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

## Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score 1)264

As long as we have first-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections, it is one's rational self-interest to vote strategically against the party they least want to win, rather than for the party they most want to win.

You're being very myopic there. If you ever want B to become more like C, you must be willing to accept B losing in the short term. If B sees many of their votes going to C, then they'll move C-wards to pick up more votes. You have to think long term. Don't think in terms of C winning, think in terms of turning B into C, or at least something close enough to C that you're happy with them.

Side-note: I have never understood why the Republicans pander to the religious extremists - would those people ever vote Democrat? What do the Republicans have to lose by trying to pick up some moderates?

## Comment Re:I'm totally shocked... (Score 2)614

What are they doing with this money? Swimming in it? If they do something with it, the passive method of doing so being investment, then they're actually giving it to other people with an expectation of getting something back in the long term. That means other people have it, such as the company who used it to invest in the company you work for which used it to pay you.

## Comment Re:Looking at the wrong branch of physics to trash (Score 1)387

Those quantities are certainly mathematical dimensions. What is meant by 'hidden dimensions' is hidden spatial dimensions, i.e. directions, orthogonal to the perceived three. I've not kept up with the field, but last I recall these were theorized to be rolled up on very small scales. So something could move 'in the purple direction' by ±1e-9m at most - moving +2 being the same as moving -1 in a simplified version, as it's rolled up like a straw (iirc there are far more complicated shapes suggested for these dimensions).

One possibility of detecting these is if gravity isn't confined to the normal three dimensions, then at small scales it will not obey an inverse square law, but will 'bleed off' into the other small dimensions. Tests have been made to submillimeter scale, but that's far larger than I believe has been posited for the size of the extra dimensions.

## Comment Re:And she gets away with it... (Score 1)1010

You'll never improve the position of the major party most closely aligned to your views if you vote for one you dislike just because the other one is worse. You have to be willing to lose in the short term to win in the long term. If the major party closest to your preference sees they can pick up a bunch more votes by tilting slightly your way, then the next election might have someone more palatable.

## Comment Re:What the fuck are they talking about? (Score 1)109

Not really. From the report:

In order to be qualified as a SolarCity supplier, manufacturers need to have effective Quality Assurance programs and refined manufacturing processes in place, and steady product and manufacturing quality must be demonstrated. Rigorous tests need to be passed on an ongoing basis, performed by a qualified 3rd party lab. Furthermore, we require that factory controls and in-line testing are in place to ensure quality is sustained over time and deviations are rapidly detected, so the deployment of faulty products in the field is prevented.

## Comment Re:median vs average (Score 1)622

Unless the loan rates are so low that you can more profitably use that money for something else. With good credit you should be getting 2% loan offers - even if you can afford to pay it all at once, you might prefer to invest in something with 3-5% return instead. Or use it for other profit-making endeavors.

## Comment Re:Any issue raised woth Hawking radiation? (Score 1)220

No, Hawking radiation is related to the area of the event horizon (and therefore the mass), and is only relevant for very small black holes, as for anything above ~0.4 lunar masses (1.5e-8 solar mass) it will absorb more energy from cosmic microwave background than it emits in Hawking radiation.

## Comment Re:It's amazing she still has defenders (Score 4, Insightful)742

Yep, that's the point. This is what those preferring to vote for the 'lesser of two evils', instead of the 'good, but unelectable' always miss: you can't push the party closest to your preferences closer to your preferences by voting for someone that's moving the party away from your preferences, even if the opposition is worse. You must be willing to lose in the short term to gain in the long term, or you'll just keep repeatedly losing in the short term while complaining that your vote doesn't matter.

## Comment Re:Why the political ending? (Score 1)224

Exactly. This is what those preferring to vote for the 'lesser of two evils', instead of the 'good, but unelectable' always miss: you can't push the party closest to your preferences closer to your preferences by voting for someone that's moving the party away from your preferences, even if the opposition is worse. You must be willing to lose in the short term to gain in the long term, or you'll just keep repeatedly losing in the short term while complaining that your vote doesn't matter. (not referring to the parent poster specifically)

The Democrats, for example, have no reason to move further left if all Sanders supporters vote for Clinton - if that happens, then as they see it, Clinton satisfied everyone fine! Maybe the next candidate can be even further right to pick up some Republicans! Whereas if they lose the election because of Sanders, the next candidate will have to move further left to capture those people they lost the previous election. Note that my example is a bit simplified onto a single-axis system for the sake of simplicity; at least some Sanders supporters would prefer Trump to Clinton.

## Comment Voting for third parties (Score 2)134

But if it's a three person election - then Trump may very well win, regardless who the third person is. Lets say Bernie Sanders decides to run as an independent. While he lost on maths, the man got a LOT of votes, and even in the states where lost his margins were narrow. One could easily see him taking several states that would otherwise have gone to Hillary, and just one or two states could make all the difference. I would prefer Bernie over Hillary but right now I hope he drops out after the convention - because if he runs then Trump wins.

But would it be better to suffer four years under Trump, and then get a Democratic candidate that was closer to Sanders than Clinton? This is what those preferring to vote for the 'lesser of two evils', instead of the 'good, but unelectable' always miss: you can't push the party closest to your preferences closer to your preferences by voting for someone that's moving the party away from your preferences, even if the opposition is worse. You must be willing to lose in the short term to gain in the long term, or you'll just keep repeatedly losing in the short term while complaining that your vote doesn't matter. (not referring to the parent poster specifically)

The Democrats, for example, have no reason to move further left if all Sanders supporters vote for Clinton - if that happens, then as they see it, Clinton satisfied everyone fine! Maybe the next candidate can be even further right to pick up some Republicans! Whereas if they lose the election because of Sanders, the next candidate will have to move further left to capture those people they lost the previous election.

That's a bit simplified onto a single-axis system for the sake of example; at least some Sanders supporters would prefer Trump to Clinton. A two-axis system works better, but is less familiar to people.

# Slashdot Top Deals

Optimization hinders evolution.

Working...