taks

he's the most hard-core liberal in the group. not a chance. taks

everyone seems so set on chastising bush they seem to forget this is the one area he has shone brightly with. actually, bush's economy has been an uphill ride since the bubble, which started well before he took office. i.e. he is maintaining the economy. yeah, gas prices are high, but not when you consider average inflation over the last 30 years or so (oil is a commodity, so it doesn't track normal inflation). the over-heated housing market has cooled in the regions in which is was over-heated, but everywhere else it is chugging along. and, not surprisingly, our budget deficit is actually getting smaller now... eliminating the debt, however, is next to impossible unless we maintain a power split (i.e. dem congress repub pres, vice versa). the problem with spending over bush's terms is not necessarily a bush problem, it's a one party control problem. clinton would have done the same had dems been in control then. taks

uh, dark moth, hate to tell you but the economy in the US is rocking. apparently none of you guys were around when 10% unemployment (think carter) was the norm. heck, even the dow, an otherwise poor economic indicator, is at record levels again. taks

that's why i only semi-like guliani. his stand on most issues is fair enough in my book, but he has done some things that don't make sense. i hadn't really thought about richardson, but he's definitely a moderate and not too bad a choice. taks

i think she's fake. bill was poll driven, which tends to make people happy (i.e. he's doing what the majority want) but hillary comes across as pandering in order to get the swing, when all she really wants is a chance to show bill up. bill was not necessarily "more effective" at international politics, he was more politically correct (i.e. he was smoother), which inflamed people less when it came to dealing with miscreants. if that means more effective, than i guess i can't really debate that opinion. neither he nor bush really got anything done overall. taks

this is about the most civil discussion i've ever seen w.r.t. what would otherwise be a rather flame-ridden debate. thanks walsh, btw. i think it is apparent we all seem to understand the issues with such a concept. the problem boils down to an inability for mankind to behave objectively, particularly when it comes to evaluating elected officials. everyone has their own idea what constitutes a measure of quality. in the end, there is no "ideal" system that is workable. taks

both the dems and the repubs have a problem for the next race. suffice it to say, the dems have a black man and a woman as their two leading candidates. both have an uphill struggle (whether that is right or not is not something i'm commenting on) with american voters. i just don't think early polls are accurate when it comes down to a choice between two "first timers" w.r.t. race or gender. i could be wrong, and won't complain if i am (though i'm not a hillary fan). edwards is the typical "live as i say, not as i do" liberal, which seriously dents his cred with average joe voter. he's a little too preachy about his causes, IMO. of course, if i had to choose between edwards and dean, edwards all day (dean is just plain annoying). republicans on the other hand, just don't have anybody worth electing. i semi-like guliani, but i don't think he's electable. i don't like mccain. never have, never will. condi was considered for a while, but she has to cross both boundaries, race and gender. not likely to happen. i'm hoping for the dark horse 3rd party, but that's an even longer shot. too bad the libertarians can't get organized enough to put forth a valid 3rd party candidate. taks

yup. scholz is one of the best guitarists ever. very distinctive sound for sure. delp died a day before scholz' 60th birthday, btw. taks

ah, yes, that debate. i agree. taks

ah yes, a miscreant shows his head. now the debates can begin... what is it we're debating anyway? taks

that would be coooool. taks

we seem to all be in agreement. taks

my goal is to ski an entire mogul run, such as triple treat at copper mountain, without stopping or falling. it may take the rest of my days to get there, but i'll do it. taks

mark reading == snoooooze time. most of what i read is technical in nature, which is even harder for me to read. taks

oh, don't get me wrong... i agree with what you're saying. i was really getting at the fact that what i do requires the credits, but also the knowledge that comes with them (e.g. the adaptive filter theory class i had 2 years ago is paying dividends now). my classes, however, are only $359/cr. hr. MIT's are probably 5x that. unfortunately, my new company does not pay for my school, so i get to foot the bill for the remaining hours (i have 21 hours left). taks

i assume then, that you've already read war and peace? taks

exactly. taks

aye, once the majority realizes it can vote itself the keys to the kingdom, it will, thereby bankrupting itself and resulting in anarchy once again. hehe... taks

i agree. taks

we all seem to agree on this point. i.e., an educated populace, not one driven by the blowing winds of the media, is the "best" solution. that is one, however, that will take eons to implement. hehe... taks

the only system i implement 3 channels with is my son's, and performance isn't an issue when all he does is play web games on noggin or nick jr. taks

sand = anti-volourn. without one or the other, they'd both probably be the nicest guys on the forum. i've personally watched as these guys have taken opposite positions regarding some game topic, even though one or the other was doing so just because the other chose his position first! hehe... (certainly an exaggeration, but not far from the truth!) taks

i agree, and i don't know. no matter how many "objective" criteria we set forth, there will always be some loophole for exploitation, and exploit our leaders will. some of the criteria will have inverse relationships (such as improved health care vs. higher taxes, etc.). some may simply have such long-term returns that it is not feasible to accurately assess improvements in the short-term. i think this was evident with the recent CEO of HP (the first woman CEO of a major firm) as a corporate example. she had several long-term mechanisms in place, but the stock-holders were impatient, and out she went. the stock-holders did not give her ideas time to be realized. those mechanisms may have been a bust, too, but we'll never know. the ultimate benefit of a democracy/republic is that the people have a choice. the ultimate "solution" may be something as simple as a smarter populace. one of the problems with ill-informed people is that they are easily led astray by charismatic leaders. as we evolve, perhaps that effect will be lessened. who knows. i doubt any of us will be around to see what happens. i'm guessing we're still a few thousand years from that level of advancement. taks

the apparent line in the sand at which this happens is definitely situational. again, situational dependence, though i agree it's probably a large swing across differing situations. the meritocracy suffers from the same issues as just about every other system: great on paper, but the will of man perverts the obvious benefits. in particular, defining "objective" criteria revolves around subjective assumptions, which come from man himself. unfortunately, as has been pointed out, what may be good for one aspect, may not for another. i.e., many of these "objective" criteria are interdependent. improve one and you may do so at the detriment of another. in the end, you need some subjective "weighting" to make it work, and there will always be opinions on the matter of how to weight them. in the signal processing world, this is referred to as "optimal." however, optimal _always_ has to be referred to some measure. e.g. optimal with respect to mean-square error. the terms optimal and/or best are meaningless unless applied to a specific measure. furthermore, optimal or best with respect to one measure typically means sub-optimal with respect to another. hence, some subjective criteria always exist. taks

actually, i'm more inclined to think it is large population that is at fault. the unfortunate fact is that with 300 million people in the US, it is impossible to have a vote that is "about the issues." candidates running for office, those that can afford it, only have a certain amount of time to get their messages across. even they cannot afford to go down into the details (time, money, etc.). they have to choose what will make them most electable, and that is often a) deride their opponents and b) push their images. in short, i think just about any system will suffer once you get as big as the US is. often, most of the voters have never even heard of the candidates (who besides texans knew who GWB was, other than GB's son, prior to the 2000 election? or kerry and massachussetts?) the people fall prey to their own inability, or unwillingness, to understand what really matters. in fact, now we're to a point that even image isn't a big deal for most. they could care less about what each candidate offers, simply voting "their side" because "the other side" is bad (to them). the only votes that matter are the swing votes in the middle, and those numbers are shrinking. taks