Mmm, moose turds. Taken last fall over towards BERlin. (Another good bit of make your own fun here.)
Regarding Pink Floyd recursion - there's a funny here (scroll down a bit).
I recall reading a profile of Stanley Marsh 3 where his habit of having suits and upholstery made from the same material was mentioned. He would disappear into his office furniture...
Regarding the citrus kerfuffle - rstevens (Diesel Sweeties) weighs in here and here. Some of the comments are entertaining - pomegranates are the real hidden victim IMHO...
Oops, looks like I screwed up my linky. It's here:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/the_inherent_in.html
@7 laertes - allow me to recommend Bruce Schneier on the inherent inaccuracy of voting.
"There are two basic types of voting errors: random errors and systemic errors. Random errors are just that, random. Votes intended for A that mistakenly go to B are just as likely as votes intended for B that mistakenly go to A. This is why, traditionally, recounts in close elections are unlikely to change things. The recount will find the few percent of the errors in each direction, and they'll cancel each other out. But in a very close election, a careful recount will yield a more accurate -- but almost certainly not perfectly accurate -- result.
Systemic errors are more important, because they will cause votes intended for A to go to B at a different rate than the reverse. Those can make a dramatic difference in an election, because they can easily shift thousands of votes from A to B without any counterbalancing shift from B to A. These errors can either be a particular problem in the system -- a badly designed ballot, for example -- or a random error that only occurs in precincts where A has more supporters than B."
Folks are worried about systemic errors in NH (if I understand properly - bias in the ballot readers used in NH's 'big' cities) - a recount will tend to uncover/eliminate the bias. If, instead, there's no systemic error, the recount will yield slightly more accurate numbers (maybe), but the percentages won't change much. HTH
@18 roman_eagle - if you have that little faith in the process, why do you care at all?
Apparently, there will be a recount on the R side, too: NH to Recount Ballots in Light of Controversy. Dunno who Albert Howard is ("Mr. Howard, I know Vermin Supreme, and you sir, are no Vermin Supreme.") - just wanted to toss the factoid in for the sake of completeness.
The whole thing on the D side is moderately insane - it's been debunked multiple times - but 2 things to give thanks for:
- paper trails. Any voting machine exec that tries to foist a system on us that does not produce a verified (you look at the paper and confirm that's your vote) audit trail should be taken out into the parking lot and...
- the fact that I (NH resident) am not going to have to pay for this.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2009 | 1 |
| 2008 | 8 |
Total: 9 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by dr.hypercube:
Show all comments by dr.hypercube.