Discussion:
A test on US geography
(too old to reply)
Amethyst
2005-11-22 20:09:27 UTC
Permalink
It seems as if 39 states have lotteries. Below is a link to a page that
links to the 39 lotteries. Your challenge, if you choose to accept it,
is to look at this page and write down the names of the 11 states that
do not have lotteries, without using outside help. Just your memory. I
must sadly admit it took me about half an hour, but that was probably a
prolonged senior citizen moment.

Enjoy

http://www.firstgov.gov/Topics/Lottery_Results.shtml
Michael Benveniste
2005-11-22 21:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amethyst
It seems as if 39 states have lotteries. Below is a link to a page that
links to the 39 lotteries. Your challenge, if you choose to accept it,
is to look at this page and write down the names of the 11 states that
do not have lotteries, without using outside help.
Not a problem for me. For some sort of elementary school gig, I
had to learn the "Fifty Nifty United States" song. I've been
able to rattle them off in alphabetical order ever since.

I shudder to think how much of my limited brain power is wasted
on stuff like this.
--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-***@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
neils
2005-11-22 23:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amethyst
It seems as if 39 states have lotteries. Below is a link to a page that
links to the 39 lotteries. Your challenge, if you choose to accept it,
is to look at this page and write down the names of the 11 states that
do not have lotteries, without using outside help. Just your memory. I
must sadly admit it took me about half an hour, but that was probably a
prolonged senior citizen moment.
Enjoy
http://www.firstgov.gov/Topics/Lottery_Results.shtml
Um question. Doesn't America have 51 states and 3 protectorates? This is
what we are taught here but it could easily be wrong.
Daniel Silevitch
2005-11-23 00:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by neils
Post by Amethyst
It seems as if 39 states have lotteries. Below is a link to a page that
links to the 39 lotteries. Your challenge, if you choose to accept it,
is to look at this page and write down the names of the 11 states that
do not have lotteries, without using outside help. Just your memory. I
must sadly admit it took me about half an hour, but that was probably a
prolonged senior citizen moment.
Enjoy
http://www.firstgov.gov/Topics/Lottery_Results.shtml
Um question. Doesn't America have 51 states and 3 protectorates? This is
what we are taught here but it could easily be wrong.
50 states, plus a bunch of other territory which comes under a variety
of descriptions.

-dms
Aaron Denney
2005-11-23 01:54:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Silevitch
Post by neils
Post by Amethyst
It seems as if 39 states have lotteries. Below is a link to a page that
links to the 39 lotteries. Your challenge, if you choose to accept it,
is to look at this page and write down the names of the 11 states that
do not have lotteries, without using outside help. Just your memory. I
must sadly admit it took me about half an hour, but that was probably a
prolonged senior citizen moment.
Enjoy
http://www.firstgov.gov/Topics/Lottery_Results.shtml
Um question. Doesn't America have 51 states and 3 protectorates? This is
what we are taught here but it could easily be wrong.
50 states, plus a bunch of other territory which comes under a variety
of descriptions.
Dammit, we're getting cross-timeline leakage again. I thought we had
that bug fixed ages ago!
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
Daniel Silevitch
2005-11-23 02:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aaron Denney
Post by Daniel Silevitch
Post by neils
Post by Amethyst
It seems as if 39 states have lotteries. Below is a link to a page that
links to the 39 lotteries. Your challenge, if you choose to accept it,
is to look at this page and write down the names of the 11 states that
do not have lotteries, without using outside help. Just your memory. I
must sadly admit it took me about half an hour, but that was probably a
prolonged senior citizen moment.
Enjoy
http://www.firstgov.gov/Topics/Lottery_Results.shtml
Um question. Doesn't America have 51 states and 3 protectorates? This is
what we are taught here but it could easily be wrong.
50 states, plus a bunch of other territory which comes under a variety
of descriptions.
Dammit, we're getting cross-timeline leakage again. I thought we had
that bug fixed ages ago!
I'm posting from FranzFerdinand14/Armstrong69. You?

-dms
Keith F. Lynch
2005-11-23 02:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Silevitch
Post by Aaron Denney
Dammit, we're getting cross-timeline leakage again. I thought we
had that bug fixed ages ago!
ObSF: John Barnes' _Finity_ and Robert J. Sawyer's _Hominids_/
_Humans_/_Hybrids_ trilogy both start with the premise that advanced
IT results in leakage between timelines. In F.M. Busby's _All These
Earths_, FTL travel has this effect. Can anyone think of any other
such novels? Ones in which timeline leakage is an unexpected and
unwanted side effect of another technology?
Post by Daniel Silevitch
I'm posting from FranzFerdinand14/Armstrong69. You?
Same here. WWI began when the Austro-Hungarian Empire's Archduke
Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in 1914, and WWII began when the
Austro-Hungary-France-British-Russian Empire's Archduke Fritz
Armstrong was assasinated in 1969. So I guess there's no leakage
after all. All hail his universal majesty Bismark VII!
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Wim Lewis
2005-11-23 04:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
ObSF: John Barnes' _Finity_ and Robert J. Sawyer's _Hominids_/
_Humans_/_Hybrids_ trilogy both start with the premise that advanced
IT results in leakage between timelines.
(and asyouknowbob it's been a running joke on Usenet for a while
before that...)
Post by Keith F. Lynch
In F.M. Busby's _All These
Earths_, FTL travel has this effect. Can anyone think of any other
such novels? Ones in which timeline leakage is an unexpected and
unwanted side effect of another technology?
_The Infinitive of Go_ by John Brunner. Niven's Svetz stories, sort
of.

I suppose there are plenty of stories where cross-time travel is
discovered by accident (say, _Twistor_), but that's not quite the
same thing.


(By the way, didn't you mean to write "Former Yugoslav Republic of Hungary"?)
--
Wim Lewis <***@hhhh.org>, Seattle, WA, USA. PGP keyID 27F772C1
James Nicoll
2005-11-23 14:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wim Lewis
Post by Keith F. Lynch
ObSF: John Barnes' _Finity_ and Robert J. Sawyer's _Hominids_/
_Humans_/_Hybrids_ trilogy both start with the premise that advanced
IT results in leakage between timelines.
(and asyouknowbob it's been a running joke on Usenet for a while
before that...)
Post by Keith F. Lynch
In F.M. Busby's _All These
Earths_, FTL travel has this effect. Can anyone think of any other
such novels? Ones in which timeline leakage is an unexpected and
unwanted side effect of another technology?
_The Infinitive of Go_ by John Brunner. Niven's Svetz stories, sort
of.
Paul Preuss's RE-ENTRY has this: go to Tau Ceti via the
conveniently placed binary black holes orbiting Sol and Tau Ceti,
arrive in a very similar but different universe. This makes the
ensuing time travel plot less causality destroying.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
Paul Ciszek
2005-11-23 15:08:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Paul Preuss's RE-ENTRY has this: go to Tau Ceti via the
conveniently placed binary black holes orbiting Sol and Tau Ceti,
arrive in a very similar but different universe. This makes the
ensuing time travel plot less causality destroying.
Asimov's ran a bunch of stories by Steven Utley about a fixed
time hole that allowed travel back to an era before life on
land was very diverse (algea mats were the only land plants,
and icky arthropods with too many legs the only land animals),
sort of like Julian May's Pliocene Exile stories. Anyway, one
of the last stories I saw was about a guy who was stationed
in the past and there were aparently at least three slightly
different versions of his personal history; he gets notice
from management that his wife is ill, "returns" to the present
to find his wife either died or divorced him years ago, and
the punchline was, he had never married. Or something like
that.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Keith F. Lynch
2005-11-24 03:41:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wim Lewis
I suppose there are plenty of stories where cross-time travel is
discovered by accident (say, _Twistor_), but that's not quite the
same thing.
John Cramer's _Twistor_ isn't about cross-time travel. It's not like
their destination was a world in which, say, Napoleon won at Waterloo.
Its premise is that the hypothetical supersymmetric particles are
exact counterparts of familiar particles such as quarks, electrons,
and photons, and interact among each other. When the protagonists'
quarks and electrons all get turned into squarks and selectrons, they
find themselves on an earthlike planet, but not one that ever shared
any history with our planet.

Since all these particles do interact via gravitation, the sun's,
earth's and moon's gravity wells attracted supersymmetric particles,
which is why that planet is right where earth is, and its sun is right
where our sun is, etc. Or, equivalently, that planet is the cause of
earth being where it is. The one thing that's clear is that earth's
density must only be about half what it's claimed to be, since about
half of its gravity is due to this other planet. Similarly with the
sun's density, the moon's, etc.

Not only was the book a fine adventure story, with memorable scenes,
but the physics is right on the edge between bogus and mundane. It's
the kind of story that gets me to really *think*. Could the world
really be that way? Why or why not? How can we falsify it? Would
our gravity maps have detected mountain ranges on this planet? Would
the two colocated planets even be rotating in synch? Why or why not?

There was yet a third kind of particle, but there didn't happen to be
any of them where earth belongs. What would that be useful for? How
about rapid transit to the opposite side of the world? Turn yourself
into those particles, and just fall through, and turn yourself back at
the other side of the world. Or build a probe to explore the earth's
core by falling to the center, and then snagging pieces of the earth
for analysis. It's also a great help to space travel if you can do a
slingshot maneuver *really* deep in a gravity well, e.g. the center of
the earth, of Jupiter, or of the sun.
Post by Wim Lewis
(By the way, didn't you mean to write "Former Yugoslav Republic of Hungary"?)
It's actually called the European Empire, but if I'd called it that,
it wouldn't be as clear that it was descended from a victorious
Austro-Hungarian Empire.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Alan Braggins
2005-11-23 16:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by Aaron Denney
Dammit, we're getting cross-timeline leakage again. I thought we
had that bug fixed ages ago!
ObSF: John Barnes' _Finity_ and Robert J. Sawyer's _Hominids_/
_Humans_/_Hybrids_ trilogy both start with the premise that advanced
IT results in leakage between timelines. In F.M. Busby's _All These
Earths_, FTL travel has this effect. Can anyone think of any other
such novels? Ones in which timeline leakage is an unexpected and
unwanted side effect of another technology?
Niven's _The Flight of the Horse_ short stories, sort of (apart from
being short stories not novels).
Seth Breidbart
2005-11-23 22:35:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
ObSF: John Barnes' _Finity_ and Robert J. Sawyer's _Hominids_/
_Humans_/_Hybrids_ trilogy both start with the premise that advanced
IT results in leakage between timelines.
That's the best explanation for bitrot I've seen.

Seth
David G. Bell
2005-11-23 08:18:18 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, in article
Post by Daniel Silevitch
Post by Aaron Denney
Post by Daniel Silevitch
Post by neils
Post by Amethyst
It seems as if 39 states have lotteries. Below is a link to a page that
links to the 39 lotteries. Your challenge, if you choose to accept it,
is to look at this page and write down the names of the 11 states that
do not have lotteries, without using outside help. Just your memory. I
must sadly admit it took me about half an hour, but that was probably a
prolonged senior citizen moment.
Enjoy
http://www.firstgov.gov/Topics/Lottery_Results.shtml
Um question. Doesn't America have 51 states and 3 protectorates? This is
what we are taught here but it could easily be wrong.
50 states, plus a bunch of other territory which comes under a variety
of descriptions.
Dammit, we're getting cross-timeline leakage again. I thought we had
that bug fixed ages ago!
I'm posting from FranzFerdinand14/Armstrong69. You?
All I can recall of November 1963 is the first "Doctor Who" broadcast.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."
Zev Sero
2005-11-23 15:53:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by David G. Bell
All I can recall of November 1963 is the first "Doctor Who" broadcast.
Not even a house falling down in King's Lynn?
--
Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV. They go
***@sero.name well together, but are completely different concepts.
- James Lileks
Keith F. Lynch
2005-11-26 02:24:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by David G. Bell
All I can recall of November 1963 is the first "Doctor Who" broadcast.
C.S. Lewis and Alduous Huxley both missed seeing it, having both died
the previous day.

Officer J.D. Tippet also died that day. Unlike Lewis and Huxley, he's
only remembered because of who killed him.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Dorothy J Heydt
2005-11-23 00:38:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by neils
Post by Amethyst
It seems as if 39 states have lotteries. Below is a link to a page that
links to the 39 lotteries. Your challenge, if you choose to accept it,
is to look at this page and write down the names of the 11 states that
do not have lotteries, without using outside help. Just your memory. I
must sadly admit it took me about half an hour, but that was probably a
prolonged senior citizen moment.
Enjoy
http://www.firstgov.gov/Topics/Lottery_Results.shtml
Um question. Doesn't America have 51 states and 3 protectorates? This is
what we are taught here but it could easily be wrong.
50 states, the Territory of Puerto Rico, and some bases here and
there....

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
***@kithrup.com
Daniel Silevitch
2005-11-23 00:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by neils
Post by Amethyst
It seems as if 39 states have lotteries. Below is a link to a page that
links to the 39 lotteries. Your challenge, if you choose to accept it,
is to look at this page and write down the names of the 11 states that
do not have lotteries, without using outside help. Just your memory. I
must sadly admit it took me about half an hour, but that was probably a
prolonged senior citizen moment.
Enjoy
http://www.firstgov.gov/Topics/Lottery_Results.shtml
Um question. Doesn't America have 51 states and 3 protectorates? This is
what we are taught here but it could easily be wrong.
50 states, the Territory of Puerto Rico, and some bases here and
there....
And DC, the Virgin Islands, a bunch of protectorate islands in the
Pacific, and probably some small random odds and ends that I'm
forgetting.

-dms
Keith Thompson
2005-11-23 02:15:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by neils
Post by Amethyst
It seems as if 39 states have lotteries. Below is a link to a page that
links to the 39 lotteries. Your challenge, if you choose to accept it,
is to look at this page and write down the names of the 11 states that
do not have lotteries, without using outside help. Just your memory. I
must sadly admit it took me about half an hour, but that was probably a
prolonged senior citizen moment.
Enjoy
http://www.firstgov.gov/Topics/Lottery_Results.shtml
Um question. Doesn't America have 51 states and 3 protectorates? This is
what we are taught here but it could easily be wrong.
50 states, the Territory of Puerto Rico, and some bases here and
there....
Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth, not a Territory. The name Commonwealth
isn't necessarily meaningful (a couple of states also call themselves
Commonwealths). I'm not sure of all the details, but residents of
Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens, though they're not allowed to vote in
Presidential elections and they have no voting representation in
Congress. There's a good chance they could be granted either full
statehood or independence if a majority of the populuation decided
they wanted it.

The District of Columbia (entirely occupied by Washington, D.C.)
isn't a state either. Citizens there can vote in Presidential
elections (it took a Constitutional amendment in 1961 to enable this),
but they have no voting representation in Congress (which meets in
their city). Their automobile license plates have the ironic motto
"Taxation Without Representation", a slogan used by the American
rebels during the Revolution.

There are a number of other dependent areas (American Samoa, Guam,
Midway, etc.); you can find a (presumably complete) list at
<http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html>.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Keith F. Lynch
2005-11-23 02:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Thompson
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Um question. Doesn't America have 51 states and 3 protectorates?
Not that I recall. Could you name all of them? (I can name all the
states of Australia, so why shouldn't an Australian be able to name
all the states of the US?)
Post by Keith Thompson
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
50 states, the Territory of Puerto Rico, and some bases here and
there....
Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth, not a Territory. The name
Commonwealth isn't necessarily meaningful (a couple of states also
call themselves Commonwealths).
Four states: Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts.
I live in one of them, and have been to the other three. And to
Puerto Rico. And to Australia.
Post by Keith Thompson
I'm not sure of all the details, but residents of Puerto Rico are
U.S. citizens, though they're not allowed to vote in Presidential
elections and they have no voting representation in Congress.
There's a good chance they could be granted either full statehood or
independence if a majority of the populuation decided they wanted it.
Every few years they have an election, in which the Puerto Ricans get
to vote whether to become a state, become independent, or continue
as they are. One big advantage to the way they are is that they're
exempt from the federal income tax. I'd bet the majority of people
in quite a few states would willingly give up the right to vote in
federal elections in return for exemption from that tax, if they were
given that as a choice.
Post by Keith Thompson
The District of Columbia (entirely occupied by Washington, D.C.)
isn't a state either.
Right. If I recall correctly, Australia also has its capital in a
district that isn't part of a state.

The District of Columbia was originally a square ten miles (16 km) on
a side, taken from Virginia and Maryland, but the part that was cut
out of Virginia was eventually returned to Virginia. Now it's a
square with a big bite taken out of it.

There's still a cornerstone at what used to be the corner of DC in
Virginia. I've walked to it from my apartment.
Post by Keith Thompson
There are a number of other dependent areas (American Samoa, Guam,
Midway, etc.);
Right. Those I haven't been to. Nor have I been to the large chunk
of Antarctica claimed by the US. But I have been to one of the US's
more unusual possessions, on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Daniel Silevitch
2005-11-23 02:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Right. Those I haven't been to. Nor have I been to the large chunk
of Antarctica claimed by the US. But I have been to one of the US's
more unusual possessions, on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The US doesn't claim any land in Antartica. In fact, the US doesn't
recognize anybody's claim to land in Antartica. That was one factor in
setting up the base at the pole; most of the land claims are wedges
that converge at the pole. Amundsen-Scott Base thus infringes on just
about all of the competing claims.[1]

And we lease Gitmo from the Cubans, and don't actually own it.

-dms

[1] Googling to confirm this, I discovered on the CIA factbook page,
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ay.html , that
Antartica does have it's own internet country code, .aq. More to the
point, at the bottom of the article, we have:

"Antarctic Treaty freezes claims (see Antarctic Treaty Summary in
Government type entry); Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, NZ, Norway,
and UK claim land and maritime sectors (some overlapping) for a large
portion of the continent; the US and many other states do not recognize
these territorial claims and have made no claims themselves (the US and
Russia reserve the right to do so); no claims have been made in the
sector between 90 degrees west and 150 degrees west; several states with
territorial claims in Antarctica have expressed their intention to
submit data to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
to extend their continental shelf claims to adjoining undersea ridges."

So, the US doesn't currently claim any land in .aq, but reserves the
right to change its mind at some future point.
Keith F. Lynch
2005-11-23 03:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Silevitch
And we lease Gitmo from the Cubans, and don't actually own it.
That's sophistry. Castro has long since said the base isn't welcome
there. The US continues to send him a small rent check, which he
refuses to cash.

It's partly an excuse for not giving prisoners or refugees there the
rights they would have on US soil.
Post by Daniel Silevitch
[1] Googling to confirm this, I discovered on the CIA factbook page,
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ay.html , that
Antartica does have it's own internet country code, .aq.
I want to know why there's no country code for the high seas,
or for space.
Post by Daniel Silevitch
"Antarctic Treaty freezes claims (see Antarctic Treaty Summary in
Government type entry); Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, NZ,
Norway, and UK claim land and maritime sectors (some overlapping)
for a large portion of the continent; the US and many other states
do not recognize these territorial claims and have made no claims
themselves (the US and Russia reserve the right to do so); no claims
have been made in the sector between 90 degrees west and 150 degrees
west; several states with territorial claims in Antarctica have
expressed their intention to submit data to the UN Commission on the
Limits of the Continental Shelf to extend their continental shelf
claims to adjoining undersea ridges."
I could have sworn I've seen a map showing US and Soviet claims.
The US claim included the peninsula. Many of the various claims
overlapped. And yes, they were all wedge-shaped, coverging on the
pole. Some of them overlapped.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Daniel Silevitch
2005-11-23 03:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by Daniel Silevitch
And we lease Gitmo from the Cubans, and don't actually own it.
That's sophistry. Castro has long since said the base isn't welcome
there. The US continues to send him a small rent check, which he
refuses to cash.
The lease predates Castro, as does the base. The (perpetual) lease was
granted a few years after the Spanish-American war. According to
Wikipedia, Castro did cash one rent check ($2000/year), which in the
eyes of the US government was enough to reratify the lease terms.
Post by Keith F. Lynch
It's partly an excuse for not giving prisoners or refugees there the
rights they would have on US soil.
See above.

[Antarctica]
Post by Keith F. Lynch
I could have sworn I've seen a map showing US and Soviet claims.
The US claim included the peninsula. Many of the various claims
overlapped. And yes, they were all wedge-shaped, coverging on the
pole. Some of them overlapped.
There's a nice article, including a bunch of maps, on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica_territories

Some highlights:

The Argentine, British, and Chilean claims all overlap; the Argentine
claim is completely covered by either the British, the Chilean, or both.

The Norweigans have the only territorial claim that _doesn't_ extend to
the pole; looking at the map, it's more of a truncated wedge.

The Australian claim is discontinuous (except for a point at the Pole);
there's a sliver of French-claimed territory in between two chunks of
Australian-claim. The Australian claim is also the largest; it looks to
be about 120 degrees of longitude or thereabouts.

-dms
Joe Ellis
2005-11-23 04:02:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by Daniel Silevitch
And we lease Gitmo from the Cubans, and don't actually own it.
That's sophistry. Castro has long since said the base isn't welcome
there. The US continues to send him a small rent check, which he
refuses to cash.
It's partly an excuse for not giving prisoners or refugees there the
rights they would have on US soil.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay.htm

We REALLY need to have an investigation into this... If what Keith
claims is true, then it is clear that we need to find out what the
Roosevelt administration knew about 9/11 and when they knew it.

...that's the _THEODORE_ Roosevelt administration...

That's quite a feat of precognition... determining the need for the
facility before the airplane was even invented! Better notify James
Randi and claim the million dollars.

Yeah, I suspect I know what you _meant_, Keith - but your wording was
VERY sloppy.
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by Daniel Silevitch
[1] Googling to confirm this, I discovered on the CIA factbook page,
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ay.html , that
Antartica does have it's own internet country code, .aq.
I want to know why there's no country code for the high seas,
or for space.
Well, if you can show a NEED for a country code for either...
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by Daniel Silevitch
"Antarctic Treaty freezes claims (see Antarctic Treaty Summary in
Government type entry); Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, NZ,
Norway, and UK claim land and maritime sectors (some overlapping)
for a large portion of the continent; the US and many other states
do not recognize these territorial claims and have made no claims
themselves (the US and Russia reserve the right to do so); no claims
have been made in the sector between 90 degrees west and 150 degrees
west; several states with territorial claims in Antarctica have
expressed their intention to submit data to the UN Commission on the
Limits of the Continental Shelf to extend their continental shelf
claims to adjoining undersea ridges."
I could have sworn I've seen a map showing US and Soviet claims.
The US claim included the peninsula. Many of the various claims
overlapped. And yes, they were all wedge-shaped, coverging on the
pole. Some of them overlapped.
http://www.gdargaud.net/Antarctica/InfoAntarctica.html

Trivigoogle.
Zev Sero
2005-11-23 04:53:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by Daniel Silevitch
And we lease Gitmo from the Cubans, and don't actually own it.
That's sophistry. Castro has long since said the base isn't welcome
there. The US continues to send him a small rent check, which he
refuses to cash.
Doesn't matter. It's a perpetual lease, signed by a Cuban government
that was certainly no less legitimate than Castro's. If Castro doesn't
want the money, fine. It doesn't cancel the lease.
--
Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV. They go
***@sero.name well together, but are completely different concepts.
- James Lileks
Mark Atwood
2005-11-23 09:59:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Silevitch
The US doesn't claim any land in Antartica. In fact, the US doesn't
recognize anybody's claim to land in Antartica.
I've seen a map of Peru printed-in-Peru. It was amusing because
it was one of those maps that just shows the nation but outside the
borders is undefined black, and it included it's self-claim to
an Antarticia wedge. So it was the outline of Peru, and then this
weird triangle floating to the south of it.
--
Mark Atwood When you do things right, people won't be sure
***@mark.atwood.name you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/ http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
neils
2005-11-23 05:04:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by Keith Thompson
Um question. Doesn't America have 51 states and 3 protectorates?
Not that I recall. Could you name all of them? (I can name all the
states of Australia, so why shouldn't an Australian be able to name
all the states of the US?)
Thats a huge challenge, we only have six states!!

Give me a list and I could probably tell you which are not states but I
couldnt name all 50 off the top of my head
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by Keith Thompson
The District of Columbia (entirely occupied by Washington, D.C.)
isn't a state either.
Right. If I recall correctly, Australia also has its capital in a
district that isn't part of a state.
Yes its the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) better known as Canberra. Our
mainland territories do have representation at all levels of government. The
Northern Territory is now self governed but has declared it will remain as a
territory so it is not financially responsible for education, health and a
few other departments- very smart thinking.

Our off mainland territories have varying rights. All must vote (its
compulsory for all Australians), are not independently represented, but also
don't have some of the taxes and other down sides. Most are self governed

As for Antarctica, we do consider ourselves to have definite territories
there as we have basis that are manned all year round.( Pity dogs are now
banned. Whose bright idea was it that petroleum based vehicles were more
environmentally friendly than dog power?) And yes those guys have to vote
too 8)

The fun thing is the international tourist and those residing overseas, you
still have to find an Australian Embassy and vote 8P
Keith F. Lynch
2005-11-26 02:49:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by neils
Give me a list and I could probably tell you which are not states
but I couldnt name all 50 off the top of my head
If so, you're doing better than the transcriber I proofread at work
this week, who had a state of South California. (It should have been
South Carolina.)
Post by neils
Our off mainland territories have varying rights.
What's the status of Norfolk Island? I'm intrigued by such a small
island so far from any other inhabited place. And how it managed to
get its own Internet country code.
Post by neils
All must vote (its compulsory for all Australians),
Does the penalty for refusing to vote include being permanently
forbidden to vote? Many crimes in Virginia and various other US
states have that as part of their penalty.
Post by neils
As for Antarctica, we do consider ourselves to have definite
territories there as we have basis that are manned all year round.
(Pity dogs are now banned. Whose bright idea was it that petroleum
based vehicles were more environmentally friendly than dog power?)
I suspect that wasn't to protect the environment, but to protect the
dogs. The climate isn't fit for man or beast. Not to mention that
plenty of antarctic explorers ended up eating their dogs.

Robert Scott also brought ponies. That worked out spectacularly
poorly. He got hungry enough to eat a horse. So he did. But he and
all his men died horribly anyway. All to be the leader of the second
team to reach the most worthless real estate on the planet.
Post by neils
The fun thing is the international tourist and those residing
overseas, you still have to find an Australian Embassy and vote 8P
That wouldn't be a problem for me. I work two blocks from the
Australian Embassy in DC. I pass it going to the Fresh Fields grocery
store at 15th and P. I notice it doesn't have a fence in front like
the Russian Embassy does. Or the White House.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Andrew Stephenson
2005-11-26 03:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Robert Scott also brought ponies. That worked out spectacularly
poorly. He got hungry enough to eat a horse. So he did. But he and
all his men died horribly anyway. All to be the leader of the second
team to reach the most worthless real estate on the planet.
ISTR (one of those TV documentaries on <portentous> the Conquest
Of The South Pole </portentous>) that one reason his rivals (the
Norwegians?) beat him to the SP was that they were ready to make
brutally objective decisions: they knew food and effort would be
two huge problems, so they took dogs (to tow sledges and relieve
the humans of the effort) which were eaten, once not needed. An
extra benefit of dogs was they were Proven Technology for arctic
(used as a generic adjective) conditions. No horsing about IOW.
--
Andrew Stephenson
Keith F. Lynch
2005-11-26 03:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Stephenson
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Robert Scott also brought ponies. That worked out spectacularly
poorly. He got hungry enough to eat a horse. So he did. But he
and all his men died horribly anyway. All to be the leader of the
second team to reach the most worthless real estate on the planet.
ISTR (one of those TV documentaries on <portentous> the Conquest
Of The South Pole </portentous> ) that one reason his rivals (the
Norwegians?) beat him to the SP was that they were ready to make
brutally objective decisions: they knew food and effort would be
two huge problems, so they took dogs (to tow sledges and relieve
the humans of the effort) which were eaten, once not needed. An
extra benefit of dogs was they were Proven Technology for arctic
(used as a generic adjective) conditions. No horsing about IOW.
Robert Scott also brought dogs. And tractors. Of the three, the
tractors worked worst, and the dogs worked best.

What was different about Amundsen was that he *planned* to eat the
dogs, rather than doing it as a desperation measure. Everything went
according to plan, so the expedition wasn't very interesting. So they
were first to the pole. Yawn.

The British history of polar exploration makes much better stories,
for much the same reason that people like to hear about SF cons where
something went horribly wrong rather than ones where everything went
smoothly.

Who can forget the Franklin expedition, which got their ship frozen
in the ice for several *years*. And after they ran out of food,
they proceeded to set out to march two thousand miles, hauling their
library and their cast-iron oven uphill and downhill across hummocky
ice, while refusing to dress warmly or to eat the foods favored by
Eskimos. Amazingly, some of them survived for nearly ten miles
before falling over dead.

Then there was the Shackleton expedition where they returned to
the antarctic coast a few days too late, and saw their ship on the
horizon, sailing away. There were enough supplies to last a year or
two, but no ship was likely to return by then. So what did they do?
They set fire to all their supplies, to attract the attention of the
ship! And it worked, too. They don't make them like that anymore.
And it's a good thing, too.

A later Shackleton expedition was so arduous that men were relieved.
when they finally got to leave the antarctic for a relaxing time in
WWI trench warfare instead.

But has anyone ever crossed the andes by frog?

I wonder if space exploration will ever have similar stories.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Doug Wickstrom
2005-11-26 07:22:59 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Nov 2005 22:50:18 -0500, in message
Post by Keith F. Lynch
But has anyone ever crossed the andes by frog?
Only Norwegians with knapsacks.
--
Doug Wickstrom <***@comcast.net>

"We're working on getting rid of unnecesary regulations and making them more
sensible." --Bill Clinton

Now filtering out all cross-posted messages and everything posted
through Google News.
Paul Dormer
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
The British history of polar exploration makes much better stories,
for much the same reason that people like to hear about SF cons where
something went horribly wrong rather than ones where everything went
smoothly.
Who can forget the Franklin expedition, which got their ship frozen
in the ice for several *years*. And after they ran out of food,
they proceeded to set out to march two thousand miles, hauling their
library and their cast-iron oven uphill and downhill across hummocky
ice, while refusing to dress warmly or to eat the foods favored by
Eskimos. Amazingly, some of them survived for nearly ten miles
before falling over dead.
Then there was the Shackleton expedition where they returned to
the antarctic coast a few days too late, and saw their ship on the
horizon, sailing away. There were enough supplies to last a year or
two, but no ship was likely to return by then. So what did they do?
They set fire to all their supplies, to attract the attention of the
ship! And it worked, too. They don't make them like that anymore.
And it's a good thing, too.
A later Shackleton expedition was so arduous that men were relieved.
when they finally got to leave the antarctic for a relaxing time in
WWI trench warfare instead.
Indeed, they are always making films and documentaries about these three,
but never about Amundsen, at least in the UK>
Kip Williams
2005-11-26 14:25:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Stephenson
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Robert Scott also brought ponies. That worked out spectacularly
poorly. He got hungry enough to eat a horse. So he did. But he and
all his men died horribly anyway. All to be the leader of the second
team to reach the most worthless real estate on the planet.
ISTR (one of those TV documentaries on <portentous> the Conquest
Of The South Pole </portentous>) that one reason his rivals (the
Norwegians?) beat him to the SP was that they were ready to make
brutally objective decisions: they knew food and effort would be
two huge problems, so they took dogs (to tow sledges and relieve
the humans of the effort) which were eaten, once not needed. An
extra benefit of dogs was they were Proven Technology for arctic
(used as a generic adjective) conditions. No horsing about IOW.
There was a letter to VIZ to the effect that Scott shouldn't feel so bad
about being the second to reach the pole, because he was the first to
die there. So that was something.

Kip W
Keith F. Lynch
2005-11-26 19:01:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kip Williams
There was a letter to VIZ to the effect that Scott shouldn't feel
so bad about being the second to reach the pole, because he was the
first to die there. So that was something.
He didn't die at the pole. He died most of the way back from the pole
to the coast. He wasn't even on the continent proper, but on the Ross
ice shelf. (Trivium: He may have died the same day the Titanic sank.)

Nor was he the first person to die in Antarctica. That was probably
George T. Vince, in 1902.

The first person to die at the South Pole was Andrew B. Moulder,
in 1966.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Kip Williams
2005-11-26 19:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by Kip Williams
There was a letter to VIZ to the effect that Scott shouldn't feel
so bad about being the second to reach the pole, because he was the
first to die there. So that was something.
He didn't die at the pole. He died most of the way back from the pole
to the coast. He wasn't even on the continent proper, but on the Ross
ice shelf. (Trivium: He may have died the same day the Titanic sank.)
Nor was he the first person to die in Antarctica. That was probably
George T. Vince, in 1902.
The first person to die at the South Pole was Andrew B. Moulder,
in 1966.
So write VIZ and tell them.

Kip W
Dorothy J Heydt
2005-11-26 03:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by neils
Give me a list and I could probably tell you which are not states
but I couldnt name all 50 off the top of my head
If so, you're doing better than the transcriber I proofread at work
this week, who had a state of South California. (It should have been
South Carolina.)
Well, South California is in Mexico, sort of. It used to be Baja
California (Lower California) as distinguished from Alta
California (Upper California), back when both were Mexican
territory. But Baja's now been split into Baja California del
Norte and Baja California del Sur. Don't ask me why, they're
both on this skinny little peninsula with not a whole lot of
acreage.


Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
***@kithrup.com
Zev Sero
2005-11-26 23:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by neils
The fun thing is the international tourist and those residing
overseas, you still have to find an Australian Embassy and vote 8P
Voting isn't compulsory if you're overseas at the time of the election.
Or perhaps it is in theory, but it's a valid excuse to claim you didn't
know there was an election.

I suppose it's a valid excuse in Australia too, but it's far less
plausible.
--
Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV. They go
***@sero.name well together, but are completely different concepts.
- James Lileks
Doug Wickstrom
2005-11-27 04:18:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 23:25:10 GMT, in message
Post by Zev Sero
Post by neils
The fun thing is the international tourist and those residing
overseas, you still have to find an Australian Embassy and vote 8P
Voting isn't compulsory if you're overseas at the time of the election.
Or perhaps it is in theory, but it's a valid excuse to claim you didn't
know there was an election.
I suppose it's a valid excuse in Australia too, but it's far less
plausible.
So what happens if you go to the polls, get your ballot, go into
the little booth...

...and don't mark it before depositing it in the ballot box?
--
Doug Wickstrom <***@comcast.net>

"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."
--Albert Einstein

Now filtering out all cross-posted messages and everything posted
through Google News.
Zev Sero
2005-11-27 05:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Wickstrom
So what happens if you go to the polls, get your ballot, go into
the little booth...
...and don't mark it before depositing it in the ballot box?
Nothing. Once you've presented yourself at the polls, you're golden.
But at that point, why *not* vote?
--
Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV. They go
***@sero.name well together, but are completely different concepts.
- James Lileks
Doug Wickstrom
2005-11-27 11:04:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 05:13:23 GMT, in message
Post by Zev Sero
Post by Doug Wickstrom
So what happens if you go to the polls, get your ballot, go into
the little booth...
...and don't mark it before depositing it in the ballot box?
Nothing. Once you've presented yourself at the polls, you're golden.
But at that point, why *not* vote?
'Cuz you don't _want_ to?
--
Doug Wickstrom <***@comcast.net>

"Old age brings pleasant memories, sometimes of things that really happened."
--Don Kirkman

Now filtering out all cross-posted messages and everything posted
through Google News.
neils
2005-11-28 04:01:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Wickstrom
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 05:13:23 GMT, in message
Post by Zev Sero
Post by Doug Wickstrom
So what happens if you go to the polls, get your ballot, go into
the little booth...
...and don't mark it before depositing it in the ballot box?
Nothing. Once you've presented yourself at the polls, you're golden.
But at that point, why *not* vote?
'Cuz you don't _want_ to?
I have always believed that if you put in a donkey vote (what we call an
invalid vote) you then really don't have a right to complain about the
idiots you ended up with as you had the power to choice the lesser of two
idiots and decided not to.

But that is just me.
Zev Sero
2005-11-28 04:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by neils
Post by Doug Wickstrom
Post by Zev Sero
Post by Doug Wickstrom
So what happens if you go to the polls, get your ballot, go into
the little booth...and don't mark it before depositing it in the
ballot box?
Nothing. Once you've presented yourself at the polls, you're golden.
But at that point, why *not* vote?
'Cuz you don't _want_ to?
Once they're already gone to the trouble of going, and they've already
got the ballots in their hands, why would anyone not want to vote?
Post by neils
I have always believed that if you put in a donkey vote (what we call
an invalid vote)
Correction: A donkey vote (numbering all the boxes in order, from top
to bottom) is a perfectly valid vote. It has to be - how can you tell
that those aren't the voter's actual choices? I'm pretty sure that
I've cast a donkey vote once or twice, because the order in which the
candidates' names were printed happened to match my preferences.

The term for an invalid vote is "informal". And it's not that easy
for a vote to be informal. So long as there are numbers in some of
the boxes, and no number appears twice, the ballot should count.
Ticks (US: checks) count as if they were ones, but crosses (US: exes)
don't, because you can't tell whether the voter meant "yes, I want to
vote for this person", or "no, under no circumstances do I want this
person". Or at least, those were the rules when I used to scrutineer
(US: watch the count).
--
Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV. They go
***@sero.name well together, but are completely different concepts.
- James Lileks
Seth Breidbart
2005-11-28 06:52:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zev Sero
Once they're already gone to the trouble of going, and they've already
got the ballots in their hands, why would anyone not want to vote?
How else to indicate "none of the candidates is acceptable"?

Seth
Zev Sero
2005-11-28 16:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seth Breidbart
Post by Zev Sero
Once they're already gone to the trouble of going, and they've already
got the ballots in their hands, why would anyone not want to vote?
How else to indicate "none of the candidates is acceptable"?
Cast an informal ballot. Write "No dams", or "none of the above", or
some other epithet that springs to mind. At least *someone* will see it.
Or vote for all the minor candidates first, in ascending order of
seriousness, and then rank the two (or occasionally three) real candidates
last and second-last, depending on which you think the greater evil.
Simply putting the ballot in your pocket and walking out won't send
*any* kind of message at all, to anybody.
--
Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV. They go
***@sero.name well together, but are completely different concepts.
- James Lileks
Alan Braggins
2005-11-28 18:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zev Sero
Post by Seth Breidbart
Post by Zev Sero
Once they're already gone to the trouble of going, and they've already
got the ballots in their hands, why would anyone not want to vote?
How else to indicate "none of the candidates is acceptable"?
Cast an informal ballot. Write "No dams", or "none of the above", or
some other epithet that springs to mind. At least *someone* will see it.
In the UK, that's a spoilt ballot paper, and a subset of not voting.
Michael Benveniste
2005-11-28 16:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seth Breidbart
How else to indicate "none of the candidates is acceptable"?
My proposed solution: http://www.smofs.com/sbarsky/
--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-***@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Bateau
2005-11-27 11:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zev Sero
Post by Doug Wickstrom
So what happens if you go to the polls, get your ballot, go into
the little booth...
...and don't mark it before depositing it in the ballot box?
Nothing. Once you've presented yourself at the polls, you're golden.
But at that point, why *not* vote?
Yeah that's what I always thought. Why were they bothering with all
these fake voting techniques when you can just not do it?
Bateau
2005-11-27 11:45:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zev Sero
Post by Doug Wickstrom
So what happens if you go to the polls, get your ballot, go into
the little booth...
...and don't mark it before depositing it in the ballot box?
Nothing. Once you've presented yourself at the polls, you're golden.
But at that point, why *not* vote?
Last year I actually worked as a polling official. People write all
kinds of crazy ass shit. But even if they doodled all over it and wrote
dirty limericks it can still be valid if it's clear who they want to
vote for.
Kevin Standlee
2005-11-30 22:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zev Sero
Post by Doug Wickstrom
So what happens if you go to the polls, get your ballot, go into
the little booth...
...and don't mark it before depositing it in the ballot box?
Nothing. Once you've presented yourself at the polls, you're golden.
But at that point, why *not* vote?
Because the right to vote should include the right to abstain.
--
---
Kevin Standlee
http://www.livejournal.com/users/kevin_standlee/
Zev Sero
2005-12-01 00:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Standlee
Post by Zev Sero
Nothing. Once you've presented yourself at the polls, you're golden.
But at that point, why *not* vote?
Because the right to vote should include the right to abstain.
The question is why you would actually want to. The reason many people
don't vote in the USA is that it's too much trouble to go to the polls,
or to arrange for a postal vote. In Australia, such people go anyway,
to avoid a fine. Once they're there they *can* deliberately not vote,
and I'm sure some do so, but I don't understand their motivation.
--
Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV. They go
***@sero.name well together, but are completely different concepts.
- James Lileks
David Friedman
2005-12-01 00:52:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zev Sero
Post by Kevin Standlee
Post by Zev Sero
Nothing. Once you've presented yourself at the polls, you're golden.
But at that point, why *not* vote?
Because the right to vote should include the right to abstain.
The question is why you would actually want to. The reason many people
don't vote in the USA is that it's too much trouble to go to the polls,
or to arrange for a postal vote. In Australia, such people go anyway,
to avoid a fine. Once they're there they *can* deliberately not vote,
and I'm sure some do so, but I don't understand their motivation.
Because they feel that voting is an endorsement either of the whole
system or of the candidate they vote for. The former attitude is summed
up in a button slogan.

Don't Vote: It Only Encourages Them.
--
Remove NOPSAM to email
www.daviddfriedman.com
Keith F. Lynch
2005-12-01 01:18:05 UTC
Permalink
The reason many people don't vote in the USA is that it's too much
trouble to go to the polls, or to arrange for a postal vote.
Or because none of the candidates is anyone you want to vote for. Or
because you believe that the voting machines are rigged. Or because
you believe whoever wins is certain to renege on the promises they
made to get elected.

Or because you're not allowed to vote.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Zev Sero
2005-12-01 02:25:12 UTC
Permalink
The reason many people don't vote in the USA is that it's too much
trouble to go to the polls, or to arrange for a postal vote.
Or because none of the candidates is anyone you want to vote for. Or
because you believe that the voting machines are rigged. Or because
you believe whoever wins is certain to renege on the promises they
made to get elected.
I believe that most USAn jurisdictions (unlike Australia) allow for
write-in votes, and count them, at least at the lowest level. Voting
for None Of The Above, or Mickey Mouse, at least sends *some* statement.
Not voting at all sends none. Now the value of such a statement may
very well be less than the effort of registering, and then going to
the polls, and waiting in line. But assuming that you have already
done all that, and the additional effort involved in actually voting
is negligible, why would one choose not to register at least such a
protest vote?

In any case don't believe that these reasons alone account for more
than a tiny fraction of the non-voters. The major reason people don't
vote is that they don't consider it worth the effort. Considered
rationally, they're probably right.
Or because you're not allowed to vote.
Do those not eligible to vote count, when the turnout is calculated?
It doesn't seem to me to make any sense to do so. For the turnout
percentage to be meaningful, it needs to be a percentage of those who
could vote.
--
Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV. They go
***@sero.name well together, but are completely different concepts.
- James Lileks
Keith F. Lynch
2005-12-01 02:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zev Sero
Do those not eligible to vote count, when the turnout is calculated?
It doesn't seem to me to make any sense to do so. For the turnout
percentage to be meaningful, it needs to be a percentage of those
who could vote.
Nobody keeps count of the disenfranchised. Or if they do, they don't
share the counts with the news media, who are the ones who report the
turnout percentages.

The best estimate for the number of disenfranchised adult citizens in
Virginia is about 200,000. The Virginia attorney general race was
just decided on a margin of 323 votes. I'd like to hear anyone argue
that this result has any legitimacy whatsoever. The state government
might as well have counted toilet flushes instead of voting machine
lever pulls.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Mark Atwood
2005-12-01 05:01:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zev Sero
The question is why you would actually want to. The reason many people
don't vote in the USA is that it's too much trouble to go to the polls,
or to arrange for a postal vote.
The only way it could be any *less* trouble is if they came door to
door with the ballot box. (And if you are in a hospital, nursing
home, or claim that you are bedridden, they will do exactly that (with
attendent fraud problems)). The political parties arrange vanspools
and will *drive* you to the polls.

You get registered to vote when you get a driver's licence. There is
a registration desk at every big public event. You can register at the
DMV, the post office, and the library. You can register and change
your address of registration or request a postal ballot via mail or
via your web browser.

What the hell do you propose to make it any easier?!!!
--
Mark Atwood When you do things right, people won't be sure
***@mark.atwood.name you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/ http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
Zev Sero
2005-12-01 05:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Atwood
Post by Zev Sero
The question is why you would actually want to. The reason many people
don't vote in the USA is that it's too much trouble to go to the polls,
or to arrange for a postal vote.
The only way it could be any *less* trouble is if they came door to
door with the ballot box.
Yes, that would make it less trouble, and if they did that more people
would vote. If they happened to be home at the time, and not in the
middle of something important like a snack or a TV show, etc.
Post by Mark Atwood
(And if you are in a hospital, nursing
home, or claim that you are bedridden, they will do exactly that (with
attendent fraud problems)).
That still involvesthe trouble of finding the number, and making the
call. Too much trouble for a lot of people. Why should they, if they
don't care?
Post by Mark Atwood
The political parties arrange vanspools
and will *drive* you to the polls.
Once again, you have to find the number, and call them, and then you
have to get dressed and go outside, and take a significant chunk of
time out of your day, that could be spent more productively watching
your plants grow, or playing with your cats.
Post by Mark Atwood
You get registered to vote when you get a driver's licence. There is
a registration desk at every big public event. You can register at the
DMV, the post office, and the library. You can register and change
your address of registration or request a postal ballot via mail or
via your web browser.
Still trouble. I'm talking about people who couldn't give a damn about
politics, or have rationally concluded that the effort of voting is
greater than any benefit they would get from it. My point is that if
that effort is reduced to practically nothing, i.e. they are already
at the polls, with a ballot in their hands, and all they have to do is
write some numbers in the boxes, fold it, and put it in the box, then
there's no reason why they wouldn't vote, no matter how little they
cared, or how little consideration they gave to it.
Post by Mark Atwood
What the hell do you propose to make it any easier?!!!
When did I propose any such thing?
--
Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV. They go
***@sero.name well together, but are completely different concepts.
- James Lileks
Kip Williams
2005-11-27 06:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Wickstrom
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 23:25:10 GMT, in message
Post by Zev Sero
Post by neils
The fun thing is the international tourist and those residing
overseas, you still have to find an Australian Embassy and vote 8P
Voting isn't compulsory if you're overseas at the time of the election.
Or perhaps it is in theory, but it's a valid excuse to claim you didn't
know there was an election.
I suppose it's a valid excuse in Australia too, but it's far less
plausible.
So what happens if you go to the polls, get your ballot, go into
the little booth...
...and don't mark it before depositing it in the ballot box?
If enough people do it, that blank-faced guy from Dick Tracy wins the
election.

Kip W (knows The Blank's name, but it reads better this way)
Philip Chee
2005-11-28 14:44:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Doug Wickstrom
...and don't mark it before depositing it in the ballot box?
If enough people do it, that blank-faced guy from Dick Tracy wins the
election.
Kip W (knows The Blank's name, but it reads better this way)
The Question.

Phil
--
Philip Chee <***@aleytys.pc.my>, <***@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]All I need to know I learned from my cat.
* TagZilla 0.059
Kip Williams
2005-11-28 16:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Chee
Post by Kip Williams
Post by Doug Wickstrom
...and don't mark it before depositing it in the ballot box?
If enough people do it, that blank-faced guy from Dick Tracy wins the
election.
Kip W (knows The Blank's name, but it reads better this way)
The Question.
The blank-faced guy from Dick Tracy was "The Blank," aka Frank Redrum,
as revealed on 1-6-38. What they said in that stupid movie was utterly
and completely wrong, which should come as no surprise to anybody.

The Question... hmmm. I knew he was the Ditko guy who inspired
Rorschach. But I don't think I've actually ever read any. Upon looking
him up, I find that I'd like to at least read that first 25-page story
with him in it. I hadn't realized he preceded Mr. A, and hence might be
a little less -- shall we say, didactic? Too bad there's no really good
comic shop here in town.

Kip W
neils
2005-11-28 03:58:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by neils
Our off mainland territories have varying rights.
What's the status of Norfolk Island? I'm intrigued by such a small
island so far from any other inhabited place. And how it managed to
get its own Internet country code.
Norfolk Island is one of the self governed territories. They have their own
stamps, area code etc. They dont have to pay the same taxes but are not
stupid enough to declare themselves indepenent and lose the benefits such as
unemployment, education grants, government run hospital etc. 8)
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by neils
All must vote (its compulsory for all Australians),
Does the penalty for refusing to vote include being permanently
forbidden to vote? Many crimes in Virginia and various other US
states have that as part of their penalty.
I like the idea of if you refuse you are forbidden. That would mean only
about 5 people would actually vote 8)

The penalty for not getting your name crossed off is $200, not a great deal.
So many people complain becasue of the inconveniance of having to get your
name crossed off, I know I dont like it as I do overnight work finishing at
6am, polls dont open till 8am and close at 6pm. I always have to decide
whether I stay up and vote or wake up early and vote...not a great choice!
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by neils
As for Antarctica, we do consider ourselves to have definite
territories there as we have basis that are manned all year round.
(Pity dogs are now banned. Whose bright idea was it that petroleum
based vehicles were more environmentally friendly than dog power?)
I suspect that wasn't to protect the environment, but to protect the
dogs.
The excuse they used was that because of the temperature the turds dont
break down and therefore you would end up with an ever growing pile of
frozen dog sh*t. Of course no-one suggested transporting it elsewhere where
it could break down, afterall it would be frozen so smell or mess wouldnt be
an issue 8P
Zev Sero
2005-11-28 04:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by neils
So many people complain becasue of the inconveniance of having to get your
name crossed off, I know I dont like it as I do overnight work finishing at
6am, polls dont open till 8am and close at 6pm. I always have to decide
whether I stay up and vote or wake up early and vote...not a great choice!
When I lived in Oz, the polls were open all week at selected locations,
including the GPO. Do you not live or work near one of these locations?
Or do you keep those hours every day, so that they're never open at a
convenient time?

Or you could get a postal vote.
--
Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV. They go
***@sero.name well together, but are completely different concepts.
- James Lileks
Bateau
2005-11-29 00:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by neils
The penalty for not getting your name crossed off is $200, not a great deal.
So many people complain becasue of the inconveniance of having to get your
name crossed off, I know I dont like it as I do overnight work finishing at
6am, polls dont open till 8am and close at 6pm. I always have to decide
whether I stay up and vote or wake up early and vote...not a great choice!
Why don't you just do a postal vote?
Paul Ciszek
2005-11-23 15:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Thompson
The District of Columbia (entirely occupied by Washington, D.C.)
I know that was not always true--there used to be at least one
other city in the D of C.
Post by Keith Thompson
isn't a state either. Citizens there can vote in Presidential
elections (it took a Constitutional amendment in 1961 to enable this),
but they have no voting representation in Congress (which meets in
their city). Their automobile license plates have the ironic motto
"Taxation Without Representation", a slogan used by the American
rebels during the Revolution.
I had never heard that before.
Of course, giving the D of C representation in Congress would
defeat the whole point of creating it in the first place. What
we should have done in the begining was set aside the D of C
for government purposes *only*, with no one allowed to actually
"live" there--i.e., you can have an apartment in town if you
work for the government (or against the government), but your
official residence remains in whatever state you came from.
(Don't prisoners remain "residents" of the state they came from,
no matter where they are sent? Residence in DC could be treated
like time in prison, for legal purposes.)
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Dorothy J Heydt
2005-11-23 16:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Ciszek
Post by Keith Thompson
The District of Columbia (entirely occupied by Washington, D.C.)
I know that was not always true--there used to be at least one
other city in the D of C.
Post by Keith Thompson
isn't a state either. Citizens there can vote in Presidential
elections (it took a Constitutional amendment in 1961 to enable this),
but they have no voting representation in Congress (which meets in
their city). Their automobile license plates have the ironic motto
"Taxation Without Representation", a slogan used by the American
rebels during the Revolution.
I had never heard that before.
Of course, giving the D of C representation in Congress would
defeat the whole point of creating it in the first place. What
we should have done in the begining was set aside the D of C
for government purposes *only*, with no one allowed to actually
"live" there--i.e., you can have an apartment in town if you
work for the government (or against the government), but your
official residence remains in whatever state you came from.
(Don't prisoners remain "residents" of the state they came from,
no matter where they are sent? Residence in DC could be treated
like time in prison, for legal purposes.)
I like that idea.

Perhaps it's not too late to implement it? I imagine the Feds
have been steadily expanding the percentage of DC that they
occupy anyway; if they absorb all the housing with eminent domain
or something and turn that part which they don't turn into
offices, into employees workplace pied-a-terres....

In any case, there's a story in that somewhere...

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
***@kithrup.com
Keith F. Lynch
2005-11-24 03:11:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
What we should have done in the begining was set aside the D of C
for government purposes *only*, with no one allowed to actually
"live" there--
If no one could live there, commutes would become even more
nighmarish. It's better to have workplaces and homes mixed together.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
i.e., you can have an apartment in town if you work for the
government (or against the government), but your official
residence remains in whatever state you came from.
What about people who work in DC, but not for the government? Or
would private businesses also be banned from the city?

Government workers need to buy groceries, get haircuts, bank, go
to movies, get medical care, get schooling for their children, etc.
And why shouldn't the people who provide those goods and services be
allowed to live near where they work? And those workers, in turn,
also need goods and services.

There's also a city government. I believe its employees are
*required* to live in DC.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
(Don't prisoners remain "residents" of the state they came from, no
matter where they are sent? Residence in DC could be treated like
time in prison, for legal purposes.)
Residents in what sense? Prisoners can't vote, and don't generally
have taxable income, so their state of residency is moot.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I like that idea.
Perhaps it's not too late to implement it? I imagine the Feds
have been steadily expanding the percentage of DC that they
occupy anyway;
I don't think so. Most of their expansion is into the suburbs. The
Pentagon isn't in DC. The new IRS headquarters is in New Carrollton,
near the last Disclave hotel. Walter Reed Army Hospital in DC is
closing, and Bethesda Naval Hospital, which is not in DC, will be
expanding to compensate. I could go on and on.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
if they absorb all the housing with eminent domain or something and
turn that part which they don't turn into offices, into employees
workplace pied-a-terres....
In any case, there's a story in that somewhere...
Speaking of which, WSFA just published _Future Washington_, full of
stories about the future of that city on the Potomac notorious for
combining northern charm with southern efficiency.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Marilee J. Layman
2005-11-23 20:51:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Ciszek
Post by Keith Thompson
The District of Columbia (entirely occupied by Washington, D.C.)
I know that was not always true--there used to be at least one
other city in the D of C.
There was a city there before the District was created, but once it
was created, there were no more cities there.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Dorothy J Heydt
2005-11-23 21:17:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marilee J. Layman
Post by Paul Ciszek
Post by Keith Thompson
The District of Columbia (entirely occupied by Washington, D.C.)
I know that was not always true--there used to be at least one
other city in the D of C.
There was a city there before the District was created, but once it
was created, there were no more cities there.
Would that have been Georgetown, locus of several thrillers by
Barbara Michaels? (I believe it's still there but now just a
[very expensive] neighborhood.)

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
***@kithrup.com
Keith F. Lynch
2005-11-24 02:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Marilee J. Layman
Post by Paul Ciszek
Post by Keith Thompson
The District of Columbia (entirely occupied by Washington, D.C.)
I know that was not always true--there used to be at least one
other city in the D of C.
There was a city there before the District was created, but once it
was created, there were no more cities there.
Would that have been Georgetown, locus of several thrillers by
Barbara Michaels? (I believe it's still there but now just a
[very expensive] neighborhood.)
The District of Columbia was established in 1791. It included the
cities of Alexandria and Georgetown, and the new City of Washington.
And lots of open countryside.

Alexandria was returned to Virginia in 1846, and is still a city in
Virginia. Georgetown was absorbed into Washington in 1896, but is
still used as a place name.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Richard Eney
2005-11-24 15:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Marilee J. Layman
Post by Paul Ciszek
Post by Keith Thompson
The District of Columbia (entirely occupied by Washington, D.C.)
I know that was not always true--there used to be at least one
other city in the D of C.
There was a city there before the District was created, but once it
was created, there were no more cities there.
Would that have been Georgetown, locus of several thrillers by
Barbara Michaels? (I believe it's still there but now just a
[very expensive] neighborhood.)
It is indeed still there, and "Washington" has slopped over the edges of
tshe District of Columbia, with the sections of Maryland that it occup;ies
being incorporated cities in their own right. (Hyattsville, where I
live, is just one of these.) The part of the District which was ceded by
Virginia, after a rather interesting life as the local equivalent of the
Barbary Coast of old San Francisco, was retroceded to Virginia and is now
Arlington County -- which also has internal cities of its own.

-- Dick Eney
OPERATION CRIFANAC PUBLICATIONS
http://www.crifanac.net/Index.htm
prozines and fanzines 'n' stuff
Keith F. Lynch
2005-11-26 02:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Eney
It is indeed still there, and "Washington" has slopped over the
edges of tshe District of Columbia, with the sections of Maryland
that it occup;ies being incorporated cities in their own right.
Washington hasn't slopped over any border. It's still coterminous
with the District of Columbia, as it has been since Georgetown was
incorporated into Washington in 1896.
Post by Richard Eney
(Hyattsville, where I live, is just one of these.)
Hyattsville has never been part of Washington.
Post by Richard Eney
The part of the District which was ceded by Virginia, after a rather
interesting life as the local equivalent of the Barbary Coast of old
San Francisco, was retroceded to Virginia and is now Arlington
County --
Some of it is. Some of it is the city of Alexandria, which is not
part of Arlington County.
Post by Richard Eney
which also has internal cities of its own.
Arlington is partly urban, but there are no cities in Arlington County.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Doug Wickstrom
2005-11-26 07:17:49 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Nov 2005 21:13:25 -0500, in message
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by Richard Eney
It is indeed still there, and "Washington" has slopped over the
edges of tshe District of Columbia, with the sections of Maryland
that it occup;ies being incorporated cities in their own right.
Washington hasn't slopped over any border. It's still coterminous
with the District of Columbia, as it has been since Georgetown was
incorporated into Washington in 1896.
Post by Richard Eney
(Hyattsville, where I live, is just one of these.)
Hyattsville has never been part of Washington.
He didn't say it was. Nor was he saying Washington has slopped
over the border, only that "Washington" has. It's like a bunch
of folks around here who refer to where I live as "Minneapolis."

I don't.

I live in New Hope.
--
Doug Wickstrom <***@comcast.net>

"Smoking kills. If you're killed, you've lost a very important part
of your life." --Brooke Shields

Now filtering out all cross-posted messages and everything posted
through Google News.
Marilee J. Layman
2005-11-24 18:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Marilee J. Layman
Post by Paul Ciszek
Post by Keith Thompson
The District of Columbia (entirely occupied by Washington, D.C.)
I know that was not always true--there used to be at least one
other city in the D of C.
There was a city there before the District was created, but once it
was created, there were no more cities there.
Would that have been Georgetown, locus of several thrillers by
Barbara Michaels? (I believe it's still there but now just a
[very expensive] neighborhood.)
Yep. A lot of small villages went that way when big cities ate them
up, but in this case, they were de-citified by decree.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Dorothy J Heydt
2005-11-24 20:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marilee J. Layman
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Marilee J. Layman
There was a city there before the District was created, but once it
was created, there were no more cities there.
Would that have been Georgetown, locus of several thrillers by
Barbara Michaels? (I believe it's still there but now just a
[very expensive] neighborhood.)
Yep. A lot of small villages went that way when big cities ate them
up, but in this case, they were de-citified by decree.
Thought so. Now I may go and read the books again.

If anyone's interested, they are

Ammie, Come Home (a ghost story with lots of Georgetown history)
Shattered Silk (a thriller with psychological roots, no ghosts)
Stitches in Time (another ghost story, with a cursed and haunted
quilt)

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
***@kithrup.com
j***@yahoo.com
2005-11-27 14:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Robert A. Woodward
2005-11-23 05:16:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amethyst
It seems as if 39 states have lotteries. Below is a link to a page that
links to the 39 lotteries. Your challenge, if you choose to accept it,
is to look at this page and write down the names of the 11 states that
do not have lotteries, without using outside help. Just your memory. I
must sadly admit it took me about half an hour, but that was probably a
prolonged senior citizen moment.
Enjoy
About 6 minutes (I got six states within a minute, but I had to go
through the list (which I had memorized by location, not
alphabetically) to get the other 5 (I can name about 45 state
capitals reliably as well).
--
Robert Woodward <***@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
David Goldfarb
2005-11-23 07:39:48 UTC
Permalink
I got the first 9 in about 3 minutes -- looked right at the start of
the list and noticed that Alaska wasn't in the A's; went on through
some others, then thought "Utah ought not to be there" and indeed it
wasn't, so I checked Nevada next since they're right next to each other
and was a bit surprised to find it not on the list either. I guess
the Nevadans think it would be redundant. It then took me about two
minutes to remember Hawaii, and for some reason Arkansas eluded me
for two and a half minutes beyond that. Total time, 7 minutes, 20 seconds.
--
David Goldfarb |"Steppe nomads are a lot less frightening since
***@ocf.berkeley.edu | tanks were invented."
***@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Graydon
Keith F. Lynch
2005-11-26 02:30:38 UTC
Permalink
... so I checked Nevada next since they're right next to each other
and was a bit surprised to find it not on the list either. I guess
the Nevadans think it would be redundant.
Almost everyone knows that government-run lotteries give worse odds
than private lotteries. So state lotteries can only thrive where
private competition has been banned by the state.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Doug Wickstrom
2005-11-26 07:19:45 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Nov 2005 21:30:38 -0500, in message
Post by Keith F. Lynch
... so I checked Nevada next since they're right next to each other
and was a bit surprised to find it not on the list either. I guess
the Nevadans think it would be redundant.
Almost everyone knows that government-run lotteries give worse odds
than private lotteries. So state lotteries can only thrive where
private competition has been banned by the state.
The State of Minnesota, the Shakopee Mdwankton Dakota, the
Prairie Island Mdwankton Dakota, and the Mille Lacs Ojibwe all do
very well with their lotteries.
--
Doug Wickstrom <***@comcast.net>

"It was nearly eleven-thirty, and I had just put the cat out. But it hadn't
been easy. He had burned more fiercely than I anticipated." --George Carlin

Now filtering out all cross-posted messages and everything posted
through Google News.
Keith F. Lynch
2005-11-26 19:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Almost everyone knows that government-run lotteries give worse odds
than private lotteries. So state lotteries can only thrive where
private competition has been banned by the state.
The State of Minnesota, the Shakopee Mdwankton Dakota, the Prairie
Island Mdwankton Dakota, and the Mille Lacs Ojibwe all do very well
with their lotteries.
In the same locations? I suspect that the state lottery does poorly
on the reservations, and that the other lotteries don't operate at all
off the reservations. Few people want to travel a hundred miles for a
one dollar lottery tickets, even if the odds of winning are better.

Also note that I said "thrive," not "exist."
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Doug Wickstrom
2005-11-26 21:26:42 UTC
Permalink
On 26 Nov 2005 14:06:34 -0500, in message
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Almost everyone knows that government-run lotteries give worse odds
than private lotteries. So state lotteries can only thrive where
private competition has been banned by the state.
The State of Minnesota, the Shakopee Mdwankton Dakota, the Prairie
Island Mdwankton Dakota, and the Mille Lacs Ojibwe all do very well
with their lotteries.
In the same locations? I suspect that the state lottery does poorly
on the reservations, and that the other lotteries don't operate at all
off the reservations. Few people want to travel a hundred miles for a
one dollar lottery tickets, even if the odds of winning are better.
Also note that I said "thrive," not "exist."
All of them are thriving, including the lottery.

There are a _lot_ of reservations in Minnesota, and the ones I
listed are either within the metro area, or so close that if you
traveled a hundred miles, you'd have to turn around and go back.

You're assuming that people who gamble are making a rational
choice in hope of reasonable gain. They're not. Most of them do
it for fun.
--
Doug Wickstrom <***@comcast.net>

"I feel a sudden, strange urge to say something pithy and quotable."
--Michael Flynn

Now filtering out all cross-posted messages and everything posted
through Google News.
Michael Benveniste
2005-11-26 16:50:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Almost everyone knows that government-run lotteries give worse odds
than private lotteries. So state lotteries can only thrive where
private competition has been banned by the state.
There are plenty of counterexamples around the world where public
lotteries and private gaming successfully co-exist side-by-side.
Even here in the United States, the fuzzy legal status of internet
gambling doesn't seem to have slowed the growth of state lotteries
to any significant extent.

Your statement assumes a rational consumer. Negative expectation
gaming is rarely rational from an economic standpoint, no matter
how small the house edge. Nor do you take into account the
non-regulatory barriers to entry for such a lottery.

While I don't think that government should be in the business of
running lotteries, you need better facts to support that position.
--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-***@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
David G. Bell
2005-11-26 17:38:33 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday, in article
Post by Michael Benveniste
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Almost everyone knows that government-run lotteries give worse odds
than private lotteries. So state lotteries can only thrive where
private competition has been banned by the state.
There are plenty of counterexamples around the world where public
lotteries and private gaming successfully co-exist side-by-side.
Even here in the United States, the fuzzy legal status of internet
gambling doesn't seem to have slowed the growth of state lotteries
to any significant extent.
Your statement assumes a rational consumer. Negative expectation
gaming is rarely rational from an economic standpoint, no matter
how small the house edge. Nor do you take into account the
non-regulatory barriers to entry for such a lottery.
I don't think the value of the dollars is the same.

It doesn't seem rational for 10 million people to each bet $1 to win a
single prize of a million dollars.

But the value of that $1 is not one millionth the value of a million
dollars. There are far more options. Even just putting it in a bank
account, you can get a higher interest rate with a million than with $1,
or even $1000. That alone suggests that dollars en masse are worth more
than dollars individually, because the bank will pay you more for their
use.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."
Keith F. Lynch
2005-11-26 18:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by David G. Bell
But the value of that $1 is not one millionth the value of a million
dollars.
No, it's less. One dollar is more valuable to someone with no dollars
than to someone with a million dollars. That's why poor people are
often willing to work long hours at low wages, and wealthy people
usually aren't.

There are exceptions, of course. For instance if two people each
of whom need a $10,000 life-saving operation each has $5000, it's
rational for both of them to wager double-or-nothing.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
David Dyer-Bennet
2005-11-27 00:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Benveniste
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Almost everyone knows that government-run lotteries give worse odds
than private lotteries. So state lotteries can only thrive where
private competition has been banned by the state.
There are plenty of counterexamples around the world where public
lotteries and private gaming successfully co-exist side-by-side.
Even here in the United States, the fuzzy legal status of internet
gambling doesn't seem to have slowed the growth of state lotteries
to any significant extent.
Your statement assumes a rational consumer. Negative expectation
gaming is rarely rational from an economic standpoint, no matter
how small the house edge. Nor do you take into account the
non-regulatory barriers to entry for such a lottery.
One obvious rational argument is that you *enjoy* playing the games
(most "rational" arguments accept the person's preferences as a given
starting point) enough to be willing to pay the expected losses.

I seem to know far too many people who average plus playing poker.
There must be a large number of *other* people out there, who I don't
know, who average minus consistently. Or maybe that population has
high turnover? (I don't particularly suspect that particular poker
players I'm thinking of of selective memory or deliberately misstating
their results; when they have graphs, or even numbers scribbled on the
back of the poker money envelope, which they consult before answering,
I think they're accurately keeping track and honestly reporting.
That, too, is supposedly rare among poker players.)
Post by Michael Benveniste
While I don't think that government should be in the business of
running lotteries, you need better facts to support that position.
Moral argument? Government shouldn't put itself in the position of
benefiting from a "bad" thing? Otherwise, it looks like a great
example of a way for the government to raise money from strictly
voluntary transactions.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-***@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Michael Benveniste
2005-11-27 01:23:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Dyer-Bennet
Post by Michael Benveniste
While I don't think that government should be in the business of
running lotteries, you need better facts to support that position.
Moral argument? Government shouldn't put itself in the position of
benefiting from a "bad" thing? Otherwise, it looks like a great
example of a way for the government to raise money from strictly
voluntary transactions.
I consider capitalism amoral -- neither moral nor immoral in itself.
So my argument isn't one of morals but rather of political and
economic systems.

Gaming/Gambling is a sector of the entertainment industry. I don't
see the social advantage in having government compete in this market
sector. You could make the "strictly voluntary transaction" argument
for government entering into competition with private firms in video
games, movies, or music. Or any other income producing venture, for
that matter.

(Oops. I forgot. The Army is marketing its own video game these
days.)
--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-***@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Doug Wickstrom
2005-11-27 04:20:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:23:44 -0500, in message
Post by Michael Benveniste
(Oops. I forgot. The Army is marketing its own video game these
days.)
They're not selling it. It's free.

It's a recruiting tool.
--
Doug Wickstrom <***@comcast.net>

"In my universe, people often suffer because of stupid things they've done.
But at least I have the human decency not to tell them that it's proof that
there is a loving god." --Kevin J. Maroney

Now filtering out all cross-posted messages and everything posted
through Google News.
Michael Benveniste
2005-11-27 13:44:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:20:00 -0600, Doug Wickstrom
Post by Doug Wickstrom
They're not selling it. It's free.
It's a recruiting tool.
I'm not in the videogame business, fortunately, but how would you
feel if the government starting giving away a product similar to
what you were selling? What's to prevent use of this tactic to
deny funding to one's political opposition?

One of the anti-trust allegations against Microsoft was that
they gave away software for free in order to lock out competitors.
Years before, the same case was made against IBM. In effect,
the government is 'dumping' the product.

If you look at the statistics at http://www.americasarmy.com/, one
can quantify the effect on other games. So far, it's pretty minor.
--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-***@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Keith F. Lynch
2005-11-27 18:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Benveniste
They're not selling it. It's free. It's a recruiting tool.
I'm not in the videogame business, fortunately, but how would you
feel if the government starting giving away a product similar to
what you were selling?
Video games don't substitute for each other any more than SF novels
or classical symphonies do.

However, government-provided intra-urban bus service has driven out
private providers.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Michael Benveniste
2005-11-28 04:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Video games don't substitute for each other any more than SF novels
or classical symphonies do.
So you're saying that a product has to be an exact match in order
compete with each other?

The next time you're at a con, I suggest you ask an SF editor or
publisher about competition for market share between SF novels.
--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-***@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Seth Breidbart
2005-11-28 07:01:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
However, government-provided intra-urban bus service has driven out
private providers.
Often that wasn't via the marketplace.

Seth
Doug Wickstrom
2005-11-27 19:27:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 08:44:16 -0500, in message
Post by Michael Benveniste
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:20:00 -0600, Doug Wickstrom
Post by Doug Wickstrom
They're not selling it. It's free.
It's a recruiting tool.
I'm not in the videogame business, fortunately, but how would you
feel if the government starting giving away a product similar to
what you were selling? What's to prevent use of this tactic to
deny funding to one's political opposition?
Not a valid analogy. They're not selling software, as such.
They're selling a particular game.

How does Baen Books giving away some books for free affect the
sales of Tor Books? For that matter, it seems to _positively_
affect the sales of some Baen books -- the ones they give away.

If I, as a writer, choose to publish my own book and give it
away, how does that affect the sales of other writers?

Likewise, the US Army developed the game and chooses to give it
away. To my mind, it would _enhance_ the sales of similar games,
once the free game were mastered.
--
Doug Wickstrom <***@comcast.net>

Gentlemen do not wear flippers with a sombrero.

Now filtering out all cross-posted messages and everything posted
through Google News.
Michael Benveniste
2005-11-28 05:20:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 13:27:31 -0600, Doug Wickstrom
Post by Doug Wickstrom
Not a valid analogy. They're not selling software, as such.
They're selling a particular game.
By that definition, no one sells software. Microsoft argued
that it didn't give away IE to drive Netscape out of business,
they were just making an natural extension of their operating
system. The net effect on Netscape was the same.
Post by Doug Wickstrom
How does Baen Books giving away some books for free affect the
sales of Tor Books? For that matter, it seems to _positively_
affect the sales of some Baen books -- the ones they give away.
In the U.S., When you price your products below cost in order to
drive out competition, it's called predatory pricing and you can
be sued for anti-trust violations under the Sherman and Robinson-
Patman acts. Many U.S. states also have their own laws against
below cost pricing as well.

See:
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/international/docs/compcomm/2005--Belowcost.pdf

I have no issue with publishers giving away a few copies of a book
for marketing purposes, nor does the Supreme Court. Baen has
a legitimate chance of recouping their losses by introducing an
author or through increased sales of sequels.

But how do you think Tor or Baen would react if the U.S.
government started hiring authors and giving away SF books
for recruiting purposes?
Post by Doug Wickstrom
If I, as a writer, choose to publish my own book and give it
away, how does that affect the sales of other writers?
Since you are a private citizen, that's your choice as long as
you aren't harming competition by doing so. Of course, your
ability to do so is limited by the amount of your money you are
willing to spend on distribution, printing, etc.

Most people only have a limited amount of time to read. If
there were a large number of free books available of the same
quality as books you had to pay for, don't you think sales of
non-free books would suffer?

But the U.S. Army isn't a private citizen. It doesn't have to
make a profit, either long-term or short-term. I don't want it
going into competition with commercial firms, and that's what
this game does.
Post by Doug Wickstrom
Likewise, the US Army developed the game and chooses to give it
away. To my mind, it would _enhance_ the sales of similar games,
once the free game were mastered.
Anything's possible, I suppose. But it's equally possible that
a player will grow tired of the genre and decide not to purchase
at all.
--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-***@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Keith F. Lynch
2005-12-01 02:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Microsoft argued that it didn't give away IE to drive Netscape out
of business, they were just making an natural extension of their
operating system. The net effect on Netscape was the same.
Yes, and the lawsuits against Microsoft for this were bogus. They
have the perfect right to give away products. What next, sue the
Linux and BSD developers for giving away much better software
for free?

Instead, Microsoft should have been sued for producing software that
spreads viruses, just as a neighbor can be sued for having a garbage
heap in his yard that breeds rats and roaches that then infest the
whole neighborhood.

I'm probably the only person to have simultaneously participated in a
demonstration against the Justice Department for suing Microsoft, and
boycotted Microsoft.
In the U.S., When you price your products below cost in order
to drive out competition, it's called predatory pricing and
you can be sued for anti-trust violations under the Sherman
and Robinson-Patman acts.
Many U.S. states also have their own laws against below cost
pricing as well.
These laws would be an extremely bad idea even if they could be
applied fairly, rather than arbitrarily and capriciously, which
they can't. Why hasn't Wal-Mart been sued for predatory pricing?

If two stores have the same price, they're guilty of colluding, and if
they have different prices, the one with the lower price is guilty of
predatory pricing?
I have no issue with publishers giving away a few copies of a book
for marketing purposes, nor does the Supreme Court.
A few? How many are acceptable?
But how do you think Tor or Baen would react if the U.S. government
started hiring authors and giving away SF books for recruiting
purposes?
Probably about the same as I feel about the government taxing me, not
a college graduate, to provide free college education to my future
competitors. Or about the government taxing me, not a home-owner,
to provide free houses to others.

The crime here is taxation, a form of theft, more than what's done
with the money once it's stolen.
Most people only have a limited amount of time to read. If there
were a large number of free books available of the same quality as
books you had to pay for, don't you think sales of non-free books
would suffer?
Apparently not. There are plenty of used book sales where one can
pick up a box full of books for $5. That's not quite free, but it's
pretty close compared to the cost of the same books new.

If my favorite authors were to suddenly double their output, or if,
for each of them, another one just as good were to start writing, I
would still buy all of it.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Zev Sero
2005-12-01 02:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
If two stores have the same price, they're guilty of colluding, and if
they have different prices, the one with the lower price is guilty of
predatory pricing?
And the other one of price gouging.
--
Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV. They go
***@sero.name well together, but are completely different concepts.
- James Lileks
Michael Benveniste
2005-12-01 03:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
These laws would be an extremely bad idea even if they could be
applied fairly, rather than arbitrarily and capriciously, which
they can't. Why hasn't Wal-Mart been sued for predatory pricing?
They have been. Repeatedly. Cases that I know of have been
settled in Arkansas and Wisconsin. They've also been convicted
of predatory pricing in Germany.

The problem with such suits is trying to show that Wal-Mart sells
goods below their cost when they keep making money.
Post by Keith F. Lynch
If two stores have the same price, they're guilty of colluding, and if
they have different prices, the one with the lower price is guilty of
predatory pricing?
Possibly, but one would have to establish additional facts to
make either case. Collusion requires forbidden forms of
communication among the parties. Predatory pricing requires
pricing below cost and the intent to reduce competition. Read the
link I gave you for a start. After all, we've already paid for it.
Post by Keith F. Lynch
But how do you think Tor or Baen would react if the U.S. government
started hiring authors and giving away SF books for recruiting
purposes?
Probably about the same as I feel about the government taxing me, not
a college graduate, to provide free college education to my future
competitors. Or about the government taxing me, not a home-owner,
to provide free houses to others.
The crime here is taxation, a form of theft, more than what's done
with the money once it's stolen.
So you agree that a taxpayer-funded Army-produced video game is
a bad idea. So that's settled.

I'm a wishy-washy libertarian myself. I don't believe taxation is
theft when the money is used for an legitimate purpose. To my
mind, going into competition with private industry is not a
legitimate function of government. Nor are U.S. propaganda efforts
aimed at U.S. citizens.
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Most people only have a limited amount of time to read. If there
were a large number of free books available of the same quality as
books you had to pay for, don't you think sales of non-free books
would suffer?
Apparently not. There are plenty of used book sales where one can
pick up a box full of books for $5. That's not quite free, but it's
pretty close compared to the cost of the same books new.
To most people, a used book is not of the same quality as a new book.
If it was, it would sell at the same price. Or don't you believe in
the laws of supply and demand?
--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-***@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Doug Wickstrom
2005-12-01 05:44:10 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:39:59 -0500, in message
Post by Michael Benveniste
I'm a wishy-washy libertarian myself. I don't believe taxation is
theft when the money is used for an legitimate purpose. To my
mind, going into competition with private industry is not a
legitimate function of government. Nor are U.S. propaganda efforts
aimed at U.S. citizens.
Do you propose that the Army recruit its volunteers from the pool
of non-citizens? Suddenly the number of potential recruits
exceeds the population the entire Western Hemisphere.

Or should we just have a peacetime draft?
--
Doug Wickstrom <***@comcast.net>

Fandom is the focus. Science Fiction is the filter.

Now filtering out all cross-posted messages and everything posted
through Google News.
Daniel R. Reitman
2005-12-01 04:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Microsoft argued that it didn't give away IE to drive Netscape out
of business, they were just making an natural extension of their
operating system. The net effect on Netscape was the same.
Yes, and the lawsuits against Microsoft for this were bogus. They
have the perfect right to give away products. What next, sue the
Linux and BSD developers for giving away much better software
for free?
They have the right to give away product. They don't have the right
to use their monopoly in one market to leverage another market or
drive rivals out of the other market, and arguably that's what they
did. If the trial court had gone through the record and cited the
evidence to support its findings and conclusions, the Court of Appeals
would have had a harder time overturning the opinion.
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Instead, Microsoft should have been sued for producing software that
spreads viruses, just as a neighbor can be sued for having a garbage
heap in his yard that breeds rats and roaches that then infest the
whole neighborhood.
That isn't antitrust. That's arguably product liability. Wanna find
a lawyer to run the class action?
Post by Keith F. Lynch
. . . .
Dan, ad nauseam
Kevin J. Maroney
2005-11-27 18:33:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:20:00 -0600, Doug Wickstrom
Post by Doug Wickstrom
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:23:44 -0500, in message
Post by Michael Benveniste
(Oops. I forgot. The Army is marketing its own video game these
days.)
They're not selling it. It's free.
It's a recruiting tool.
(Not the computer game being discussed, but:)

[SOCOM 3: U.S. Navy SEALs] is a lousy recruiting tool; why go
through all that hell when you get this much fun in the warm and
dry, plus your own bed at night?

<http://avclub.com/content/node/42706>
--
Kevin J. Maroney | ***@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Marcus L. Rowland
2005-11-26 21:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
... so I checked Nevada next since they're right next to each other
and was a bit surprised to find it not on the list either. I guess
the Nevadans think it would be redundant.
Almost everyone knows that government-run lotteries give worse odds
than private lotteries. So state lotteries can only thrive where
private competition has been banned by the state.
Really?

UK government premium bonds pay out prizes that average at a 4% PA
return, except that only one bond in a couple of thousand gets anything
in the monthly draw, others get prizes up to a million, and all of the
bonds stay in the draw permanently and can be cashed in at any time for
their full face value. Show me a commercial lottery anywhere near as
good.

People who win the UK's commercial lottery are generally advised to
plough the maximum they can (which I think is £30,000) into the premium
bond scheme, since that much invested more or less guarantees a steady
tax-free cash income, averaging 15 prizes a year of £50 and upwards.
--
Marcus L. Rowland http://www.forgottenfutures.com/
LJ:ffutures http://homepage.ntlworld.com/forgottenfutures/
Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
"Life is chaos; Chaos is life; Control is an illusion." - Andromeda
Paul Dormer
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marcus L. Rowland
Post by Keith F. Lynch
... so I checked Nevada next since they're right next to each other
and was a bit surprised to find it not on the list either. I guess
the Nevadans think it would be redundant.
Almost everyone knows that government-run lotteries give worse odds
than private lotteries. So state lotteries can only thrive where
private competition has been banned by the state.
Really?
UK government premium bonds pay out prizes that average at a 4% PA
return, except that only one bond in a couple of thousand gets anything
in the monthly draw, others get prizes up to a million, and all of the
bonds stay in the draw permanently and can be cashed in at any time for
their full face value. Show me a commercial lottery anywhere near as
good.
People who win the UK's commercial lottery are generally advised to
plough the maximum they can (which I think is £30,000) into the premium
bond scheme, since that much invested more or less guarantees a steady
tax-free cash income, averaging 15 prizes a year of £50 and upwards.
I was sent on a pre-retirement course last year and one of the speakers
was an investment advisor. He did say that Premium Bonds were a good
investment - you could usually average the same return as putting the
money in a savings account, with the added bonus of getting a big prize.
However, he did have one caveat.

There is an anecdotal suggestion that the return on the bonds drops off
with time. He claimed that people had told him that for the first year of
holding bonds, they got a good return. After three years, they got almost
nothing. If they cashed the bonds and re-invested, the returns
re-started. The National Savings people deny this is the case.

All I can say is that I invested £2000 at the beginning of the year and
have had nothing back so far.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...