Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 381 posts

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#321

Post by kogus »

clouddrover wrote: post #277
bmelton wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The framers of the constitution never meant for government to have so much power that lobbying it would be able to buy much influence. Beyond that, considering that the vote was restricted to landed elites and mercantile class, there's more credence to the idea that the framers never meant for the government to stifle the speech of anyone (whether corporations or not) than there is to suggest they had any idea on cor…

> never meant for government to have so much power that lobbying it would be able to buy much influence I don't think lobbying is a problem because the government has too much power, but rather because of the electoral system. When voting is voluntary elections are won by the party that is best able to get out the vote. In order to get out the vote huge sums of money must be spent on political advertising and organiz…

I disagree. I think government authority is the sole foundation upon which all lobbying is built.

If the government has no authority over something, there is no value in lobbying the government for help with that something.

Example: The government has subsidizes and regulates farming. Therefore there is a powerful incentive for agricultural interests to buy special treatment. Add ethanol considerations, and you have oil interests at work too.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#322

Post by studentrob »

adrianratnapala wrote: post #282
studentrob wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In Australia, which has IRV, it's not clear to me there's much difference. Candidates are still elected to single-member constituencies, and we still get a two-party system little different from the US. How long has Australia had IRV? I don't think it's a magic solution on its own. But I do think it allows voters to more clearly express their wishes without playing as many games wondering what the rest of the voter…

> How long has Australia had IRV? As long as I have been around -- 30 years or more. IRV has nothing to do with reducing the strength of two main parties. It just reduces the weirdness in the case of moderately close races.

Okay, so there can still be two main parties, but isn't the idea to allow third party candidates to run without taking votes away from the most similar candidate? I haven't studied all the different forms of voting [1]. I know there isn't one that's perfect, I just think we can make some improvements on what we have now. I am not ashamed to admit most of my understanding of this comes from CP Grey's animal kingdom =).

EDIT: Just read a bit about approval voting and score voting. I guess I'll suggest those next time instead of mentioning IRV.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Compliance_of_se...

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#323

Post by studentrob »

ClayShentrup wrote: post #304
eru wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Approval Voting is much simpler, and without the perverse incentives that come with instant runoff voting.

Yes, Approval Voting is simpler and radically superior to IRV. www.electology.org/approval-voting-vs-irv Bayesian Regret calculations show IRV is actually THE WORST of the five commonly discussed alternative voting systems. The best is Score Voting, but it's not as simple as Approval Voting. http://ScoreVoting.net/BayRegsFig.html Clay Shentrup Co-founder of The Center for Election Science

Cool. Here's a better introduction to score voting [1]

The site you linked looks like it was built in 1998

[1] http://electology.org/score-voting

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#324

Post by winstonewert »

eru wrote: post #260
winstonewert wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's my problem with Approval Voting: Let's say you are left-wing, and there is a left-wing, centrist, and right-wing candidate running. Do you approve the centrist candidate? If you approve the centrist candidate, you may block the right-wing candidate, but you also may block the left-wing candidate. There is no clear and obvious way for the voter to translate their preference into an approval vote.

That's an interesting point. Yes, approval voting, like all other voting systems, requires voters to not only know their preferences, but also to play a little `game' (in the game theory sense of the word). The optimal strategy on who to vote for depends not only on preferences, but also on what you know about the other voters. Polls help here. The nice thing about approval voting is that, even though their might not…

I don't think other system require "playing the game" in the same way as approval voting. You can game any voting system by voting strategically, but approval voting seems unique in actually expecting people to have to vote strategically.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#325

Post by sjreese »

So, the long-term solution for strong encryption must be a cultural one. We have to be prepared to fight the crypto wars forever, like unions are still fighting the labor wars a century later. Like civil rights activists are fighting racism even today--and will be for the foreseeable future.

So true .. and it up to you to continue our peoples struggle. - I've seen this time and time again .. WTC7 was one of those don't believe your eyes. and Now the Gov. lackeys need your info to sell as so-called information brokers to get you special offers. Based on any and all of your actions. ( think supper cookies ) but moved to a mobile platform you! And you if don't want special offers - then you are a terrorist! - and YOU become the focus. Not WTC7 - Waco or that poor man in the US house who forgot he was 2nd admin C&C denied. But did not get a chance to explain - before the cover up started. I support APPLE & Mr. Snowden vs. the FBI/INFORMATION BROKERS on this hope you do as well.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#326

Post by squozzer »

rayiner wrote: post #220
nkurz wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think 'rayiner' might just have meant "it would be preferable that the President be elected by popular vote of the entire nation without regard to state boundaries". While it's possible he was suggesting that the States themselves should be abolished, I think it's just awkward phrasing.

Nope, I think we should get rid of the states and turn them into administrative districts of the federal government. The state governments are hotbeds of corruption, ruled by minority interests because state elections have low voter turnout, and add an enormous administrative tax to pretty much every economic or legal transaction that happens in the U.S.

One could say the same about cities and counties, except in LA, where they call them parishes, or AK, where they call them boroughs.

But I don't expect that change anytime soon. It was after all the states who gave up some of their sovereign powers to form a federal system after breaking free of British rule.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#328

Post by studentrob »

EdHominem wrote: post #320
studentrob wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus the point of our system is to allow both good and bad ideas to be discussed openly so everyone can decide their merits. We haven't seen the likes of Trump since Nixon, and he won't be the last, but we are stronger for giving him room to speak. The bad ideas will hang themselves, even if he becomes president . The US president is not all powerful. There are many limits in place.

I feel like we're more immunized against religious flavors of crazy. Like, Cruz is probably further from mentally balanced than Trump even, but if he became president he probably wouldn't cause the same level of trouble. Trump's ideas are "new" in that he does say them first. They appeal to many because we all know the old ideas aren't great, from painful experience. Trump's brand of crazy hasn't hurt us in a long ti…

> Trump's ideas have the veneer of "business decisions" and seem more likely to get enacted.

All the more reason to start being active in discussions about his ideas.

The most compelling for me is he is okay with arming Japan with nuclear weapons.

Trump claims China is tipping the balance of power by building tiny islands in the South China Sea. These are relatively close to China and far from the US. He claims this could kick off WW 3 if not properly off set by adding something to the other side of the scale. He says he'd be okay with arming multiple new nation states, including South Korea and Japan, to balance things again.

But arming new nation states with nuclear weapons would severely throw things out of balance. It'd take years for these countries to ramp up the skills necessary to handle nuclear weapons. And during this time, China could build a decent PR campaign in their country encouraging citizens to come together to fight Japan. Japan has still not apologized for all the atrocities they committed in China during WW II, and some Chinese people do not like that. Pour some gasoline on that small fire and it could spread.

Knowing China's feelings towards Japan after WW II, China's population would certainly not accept Japan having nukes. They might come together to fight a war. Even though China is not a democracy, they still need their people to unify around a common cause in order to choose war over revolution.

I doubt many of Trump's supporters would agree that giving Japan nukes is a good idea. They're the one country we used nukes against. So, it's a good point to bring up with potential Trump voters. I'd like to see that idea of his get more attention so people can see just how impractical he is. Giving SK and Japan nukes isn't just a matter of the US President signing a piece of paper. There are international treaties, diverse governments and populations in place, and as far as I know, Trump has not been to any of those places.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#329

Post by sratner »

studentrob wrote: post #271
mikelward wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Australia, which has IRV, it's not clear to me there's much difference. Candidates are still elected to single-member constituencies, and we still get a two-party system little different from the US. Do you think IRV alone helps? What exactly do you propose? Aside: in Australia, which has IRV, gay marriage is still not legal. Yay democracy. /s

> In Australia, which has IRV, it's not clear to me there's much difference. Candidates are still elected to single-member constituencies, and we still get a two-party system little different from the US. How long has Australia had IRV? I don't think it's a magic solution on its own. But I do think it allows voters to more clearly express their wishes without playing as many games wondering what the rest of the voter…

> A good government is made up of active voters.

Another thing Australia has, besides IRV, is compulsory voting.

Post reply on HN