Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Crazy IdeasFollow

#27 Jul 18 2014 at 9:16 AM Rating: Good
***
2,187 posts
Debalic wrote:
That's the thing. I doubt anyone would mind overly much if New York was split at, say, Westchester. The city and its suburbs (with Long Island) would be New York, and the rest we'll call...I dunno, Canadia. Though I would say that the entire state, on its own, would be quite impressive as a country in its own right.
I was in Monticello, which is about 100 miles north of NYC, on a business related trip. I was with four others and we were all waiting together, and so naturally we were ************ about some thing or other. One of the others was from the Albany area and the the remaining three were from the Monticello area. The three were referring to the other as being from "upstate" and he was referring to Monticello as "downstate" when I mentioned that they were all upstate. They corrected me, insisting they had it right, so I asked, "Well then where am I from?" (I live on Long Island). They said, "Oh, you're from New York City."

tl;dr: the rest of New York State does not consider NYC part of New York State.

____________________________
"the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Hermann Goering, April 1946.
#28 Jul 18 2014 at 9:34 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Upstate starts where Metro-North ends. I've driven past Monticello the past two days for work; it's definitely upstate. And of course the city isn't part of the state, it's The City.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#29 Jul 18 2014 at 9:36 AM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
Debalic wrote:
And of course the city isn't part of the state, it's The City New York.
You either live upstate, downstate, or New York.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#30 Jul 18 2014 at 9:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Yet still full of so many douchebags and cronut shops

I didn't even know that crows had nuts, much less that they were edible.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#31 Jul 18 2014 at 9:50 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
They're really pigeon balls.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#32 Jul 18 2014 at 10:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"Douchebag and Cronut Shop" sounds like the worst shopping experience ever Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 Jul 18 2014 at 10:59 AM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
You need to get them fresh or they're good for nothing.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#34 Jul 18 2014 at 4:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Samira wrote:
Conservatives are behind the idea, actually. Four of the proposed six states would be significantly more conservative than Northern California.


Yeah. Splitting California up would tip the Senate in the GOP's direction by a few seats. It would also significantly tip the Electoral College in the GOP's favor. You basically have two high population areas that lean very heavily Left in terms of voting, and the rest of the state, which leans moderately Right. Barring some really ridiculous gerrymandering to spread those high density liberal voters among the other states, this would end badly for Democrats.

Oh. And for some bizarre reason I read the first point in the OP as "parents", not "patents". Totally different!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Jul 18 2014 at 6:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Basing it off voting patterns in the last election, you'd have three or four blue states and two or three red-purple states that demographics would possibly/probably swing blue.

Not that it matters beyond a thought exercise anyway.

Edited, Jul 18th 2014 7:35pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 Jul 18 2014 at 6:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Basing it off voting patterns in the last election, you'd have three or four blue states and two or three red-purple states that demographics would possibly/probably swing blue.


It's the NY Times. Forgive me for taking their math (and the assumptions in their methodology) with a massive grain of salt. There's a reason why it's usually conservatives who think this would be a good idea, and liberals who think it wouldn't, and no amount of the NYT insisting that it would really benefit each side the other way around actually makes it so. At the end of the day, right now 100% of California's Senators and 100% of California's EC votes go to the Democrats. Even if after the split 60% go to the Democrats and 40% go to the GOP, that's a massive net win for the GOP. And I suspect they're engaging in wishful thinking with those numbers as well (using Obama's electoral numbers as your measuring stick probably isn't wise looking forward).

Quote:
Not that it matters beyond a thought exercise anyway.


Totally. Not going to happen.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Jul 18 2014 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's the NY Times.

Wait. I'm supposed to trust YOUR understanding of the Electoral College over theirs because of...? Your unbiased and nonpartisan attitude? Your sterling understanding of the EC? Your ability to predict voting patterns? Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Jul 18 2014 at 9:15 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Gbaji thinks NYT is an example of a bad source compared to the sourcing he has linked in the past...

...


I think we are done here.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#39 Jul 18 2014 at 9:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,913 posts
I make thingies. Mainly designs for parts to upgrade 3d printers, but the occasional Trombone design here and there for good measure. Right now I have 17 designs for 3d printer upgrade modifications released publically to as Open Source designs. Anyone can use, sell, modify, upgrade, retrofit etc. those designs as they see fit, the only license requirement that I put on them is that they attribute the original idea to me.
http://www.thingiverse.com/piercet/overview
I don't expect to ever see a dime from any of those designs parts. They are more to advance the science and accuracy of various 3d printer motion control systems, to get my name out in the community as a designer, and to show people what I can do from a design perspective.

I uploaded most of them when thingiverse was an independent website repository. They have since been bought out by Stratsys and which changed their license model for hosted files retroactively for all models uploaded to allow them to print and sell any uploaded piece as they see fit without assigning attribution to the original designer. They have actually already taken an entire printer assembly piece from one of the people who posted design files to thingiverse and incorporated it into the makerbot printer as their own design. What annoys me no end is that they then patented that piece. The designer who created it put it out there as an open source attribution license as well. He wasn't expecting to see money for it either. but he also wasn't expecting some other company to take his design and basically lock him out of legal control of it. The patent shouldn't have been granted given the pre-existing open source copyright license, and there is currently a court case theoretically pending over it just due to the legal precedent. I've actually not uploaded my trombone design there even though I think it would be quite popular specifically because of those license shenanigans

The problem with all open source licensing, is how does the desiger / inventor make money? If you have your own printer company, than releasing your designs open source (like lulzbot does) is a brilliant move from a marketing and brand loyalty perspective. The patent process theoretically gives someone who designs something but doesn't have the desire / means to produce it a way to make money. so many of the patents issued these days are for absolutely stupid blanket overly broad sue licenses that it makes the whole system annoying and cumbersome. Licensing seems to be a theoretical replacement, but then you start putting digital rights management DRM crap into models in order to sell them. I could upload something to shapeways,com right now to sell under license with them actually printing it, but whats to prevent them from changing their license model the exact way thingiverse did. I can always remove my models at that point, but the damage is already done by then too.

Then you have the "e-book repository" style pay per download model repositories. I can upload something there, charge $0,25 - $1.00 per download, make 75% of that charge back (the rest goes to the host, etc) and theoretically make money that way. The fees are low enough that people are willing to buy the legal copy rather than just looking for an illegal one. so it seems to work. I have existing models with over 9,000 downloads, so it's not unreasonable to assume I might be able to put some models up and sell a few thousand of them, depending on the content and complexity, etc. That still doesn't protect me apparently from someone just patenting one of my designs, despite the rather obvious "prior art" piece that goes along with that. Probably a pretty easy lawsuit to win if that ever happened, but against a large company, who has time or money to go that route?

I dunno. the whole system is broken at the moment, and could probably be fixed pretty easily with a few law chages that have something like a negative infinity chance of ever actually happening.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#40 Jul 19 2014 at 1:07 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
670 posts
gbaji wrote:
. At the end of the day, right now 100% of California's Senators and 100% of California's EC votes go to the Democrats. Even if after the split 60% go to the Democrats and 40% go to the GOP, that's a massive net win for the GOP.

Wouldn't it just be easier to split the electoral vote along the popular vote of the state instead of it being all or nothing? I think Maine might be the only one that does that, and I've never understood why the other states don't do it as well. Actually I do know why they won't if their party benefits, but it seems to me it would be a much better representation of what the people want.
#41 Jul 19 2014 at 8:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Nebraska splits their electoral votes by district. Obama actually won one of them in the 2008 election, causing the state GOP to start a drive to change the rules to winner-takes-all.

There's also a campaign for states to allocate their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote, thus eliminating the electoral college through a back-door means. Once enough states equaling 270 EC have signed on, it would take effect. I have no idea how binding it would be or if a state's legislature could decide "Nah" after the first time it didn't work out for them.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Jul 19 2014 at 9:28 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
xantav wrote:
representation of what the people want.

In this government? That's cute.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#43 Jul 19 2014 at 10:36 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Probably a pretty easy lawsuit to win if that ever happened

You'd be surprised. It's one you *should* win, but juries are morons.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#44 Jul 19 2014 at 10:38 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts


It's the NY Times. Forgive me for taking their math (and the assumptions in their methodology) with a massive grain of salt.


Yeah, they had Romney losing handily and got every state horserace prediction correct. No one should trust that math. Hey, what does **** Morris think?

Ahh, you make it so easy sometimes I still can't tell after all this time if your account is parody or if it's possible for a human to be so staggeringly un-selfaware.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#45 Jul 19 2014 at 1:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
NYT has the crazy methodology of looking at past elections and who voted which way. Gbaji has the methodology of saying "Nuh uh". Who you gonna listen to?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46 Jul 19 2014 at 1:49 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Jophiel wrote:
NYT has the crazy methodology of looking at past elections and who voted which way. Gbaji has the methodology of saying "Nuh uh". Who you gonna listen to?
Well Gbaji was totally right on polls being biased towards Obama in 2012, he's got anonymous people sending him PM's who agree with him as well and he knows like 200 times as much about everything as you do, those are convincing arguments.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#47 Jul 19 2014 at 2:26 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,367 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
NYT has the crazy methodology of looking at past elections and who voted which way. Gbaji has the methodology of saying "Nuh uh". Who you gonna listen to?
Well Gbaji was totally right on polls being biased towards Obama in 2012, he's got anonymous people sending him PM's who agree with him as well and he knows like 200 times as much about everything as you do, those are convincing arguments it's just obvious.
Smiley: nod
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#48 Jul 19 2014 at 6:52 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Ahh, you make it so easy sometimes I still can't tell after all this time if your account is parody or if it's possible for a human to be so staggeringly un-selfaware.

Best guess is your sock.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#49 Jul 21 2014 at 7:59 AM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
Oversampling and media bias! Smiley: motz
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#50 Jul 22 2014 at 3:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
NYT has the crazy methodology of looking at past elections and who voted which way. Gbaji has the methodology of saying "Nuh uh". Who you gonna listen to?


Um... The guy doing basic math rather than the guy engaging in obvious wishful thinking (and hoping that his audience *can't* do math). I love how you ignore the math, and go off on a tangent about election results predictions. It doesn't matter what the results of the last election were. What matters is the math. And the math says that the Dems lose if California were to split.

This isn't even really something that's debatable. The Dems absolutely lose in the Electoral College. No way around that. And they have to maintain a two Senator lead between the 12 seats up for grabs just to break even with the current status quo. And that's without looking at the effect that increasing the total number of senate seats has on things like cloture votes.

Is there actually a question about this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Jul 22 2014 at 3:51 PM Rating: Excellent
What's your math for this? do you have a source with numbers, or are do you just intuitively know the numbers? I'd like to see them if you have a link.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 43 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (43)