Wouldn't it be the opposite? If voting was mandatory, then I would guess the people who don't care would vote (to avoid the fee or whatever) and the people who care but have too many DUIs probably wouldn't (because they basically can't). -Paul
[2015-03-23 11:05:00] - (there, see, i picked a bad one to balance it out)
- aaron[2015-03-23 11:04:41] - Aaron: Ah, so you're saying some people that don't vote might care strongly, but it's just too inconvenient to vote? I guess I could see that, but I'm not sure how encouraging them to vote or making it mandatory would necessarily help. -Paul
[2015-03-23 11:04:40] - paul: so to work around people deferring the vote for bad reasons, you have mandatory voting -- that way if you defer your vote, it's a deliberate "i don't care" and not just an accidental "i have too many DUIs and can't get to the polling place" or whatever - aaron
[2015-03-23 11:03:38] - paul: you're right that in the board game metaphor, people should have the right to defer the vote. but in the real world, people would defer the vote for bad reasons (i'm busy, i have to pick up my kids, i have a big school project tomorrow) - aaron
[2015-03-23 11:03:08] - aaron: That's a good point, I definitely don't see why we couldn't have elections on weekends or at least have polls open more outside the 9-5 time range. -Paul
[2015-03-23 11:02:40] - paul: by "standing around the table" i mean, in your board game metaphor, everyone's in the same place and speaking your opinion is as easy as opening your mouth. everyone says what they want to play and you can easily say "i don't care". in the real world you're not standing around a table, you're inconvenienced, so the "i don't care" metaphor breaks - aaron
[2015-03-23 11:02:10] - a: Maybe children should be allowed to vote, I'm not sure, I just don't think our government or society or democracy (however you want to phrase it) will be made better by encouraging a 9 year old to write-in "Taylor Swift" for president. -Paul
[2015-03-23 11:01:47] - paul: in the real world, reliable voters aren't people who care more. they're people who are unemployed, or unemployable, or retired. people who have no kids, no responsibilities, and can show up to a random location at 2 PM on a weekday without negative repercussions - aaron
[2015-03-23 11:00:57] - aaron: What does standing around the table represent, then? I was thinking that non-voters have to live with the government they get regardless, so to me, the metaphor would be that non-voters would still have to play the game. -Paul
[2015-03-23 10:59:42] - a: Children of any age? I actually don't think we should be removing felon voting rights either. I think maybe the difference is the nuance between saying somebody should be "allowed to" vote and "should" vote. -Paul
[2015-03-23 10:58:44] - paul: but it's not the same, because in our board game scenario the "i don't care" people aren't standing around at a table. it's basically you just deciding you don't want to inconvenience them. so that's where the metaphor falls apart - aaron
[2015-03-23 10:57:33] - paul: i think felons and children should vote. ~a
[2015-03-23 10:56:57] - aaron: I would be (much?) less against it, yes. I don't see why we can't just save people the hours of waiting in line and interpret anybody who doesn't vote as an "I don't care" vote, then. -Paul
[2015-03-23 10:56:02] - Aaron: They're not hoping and praying that we got 100% voter turnout and everybody is represented. They're hoping that "their" side turned out in greater numbers than the "other" side. -Paul
[2015-03-23 10:55:18] - Aaron: But I personally think the country would be better off if people who are uneducated or have certain viewpoints don't vote. I mean, that's basically what people are rooting for on election days. We never come remotely close to getting 100% voter turnout, so when people are glued to their TV sets... -Paul
[2015-03-23 10:55:12] - paul: that's a pretty good metaphor. here's a question then: would you be more in favor of mandatory voting if one of the checkboxes was "i don't care?" - aaron
[2015-03-23 10:53:41] - Aaron: Sure, which is why I said I don't want the government banning anybody from voting based on their viewpoint (and I even said I personally probably wouldn't even try to discourage anybody myself)... -Paul
[2015-03-23 10:52:41] - Aaron: Let's say you bring two new board games to game night and I know absolutely nothing about them. I think it's fine to allow me to vote on which I want to play, but if I don't care, I think it's a little silly to say, "No, Paul, you should/have to vote for one of these two options despite not knowing anything about either". -Paul
[2015-03-23 10:51:59] - paul: the problem i have with your idea is it's easy to think, "sure racist bigots shouldn't vote" because it's a safe derogatory phrase. but every political group can label another political group with a similarly derogatory word and it sounds sensible. maybe people who are anti-affirmative-action shouldn't vote. maybe radical feminists shouldn't vote. - aaron
[2015-03-23 10:50:55] - aaron: Sure, I'm all for "allowing" them to voice it as well. My point is that it seems silly to "encourage" it. -Paul
[2015-03-23 10:50:18] - aaron: To be clear, if somebody knows absolutely nothing about the candidates or the issues and wants to vote, that's fine, I'm not saying ban them from voting. I'm just saying I think it's still to encourage (or even force) somebody to vote if they don't know anything. -Paul
[2015-03-23 10:49:49] - paul: yes, i think it's my right as a consumer to speak out against someone's abhorrent opinion, and i think it's the responsibility of our democratic system to allow them to voice their abhorrent opinion and for it to be reflected in our democracy. if enough people share that opinion then maybe i'm wrong for being offended by it - aaron
[2015-03-23 10:48:15] - Aaron: Sure, I'm worried about that too. That's why I want to encourage the reasonable people (I refuse to believe it's 95%
) to vote while discouraging the racist (...) bigots to vote. That seems more effective. -Paul[2015-03-23 10:48:13] - a: "everybodies views are correctly represented by the officials" what about babies? or ANTS? i mean gosh where does this "vote or die" madness end, when we're all collecting sugar cubes for your tyrannical hive queen? - aaron
[2015-03-23 10:46:46] - aaron: You don't think it's inconsistent? You (or somebody) thinks holding such a viewpoint is so abhorrent that they should lose their job, but at the same time you want to encourage them (not just tolerate, but encourage) to vote so that abhorrent viewpoint might get enforced on everybody? -Paul
[2015-03-23 10:44:18] - paul: adrian and i are more afraid of the idea where the censorship-loving privacy hating socialist bigots are outnumbered, but they still get their way because they vote more. - aaron
[2015-03-23 10:44:17] - a: "everybodies views are correctly represented by the officials" I don't think that's necessarily a good thing. And if that's true, then shouldn't we allow felons to vote? Children? If we want everybody's views to be represented (no matter how uneducated or against our personal beliefs) shouldn't we want them to vote too? -Paul
[2015-03-23 10:43:30] - paul: you just have to have faith that the racist censorship-loving privacy hating socialist bigot 5% are outnumbered by the reasonable 95%... and if they're not outnumbered then no amount of democracy is going to fix that problem - aaron
[2015-03-23 10:42:11] - paul: i don't think that's inconsistent. you can disagree with someone's opinion and take action to punish them for their opinions and still encourage them to voice it. - aaron
[2015-03-23 10:41:51] - a: I can see it as drastic while still thinking you're well within your rights to do it. I'm for legalized drugs, but I think shooting up with heroin twice a day is pretty drastic.
-Paul[2015-03-23 10:37:41] - Sure, everyone who wants to vote should. But if you elect not to vote, I'd prefer that people don't relentlessly badger you (VOTE OR DIE) to vote for sake of voting. - mig
[2015-03-23 10:32:24] - paul: as for voting, i think everybody should vote. educated, uneducated, everybody. that way everybodies views are correctly represented by the officials. ~a
[2015-03-23 10:31:13] - paul: hmmm. i'm surprised a libertarian sees a boycott as such a drastic measure. shouldn't a boycott be the solution to a company doing something you don't like? ~a
[2015-03-23 10:21:35] - a: You want to boycott their company and/or get them to resign, but definitely make sure you show up to vote for Proposition 8! But if you do, I don't think you're qualified to be CEO of Mozilla. -Paul
[2015-03-23 10:20:31] - a: To my, that seems wildly inconsistent with how much you seem to hate people who have a difference of opinion with you regarding stuff like gay marriage (to the point of wanting to boycott the companies they are CEO of). -Paul
[2015-03-23 10:19:20] - a: Why does my plan sound dumb? Do you really think it's best to encourage people to vote no matter what their political opinions are or what they know? -Paul
[2015-03-23 10:18:50] - a: I'm not trying to hedge or anything, I just wouldn't feel comfortable going out and judging that somebody is too uneducated regarding politics to vote (or to encourage them not to vote). -Paul
[2015-03-23 10:17:58] - a: I think it's a little rude, so I wouldn't personally do it, but I do think it would probably be in the best interest of the country and democracy, yes. -Paul
[2015-03-23 10:15:58] - paul: well, your plan sounds dumb. ~a
[2015-03-23 10:13:55] - a: Honestly, I wouldn't even restrict it to people who are uneducated. I don't want people who disagree with me voting either. If the people not voting were racist, censorship-loving, privacy hating socialist bigots.... I would hope they would decide not to vote come election day.
-Paul[2015-03-23 10:12:55] - let's try this again. paul, using your logic, shouldn't we then discourage uneducated people from voting? ~a
[2015-03-23 10:10:59] - a: It's not something that I would personally do, but I definitely agree with the sentiment. I strongly think the "get out the vote" movement where we encourage people to vote no matter who they vote for (or how educated they are) is a bad idea. -Paul
[2015-03-23 10:10:39] - i=we. ~a
[2015-03-23 10:03:29] - paul: well using your logic, shouldn't i then discourage uneducated people not to vote? ~a
[2015-03-23 09:53:45] - a: Maybe, but my point was that I don't think it will. I don't think forcing people to vote is going to make them better educated, and my guess is that the people who don't vote are on average less educated than those that do. -Paul
[2015-03-23 09:43:38] - i agree. maybe encouraging everybody to vote somehow would be a better plan. ~a
[2015-03-23 09:42:13] - a: Just look at how many people thought that Obama was a Muslim even after he was elected. I can't imagine that kind of low education is good for democracy. -Paul
[2015-03-23 09:40:37] - a: I think the average education of voters that we have right now is at a low enough level to where I think it hurts the democratic process. I think that's why you see negative ads being so common and successful. People don't want to get into the nuances of somebody's positions. It's easier to throw a simple "anti-women" or "communist" tag on them. -Paul
[2015-03-23 09:05:54] - I've been getting a strange number of e-mails from places like Twitter or Facebook with people in other countries trying to use the e-mail address to sign up. E.g. someone in Poland tried to use my e-mail to register for Facebook. Someone from Japan tried to use it for Twitter. Things I never thought I'd see: Χρόνος さん -- Xpov
[2015-03-21 16:36:28] - It's no surprising that Leper Gnome is in so many Facehunter decks. "I feel icky." -- Xpovos
[2015-03-21 16:04:42] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgMzil1sfio jason vs. the predator? - mig
[2015-03-21 13:23:14] - paul: "I don't think you would get more educated voters by forcing them to vote" does the US discriminate against the uneducated? i don't think more-vs-less educated is necessarily good or bad. we want average-educated voters. ~a
[2015-03-20 15:57:25] - mig: I had to go find that quote in the actual blog to believe anyone would say something like that. Preserve that quote for posterity, I'm sure he'll be proud of it. -- Xpovos
[2015-03-20 15:34:47] - it's this very weird case of "I'm so fucking hyper-partisan I can't even bear to acknowledge any agreement with a group of people I have declared my political enemies despite the vast swath of issues where we actually do agree on". - mig
[2015-03-20 15:31:24] - ah here it is: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2014/08/rightbloggers_revel_in_the_libertarian_moment_which_suspiciously_resembles_the_conservative_eternity.php "Gay rights is generally an easier lay-up for libertarians -- remember, many gays are male and white!" - mig
[2015-03-20 15:26:50] - white and male. - mig
[2015-03-20 15:26:46] - xpovos: more or less, yes. I've been seeing more and more of these type of hysteric pieces lately, where progressive writers rail against libertarians on topics where there's usually agreement. I can't find the article atm, but I'm not making this up, I read someone make the argument that it's easy for libertarians to be for gay marriage because most gay people are
[2015-03-20 15:19:56] - http://www.cnet.com/news/too-many-cooks-parodies-the-2016-presidential-election/#ftag=CAD590a51e If you liked "Too Many Cooks" and are a little too into the coming presidential election, apparently CNN has you covered. -Paul
[2015-03-20 15:18:32] - mig: I finally got a chance to read your article from yesterday. Did they actually argue against reduced sentencing and reformed drug laws because, essentially, "Hey, at least in prison they're getting three squares?" -- Xpovos
[2015-03-20 13:10:19] - Xpovos: Yeah, they seem all over the place. Washington, Lincoln and FDR as some of the greatest isn't surprising, but pretty much everything else was. Seems like they generally liked older presidents who did a lot of "stuff" (no matter what it was) without a generally acknowledge scandal. -Paul
[2015-03-20 12:19:25] - Wow. Harding as the worst of all time? Teapot Dome FTW! What a strange list. I have a hard time finding their angle. Cooledge is nowherere on here (best or worst). Neither is McKinley... -- Xpovos
[2015-03-20 10:57:19] - http://www.rantpolitical.com/2014/09/19/10-best-and-10-worst-us-presidents/ Super crazy list. 3 of their "best 15" presidents I thought were some of the worst we've had. Oddly enough, their "worst 15" had both GWB and Obama, though, so it's not just a partisan bias... -Paul
[2015-03-20 10:31:21] - Daniel: I think if you voluntarily get more people to vote, they are hopefully more educated, but I don't think you would get more educated voters by forcing them to vote. -Paul
[2015-03-20 10:24:32] - I'm not sure that more people voting is bad, but I would hope that more people voting would at least correlate with more educated voters. That may not be true but it would be my hope. That said I'm not sure I would support mandatory voting either. -Daniel
[2015-03-20 09:53:42] - a: the penalty will likely be minor, but regardless of that i find the concept of compulsory voting to be morally repugnant. - mig
[2015-03-20 09:40:13] - i don't have a strong opinion on mandatory voting, but i'm with daniel, failing to vote will unlikely be a felony (which i would call an understatement). ~a
[2015-03-20 09:39:36] - mig: It's not a perfect analogy, but I think of it as forcing somebody to play a board game or Time's Up or something. They get nothing out of it, the game is probably going to be worse, and everybody else isn't going to have as much fun. -Paul
[2015-03-20 09:38:41] - mig: I think forcing somebody to do something they wouldn't normally do is just going to end up with a half-assed effort which, at best, isn't going to help at all and, at worst, is going to ruin things for everybody else. -Paul
[2015-03-20 09:30:57] - paul: in of itself, I don't think it's good or bad. One thing I personally loathe about elections are the nagging moralists who demand people vote for the sake of voting (which in their view is an obligation). I can't think of many things more pointless than voting for it's own sake. - mig
[2015-03-20 09:30:34] - Frankly, if we had mandatory voting, I would suspect we would just see an increase in the number of incumbents and family dynasties winning (re-)election (name recognition). -Paul
[2015-03-20 09:29:14] - Then is their vote really one that we think would be valuable? It's a pretty badly kept secret that Americans are pretty ignorant when it comes to who is currently in office and who is running in an election, let alone what they stand for. -Paul
[2015-03-20 09:27:48] - Also, I'm not sure if anybody has expressed this opinion, but is a higher voting rate necessarily a good thing? I understand wanting the government to theoretically have the consent of the largest number of people, but if those people can only be convinced to vote by threat of punishment... -Paul
[2015-03-20 09:26:46] - Daniel: So I think it's hard to say for sure that the compulsory voting has much to do with their voting rates. -Paul
[2015-03-20 09:25:50] - Daniel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Australia#Preferential_voting As I understand, though, Australia has a fairly different voting system overall than ours. For starters, it's a parliamentary system, but they also use preferential voting. -Paul
[2015-03-20 09:13:34] - So I would not anticipate felony convictions for anyone in the US if they began experimenting with mandatory voting. -Daniel
[2015-03-20 09:12:56] - Xpovos: Australia has mandatory voting but the penalty for not voting is only like a 26 dollar fine, but it still works to up their voting rates WAY past ours. -Daniel
[2015-03-19 20:54:36] - More than ever I want to move to New Hampshire: http://www.vox.com/2015/3/19/8258045/new-hampshire-fourth-graders -- Xpovos
[2015-03-19 20:54:21] - a: If voting is going to be mandatory there had better be a stiff penalty for not voting; otherwise what's the point? -- Xpovos
[2015-03-19 17:16:08] - felony conviction for not voting? ~a
[2015-03-19 14:54:31] - a: That would be logical, but I've rarely been impressed with legal logic. And if everyone has to vote, particularly if the penalty for not voting is a felony conviction, why should the felons get off their duty to vote? -- Xpovos
[2015-03-19 14:46:47] - http://paintraincomic.com/comic/unstoppable/ okay teddy, show 'em what you got - aaron
prev <-> next