Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Obama II

Expand Messages
  • ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO
    So... What about Obama s reelection? Here in Brazil, we had the impression that the Republicans chose the worst possible candidate, someone they put there to
    Message 1 of 22 , Nov 9, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      So... What about Obama's reelection?

      Here in Brazil, we had the impression that the Republicans "chose" the
      worst possible candidate, someone they put there to lose. Or maybe the
      Democrats voted in the Republican primaries to make him win.

      Did anyone over there ever think that Mitt Romney had _any_ chance?

      Alberto Monteiro

      PS: BTW, brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff, is _boring_. Three years as
      president, and there's not _any_ single joke about her. Nothing.

      _______________________________________________
      http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
    • Dan Minette
      ... From: brin-l-bounces@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-bounces@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 3:17
      Message 2 of 22 , Nov 9, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        -----Original Message-----
        From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-bounces@...] On
        Behalf Of ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO
        Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 3:17 AM
        To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
        Subject: Obama II

        So... What about Obama's reelection?

        >Here in Brazil, we had the impression that the Republicans "chose" the
        worst possible candidate,
        >someone they put there to lose. Or maybe the Democrats voted in the
        Republican primaries to make him
        >win.

        We have a primary system in the US. Right now, the extreme right wing of
        the Repubican party can force candidates far to the right. Good Republican
        candidates stayed on the sideline this year, leaving Romney and the 7 right
        wing dwarfs.

        >Did anyone over there ever think that Mitt Romney had _any_ chance?

        I did, especially after the first debate. No American president has been
        re-elected with more than 7.2% unemployment since FDR, and he brought
        employment way down. This has been probably the most painful ecconomic
        period (in terms of changes) since WWII. That's a strong headwind. When
        Obama sleptwalked through the first debate, and Romney was ahead in the
        national polls, I thought it was a toss up. Especially after the UN speech
        which totally misidentified the cause of the deaths in Lybia after the
        administration had intelligence that pointed to terrorism, not a crowd gone
        wild. But, Romney blew the 2nd and 3rd debate, Obama...for the first time
        in the campaign, acted as though he wanted to be reelected, and Sandy
        cemented in the American mind the positive roll the Federal government can
        play. By election Eve, Gautam and I were arguing about the margin. He was
        spot on, I though Romney would take VA, CO, and FL.

        Dan M.


        _______________________________________________
        http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
      • Warren Adams-Ockrassa
        On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 07:17:25 -0200, ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO wrote: So... What about Obama s reelection? ... I ve got a
        Message 3 of 22 , Nov 9, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 07:17:25 -0200, ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO
          <albmont@...> wrote:
          So... What about Obama's reelection?
          >
          > Here in Brazil, we had the impression that the Republicans "chose" the
          > worst possible candidate, someone they put there to lose. Or maybe the
          > Democrats voted in the Republican primaries to make him win.

          I've got a somewhat different take on it from Dan, I think. The extreme
          'right' in the Republican party is a shrinking minority, however little
          they want to admit the fact, and however voluble their protests to the
          contrary might be. Rick Perry is an example of the kind of candidate
          they would have preferred.

          The Republican mainstream probably knew better; if they felt the same
          way as the extremists Perry would have floated a lot longer than he did.

          Of all the other candidates, Ron Paul seemed the most sensible, but he
          had two things going against him: 1. He had a history of permitting
          extremely racist sentiments to be promulgated under his imprimatur; and
          2. He was far, far more intelligent than any of the other candidates
          and, indeed, a fair margin of the electorate. Americans shy away from
          intelligence.

          So no, Romney was the best pick of the available options, as far as the
          Republicans saw him, I think. He wasn't *too* smart, wasn't *too*
          radically 'right', wasn't *too* moderate/centrist. He also wasn't too
          consistent, as his constantly changing campaign evidenced (he was
          reversing himself a couple of times a month by the end).

          No one deliberately floats a candidate they think will lose - what
          would the profit be in that? And if the Democrats had been stealth
          voting to undermine the Republicans, they would've picked someone
          clearly batshit loony, like Perry.

          > Did anyone over there ever think that Mitt Romney had _any_ chance?

          Well, all but about 225,000 voters, yes. That's how narrow the popular
          vote margin was, last time I checked, between Obama and Romney.

          Dan was right about the debate performance, as well. Romney came out
          swinging and clobbered Obama in the first debate. The second and third
          were solid comebacks, though the third debate - being about foreign
          policy - was not watched by many Americans. (Our foreign policy is
          'kill em all and let god sort em out'.)

          Biden did pretty well against Ryan in the VP debates, as well, calling
          him out repeatedly whenever he went outside the bounds of what most of
          us call 'reality'. Obama did the same thing with the second debate,
          calling Romney out when he lied, letting himself talk himself into
          corners, and so on.

          Nonetheless, Romney's approval went way, way up after the first debate,
          and it really did seem to energize him and his supporters. The
          electoral map doesn't show just how close the popular vote really was -
          and it was close.

          --
          Warren Adams-Ockrassa


          _______________________________________________
          http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
        • Damon Agretto
          In terms of the popular vote, as of now Obama has 61,174,297 votes, while Romney has 58,172,063 votes (source:
          Message 4 of 22 , Nov 9, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            In terms of the popular vote, as of now Obama has 61,174,297 votes,
            while Romney has 58,172,063 votes (source:
            http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main?hpt=hp_inthenews). A
            difference of 3,002,234, so a fair margin and decisively winning the
            popular vote for Obama.

            Damon.

            On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Warren Adams-Ockrassa
            <warren@...> wrote:
            > On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 07:17:25 -0200, ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO
            > <albmont@...> wrote:
            > So... What about Obama's reelection?
            >>
            >>
            >> Here in Brazil, we had the impression that the Republicans "chose" the
            >> worst possible candidate, someone they put there to lose. Or maybe the
            >> Democrats voted in the Republican primaries to make him win.
            >
            >
            > I've got a somewhat different take on it from Dan, I think. The extreme
            > 'right' in the Republican party is a shrinking minority, however little they
            > want to admit the fact, and however voluble their protests to the contrary
            > might be. Rick Perry is an example of the kind of candidate they would have
            > preferred.
            > The Republican mainstream probably knew better; if they felt the same way as
            > the extremists Perry would have floated a lot longer than he did.
            > Of all the other candidates, Ron Paul seemed the most sensible, but he had
            > two things going against him: 1. He had a history of permitting extremely
            > racist sentiments to be promulgated under his imprimatur; and 2. He was far,
            > far more intelligent than any of the other candidates and, indeed, a fair
            > margin of the electorate. Americans shy away from intelligence.
            > So no, Romney was the best pick of the available options, as far as the
            > Republicans saw him, I think. He wasn't *too* smart, wasn't *too* radically
            > 'right', wasn't *too* moderate/centrist. He also wasn't too consistent, as
            > his constantly changing campaign evidenced (he was reversing himself a
            > couple of times a month by the end).
            > No one deliberately floats a candidate they think will lose - what would the
            > profit be in that? And if the Democrats had been stealth voting to undermine
            > the Republicans, they would've picked someone clearly batshit loony, like
            > Perry.
            >>
            >> Did anyone over there ever think that Mitt Romney had _any_ chance?
            >
            >
            > Well, all but about 225,000 voters, yes. That's how narrow the popular vote
            > margin was, last time I checked, between Obama and Romney.
            > Dan was right about the debate performance, as well. Romney came out
            > swinging and clobbered Obama in the first debate. The second and third were
            > solid comebacks, though the third debate - being about foreign policy - was
            > not watched by many Americans. (Our foreign policy is 'kill em all and let
            > god sort em out'.)
            >
            > Biden did pretty well against Ryan in the VP debates, as well, calling him
            > out repeatedly whenever he went outside the bounds of what most of us call
            > 'reality'. Obama did the same thing with the second debate, calling Romney
            > out when he lied, letting himself talk himself into corners, and so on.
            > Nonetheless, Romney's approval went way, way up after the first debate, and
            > it really did seem to energize him and his supporters. The electoral map
            > doesn't show just how close the popular vote really was - and it was close.
            > --
            > Warren Adams-Ockrassa
            >
            >
            > _______________________________________________
            > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
            >

            _______________________________________________
            http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
          • Dan Minette
            ... Romney has 58,172,063 votes A difference of 3,002,234, so a fair margin and decisively winning the popular vote for Obama. The difference is going to be
            Message 5 of 22 , Nov 9, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              >In terms of the popular vote, as of now Obama has 61,174,297 votes, while
              Romney has 58,172,063 votes A >difference of 3,002,234, so a fair margin and
              decisively winning the popular vote for Obama.

              The difference is going to be slighly above 2.5% and slightly above the Bush
              margin over Kerry, but nowhere near the margin he had in '08.

              > I've got a somewhat different take on it from Dan, I think. The
              > extreme 'right' in the Republican party is a shrinking minority,
              > however little they want to admit the fact, and however voluble their
              > protests to the contrary might be. Rick Perry is an example of the
              > kind of candidate they would have preferred.

              He is a weak example, though. He couldn't remember his talking points.
              And, if you recall, Romney went to the right of him on immigration. The GOP
              is interesting. I live in a very red state, and Perry better reflects the
              average GOP voter than Romney. But, he had baggage that would have doomed
              him in the general election, like appproving people who wanted Texas to
              seceed from the USA while governor. So, the GOP establishment, which still
              controls a lot of money, undercut him. And his not being able to remember
              his own name (OK I'm exaggerating) in a debate didn't help him. I think the
              GOP establishment is fading, and Ryan is the likely '16 candidate.

              Remember, this is the party that took down Lugar so they could run a yahoo.
              They may control the Senate if they let moderate Republicans run. Nate
              Silver did a great piece on how the moderate GOP senators have mostly left.
              And the House is dominated by the tea party. One of the problems the
              Speaker of the House has is that he many not be able to deliver even a third
              of the party for a compromise on spending cuts/tax increases to decrease the
              deficit. Remember, the presidential candidates had to agree that even $1 in
              tax increase for every $10 in spending cuts was unacceptable.

              Dan M.



              _______________________________________________
              http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
            • Jon Louis Mann
              ... Another explanation is perhaps when there is a incumbent up for the final term allowed under the law, more qualified candidates may choose to sit it out
              Message 6 of 22 , Nov 9, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                > So... What about Obama's reelection?
                > Here in Brazil, we had the impression that the Republicans
                > "chose" the worst possible candidate, put there to lose.
                > Or maybe the Democrats voted in the Republican primaries
                > to make him win. Did anyone over there ever think that Mitt
                > Romney had _any_ chance?
                > Alberto Monteiro
                > PS: BTW, Brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff, is _boring_.
                > Three years as president, and not _any_ single joke about her.
                > Nothing.

                Another explanation is perhaps when there is a incumbent up for the final term allowed under the law, more qualified candidates may choose to sit it out and let unknowns and also rans get egg on their face? Of course, in recent years that logic hasn't applied, but, Obama wasn't perceived as that weak, as Carter or Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. didn't really win...

                Capitalism Sucks is a book about the evils of capitalism. The author, Wolf Larsen, has a blog titled: "War Criminal Obama Wins Reelection to the White House."

                http://capitalismsucks.blog.com

                Larsen ran for president in the 2012 elections as an independent. His campaign slogan was ~ "Choosing between the Democrats and Republicans is like choosing between AIDS and cancer!"

                http://WolfLarsen.org

                By the way if anyone is interested in how I did in the Santa Monica city council race please friend me on my Facebook page. While you're at it you might want to join in on the discussions on Brin's wall!~)
                Jon Mann

                _______________________________________________
                http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
              • Bryon Daly
                ... worst possible candidate, someone they put there to lose. Or maybe the Democrats voted in the Republican primaries to make him win. A big part of Romney s
                Message 7 of 22 , Nov 10, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  >Here in Brazil, we had the impression that the Republicans "chose" the worst possible candidate, someone they put there to lose. Or maybe the Democrats voted in the Republican primaries to make him win.
                  A big part of Romney's appeal was that as a tremendously successful businessman, he was afforded a large amount of economic credibility.  And with almost 4 years now of the Great Recession under Obama's watch, the economy was the number one concern for many people and Obama was vulnerable on this issue.  They then doubled-down on this by picking another "economics"-type guy as his running mate.  And this was largely successful in that despite them providing very little in the way of hard numbers, they were often the winners of the "who is better for the economy" polls.
                   
                  Another part of Romney's appeal was that he had some moderate/centrist appeal as a moderate republican, having been elected governor of the largely democrat state of Masschusetts, and having passed the "Romneycare" health plan, which is often called the model for the Obamacare health plan.  But those were both huge vulnerabilities for him in the primary process where some felt he wasn't conservative enough and Obamacare is a dirty word.  Further, as a Mormon, Romney doesn't quite pass the WASP test so he basically had to tack hard right to build up his conservative cred to get the party nomination. 
                   
                  The likely intention was to shift back to the center to hopefully get the moderates back on board once he had the nomination locked, but that never quite worked out.  Romney never quite had the right's full trust, which likely wasn't helped when Romney's spokesman was asked back in March if Romney's shift to the far right would hurt him with moderates, and the spokesman replied:
                  “Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch-A-Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all of over again.”  -- Thus begging the question from both moderates and the far right of what Romney really believes and stands for.  Is he a flip-flopper - or worse, is he just always willing to say whatever it takes to get elected?
                   

                  >Did anyone over there ever think that Mitt Romney had _any_ chance?
                  Many of the pundits and talking heads of the right actually seemed to expect a landslide victory for Romney.  Quite a few projected electoral college results around the reverse of the actual result: around 300+ for Romney, and around 206 for Obama.  Liberals had high levels of schadenfreude watching the distressed Fox News coverage.  http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/democratic-schadenfreude-gay-rights-allen-west-karl-rove-donald-trump.php
                  And of course, a 2.5% difference in the number of popular votes for each candidate is quite a slim margin, particularly when the electoral college nonsense makes it possible for the loser of the popular vote to get elected.
                • David Hobby
                  On a related note, I ve been reading about problems with the Romney campaign s software to organize election day get-out-the-vote efforts. My first reaction
                  Message 8 of 22 , Nov 11, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On a related note, I've been reading about problems with the Romney
                    campaign's software to organize election day get-out-the-vote efforts.
                    My first reaction was "Sabotage?", but now I'm betting that incompetence
                    is the more likely explanation. See:
                    http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/candidates/romney/2012/11/10/orca-mitt-romney-high-tech-get-out-the-vote-program-crashed-election-day/gflS8VkzDcJcXCrHoV0nsI/story.html

                    What do you think?

                    ---David



                    _______________________________________________
                    http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                  • Nick Arnett
                    Sounded like a classic scalability problem. I m looking forward to our company telling our election software story. Had been super secret. Nick ...
                    Message 9 of 22 , Nov 11, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Sounded like a classic scalability problem.

                      I'm looking forward to our company telling our election software story. Had been super secret.

                      Nick

                      On Sunday, November 11, 2012, David Hobby wrote:
                      On a related note, I've been reading about problems with the Romney campaign's software to organize election day get-out-the-vote efforts.  My first reaction was "Sabotage?", but now I'm betting that incompetence is the more likely explanation. See:
                      http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/candidates/romney/2012/11/10/orca-mitt-romney-high-tech-get-out-the-vote-program-crashed-election-day/gflS8VkzDcJcXCrHoV0nsI/story.html

                      What do you think?

                                  ---David



                      _______________________________________________
                      http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

                    • Dan Minette
                      Nick wrote ... I would guess otherwise. This would be an interesting geekish debate to have. My guess is that its akin to the problem with Star Wars
                      Message 10 of 22 , Nov 11, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Nick wrote

                        >Sounded like a classic scalability problem.

                        I would guess otherwise. This would be an interesting geekish debate to
                        have. My guess is that its akin to the problem with Star Wars software,
                        which was assumed to work first time untested. From what I read, their
                        software did not lend itself to real live testing before election day. So,
                        it glitched badly, as one would expect the first time in the field.

                        My software work has often been with firmare that runs 20,000 feet below the
                        surface, with no chance to fix anything once it goes downhole. Field
                        testing in real wells is essential, even for software that has run perfectly
                        without intervention in the lab. It's easy to field test and fix software
                        that helps field operatives identify and talk with prospective voters before
                        the election. If there's a major problem found in Cleveland in July, it can
                        be fixed and the fix sent out nationwide in a few days. But, with the
                        Republicans, if I understand correctly, their software was for election day
                        only....counting voters off a list and then providing lists of pro-Romney
                        voters who haven't voted yet. If it glitches on election day, the best
                        programmers in the world couldn't get the patch out in time.

                        That's my guess, anyways. Does anyone else want to play detective. :-)

                        Dan M.


                        _______________________________________________
                        http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                      • Nick Arnett
                        Star Wars had a critical difference. It didn t need to work because it was all a giant bluff. Romney had little or nothing to gain by bluffing. Back to the
                        Message 11 of 22 , Nov 11, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Star Wars had a critical difference. It didn't need to work because it was all a giant bluff. Romney had little or nothing to gain by bluffing.

                          Back to the facts. The Romney team said the software was running 20-30 minutes behind. And pointed out that, as you suggest, there was no real way to test it in advance. But in that situation, you have to really over- design for scalability.

                          Nick

                          On Sunday, November 11, 2012, Dan Minette wrote:
                          Nick wrote

                          >Sounded like a classic scalability problem.

                          I would guess otherwise.  This would be an interesting geekish debate to
                          have.  My guess is that its akin to the problem with Star Wars software,
                          which was assumed to work first time untested.  From what I read, their
                          software did not lend itself to real live testing before election day.  So,
                          it glitched badly, as one would expect the first time in the field.

                          My software work has often been with firmare that runs 20,000 feet below the
                          surface, with no chance to fix anything once it goes downhole.  Field
                          testing in real wells is essential, even for software that has run perfectly
                          without intervention in the lab.  It's easy to field test and fix software
                          that helps field operatives identify and talk with prospective voters before
                          the election.  If there's a major problem found in Cleveland in July, it can
                          be fixed and the fix sent out nationwide in a few days.  But, with the
                          Republicans, if I understand correctly, their software was for election day
                          only....counting voters off a list and then providing lists of pro-Romney
                          voters who haven't voted yet.  If it glitches on election day, the best
                          programmers in the world couldn't get the patch out in time.

                          That's my guess, anyways.  Does anyone else want to play detective. :-)

                          Dan M.


                          _______________________________________________
                          http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

                        • Dan Minette
                          On Star Wars, it worked as a bluff, but I don t think Reagan was bluffing. I think he believed. I know as a fact that the Defense Department said they would
                          Message 12 of 22 , Nov 11, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Star Wars, it worked as a bluff, but I don't think Reagan was bluffing.
                            I think he believed. I know as a fact that the Defense Department said they
                            would require that all programming for applications they used would have to
                            be done in Ada (I think within 5 years) because Ada was a compiler that
                            automatically eliminated bugs. Anyone who wrote any software at Dresser
                            Industries had to write a program in Ada, even scientists like me. But,
                            that was back in the day when the head of computer departments for major
                            corporations had no idea how computers worked.

                            > Back to the facts. The Romney team said the software was running 20-30
                            minutes behind.

                            Well, I also read that parts of it simply failed....reporting 0 votes from a
                            long list on election day. The part that targeted voting lists to cull
                            those who haven't voted for attention can be made modular.

                            >But in that situation, you have to really over- design for scalability.

                            Or modular. Let the software run on 10,000 computers in every regional
                            office, with just the sums sent to the main headquarters. Obama's software
                            worked....and I think its because it was field tested for months....it was
                            intended to track voters for months, not just on election day.

                            Dan M.


                            _______________________________________________
                            http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                          • David Hobby
                            ... I don t think it was just a software failure. The campaign also neglected to tell poll watchers that they needed a certificate, and the instructions for
                            Message 13 of 22 , Nov 11, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On 11/11/2012 6:00 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
                              > ...
                              > Well, I also read that parts of it simply failed....reporting 0 votes from a
                              > long list on election day. The part that targeted voting lists to cull
                              > those who haven't voted for attention can be made modular.
                              >

                              I don't think it was just a software failure. The campaign also
                              neglected to tell
                              poll watchers that they needed a certificate, and the instructions for
                              the software
                              were poor.

                              http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-project-orca-disaster-2012-11

                              ---David

                              _______________________________________________
                              http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                            • Nick Arnett
                              I didn t realize how unclear it is whether Reagan and other top officials regarded it as a bluff or not, until I poked around a bit just now. Easy to see how
                              Message 14 of 22 , Nov 11, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I didn't realize how unclear it is whether Reagan and other top officials regarded it as a bluff or not, until I poked around a bit just now.  Easy to see how they might have started off serious, then decided to re-write history and say it was all a bluff.  I have some up-close and personal experience with the Reagan White House rewriting history - their version persists in most peoples' minds still; when I tell my version, most people are still surprised.  Shows the power of the bully pulpit, sure was interesting to see it first-hand.

                                Nick


                                On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Dan Minette <danminette@...> wrote:
                                On Star Wars, it worked as a bluff, but I don't think Reagan was bluffing.
                                I think he believed.  I know as a fact that the Defense Department said they
                                would require that all programming for applications they used would have to
                                be done in Ada (I think within 5 years) because Ada was a compiler that
                                automatically eliminated bugs. Anyone who wrote any software at Dresser
                                Industries had to write a program in Ada, even scientists like me.  But,
                                that was back in the day when the head of computer departments for major
                                corporations had no idea how computers worked.

                                 > Back to the facts. The Romney team said the software was running 20-30
                                minutes behind.

                                Well, I also read that parts of it simply failed....reporting 0 votes from a
                                long list on election day.  The part that targeted voting lists to cull
                                those who haven't voted for attention can be made modular.

                                >But in that situation, you have to really over- design for scalability.

                                Or modular.  Let the software run on 10,000 computers in every regional
                                office, with just the sums sent to the main headquarters.  Obama's software
                                worked....and I think its because it was field tested for months....it was
                                intended to track voters for months, not just on election day.

                                Dan M.


                                _______________________________________________
                                http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com


                              • Warren Adams-Ockrassa
                                I recall Carl Sagan despairing that Reagan believed it. The amount of money and resources that went into live tests would suggest there was faith at the top,
                                Message 15 of 22 , Nov 11, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I recall Carl Sagan despairing that Reagan believed it. The amount of money and resources that went into live tests would suggest there was faith at the top, regardless of what those 'lower' in the chain of command might have thought. 

                                  At the time SW was being promoted, it gave all the appearance of earnestness. 

                                  • Warren • off console • w azkrmc.com • h nightwares.com

                                  On Nov 11, 2012, at 20:52, Nick Arnett <nick.arnett@...> wrote:

                                  I didn't realize how unclear it is whether Reagan and other top officials regarded it as a bluff or not, until I poked around a bit just now.  Easy to see how they might have started off serious, then decided to re-write history and say it was all a bluff.  I have some up-close and personal experience with the Reagan White House rewriting history - their version persists in most peoples' minds still; when I tell my version, most people are still surprised.  Shows the power of the bully pulpit, sure was interesting to see it first-hand.

                                  Nick


                                  On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Dan Minette <danminette@...> wrote:
                                  On Star Wars, it worked as a bluff, but I don't think Reagan was bluffing.
                                  I think he believed.  I know as a fact that the Defense Department said they
                                  would require that all programming for applications they used would have to
                                  be done in Ada (I think within 5 years) because Ada was a compiler that
                                  automatically eliminated bugs. Anyone who wrote any software at Dresser
                                  Industries had to write a program in Ada, even scientists like me.  But,
                                  that was back in the day when the head of computer departments for major
                                  corporations had no idea how computers worked.

                                   > Back to the facts. The Romney team said the software was running 20-30
                                  minutes behind.

                                  Well, I also read that parts of it simply failed....reporting 0 votes from a
                                  long list on election day.  The part that targeted voting lists to cull
                                  those who haven't voted for attention can be made modular.

                                  >But in that situation, you have to really over- design for scalability.

                                  Or modular.  Let the software run on 10,000 computers in every regional
                                  office, with just the sums sent to the main headquarters.  Obama's software
                                  worked....and I think its because it was field tested for months....it was
                                  intended to track voters for months, not just on election day.

                                  Dan M.


                                  _______________________________________________
                                  http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com


                                  _______________________________________________
                                  http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

                                • Dan Minette
                                  ... regarded it as a bluff or ... started off serious, then ... up-close and personal experience ... most peoples minds still; ... of the bully pulpit, sure
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Nov 11, 2012
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    >I didn't realize how unclear it is whether Reagan and other top officials
                                    regarded it as a bluff or
                                    >not, until I poked around a bit just now. Easy to see how they might have
                                    started off serious, then
                                    >decided to re-write history and say it was all a bluff. I have some
                                    up-close and personal experience
                                    >with the Reagan White House rewriting history - their version persists in
                                    most peoples' minds still;
                                    >when I tell my version, most people are still surprised. Shows the power
                                    of the bully pulpit, sure was
                                    >interesting to see it first-hand.

                                    If it was a bluff, it was a brilliant bluff. Getting the USSR to focus on
                                    Star Wars instead of invading Europe and hastening their collapse to
                                    minimize the time of risk was just what Truman thought of when we came up
                                    with containment instead of war. As it was, we were luckly. If the coup
                                    wasn't overturned, the USSR would have reformed and a last gasp attack on
                                    Europe might have happened.

                                    Dan M.


                                    _______________________________________________
                                    http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                                  • ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO
                                    ... Ugh. Mormons have taken control of the Internet (by Facebook). I m glad they didn t take control of the USA too. Alberto Monteiro the paranoid
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Nov 12, 2012
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Bryon Daly wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Further, as a Mormon, Romney doesn't quite pass the WASP test so he
                                      > basically had to tack hard right to build up his conservative cred to get
                                      > the party nomination.
                                      >
                                      Ugh. Mormons have taken control of the Internet (by Facebook). I'm
                                      glad they didn't take control of the USA too.

                                      Alberto Monteiro the paranoid

                                      _______________________________________________
                                      http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                                    • Klaus Stock
                                      ... AFAIK, the Ada compiler can detect many programmer mistakes at compile time. Of course, one might say that Ada that s mainly because Ada imposes so many
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Nov 12, 2012
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        > I know as a fact that the Defense Department said they
                                        > would require that all programming for applications they used would have to
                                        > be done in Ada (I think within 5 years) because Ada was a compiler that
                                        > automatically eliminated bugs.

                                        AFAIK, the Ada compiler can detect many programmer mistakes at compile
                                        time. Of course, one might say that Ada that's mainly because Ada
                                        imposes so many restrictions on the programmer that the chance to make
                                        mistakes is greatly increased (compared to more "relaxed" languages,
                                        which do, for example, implicit type conversion). Ada also supports
                                        run-time-checks - which detects bugs when it's already too late (or
                                        may even cause bugs in extreme cases).

                                        Compared to other languages of the time, like Fortran, it's clearly
                                        superior in detecting some classes of bugs early. It also reduces the
                                        programmer's efficiency, resulting the number of bugs per time compare
                                        to more efficient languages.

                                        However, the "best bugs" are introduced during programming, but much
                                        earlier. Catching bugs at the earliest possible time is expensive, but
                                        the ROI is immense and outweighs the cost by several orders of
                                        magnitude. Of course, any manager who was reading this dropped out at
                                        the word "expensive", so defective software will remain the standard.


                                        Okay, the word "standard" reminds to get back on-topic. I suspect that
                                        the reason for the choice of Ada was that Ada was the first
                                        standardized HL programming language. Oh, the military loves
                                        standards. No further explanation necessary.

                                        Best regards, Klaus


                                        _______________________________________________
                                        http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                                      • Pat Mathews
                                        This plays into some recent conversations about efficiency vs resilience. ... _______________________________________________
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Nov 12, 2012
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          This plays into some recent conversations about "efficiency" vs "resilience."

                                          > Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:06:16 +0100
                                          > From: ks@...
                                          > To: brin-l@...
                                          > Subject: Re: Obama II
                                          >
                                          > > I know as a fact that the Defense Department said they
                                          > > would require that all programming for applications they used would have to
                                          > > be done in Ada (I think within 5 years) because Ada was a compiler that
                                          > > automatically eliminated bugs.
                                          >
                                          > AFAIK, the Ada compiler can detect many programmer mistakes at compile
                                          > time. Of course, one might say that Ada that's mainly because Ada
                                          > imposes so many restrictions on the programmer that the chance to make
                                          > mistakes is greatly increased (compared to more "relaxed" languages,
                                          > which do, for example, implicit type conversion). Ada also supports
                                          > run-time-checks - which detects bugs when it's already too late (or
                                          > may even cause bugs in extreme cases).
                                          >
                                          > Compared to other languages of the time, like Fortran, it's clearly
                                          > superior in detecting some classes of bugs early. It also reduces the
                                          > programmer's efficiency, resulting the number of bugs per time compare
                                          > to more efficient languages.
                                          >
                                          > However, the "best bugs" are introduced during programming, but much
                                          > earlier. Catching bugs at the earliest possible time is expensive, but
                                          > the ROI is immense and outweighs the cost by several orders of
                                          > magnitude. Of course, any manager who was reading this dropped out at
                                          > the word "expensive", so defective software will remain the standard.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Okay, the word "standard" reminds to get back on-topic. I suspect that
                                          > the reason for the choice of Ada was that Ada was the first
                                          > standardized HL programming language. Oh, the military loves
                                          > standards. No further explanation necessary.
                                          >
                                          > Best regards, Klaus
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > _______________________________________________
                                          > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                                          >
                                        • Klaus Stock
                                          ... Yup. And neither efficiency nor resilience will help you in the end if you don t ponder some important questions first. Like: do we measure altitude
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Nov 12, 2012
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            > This plays into some recent conversations about "efficiency" vs "resilience."

                                            Yup. And neither "efficiency" nor "resilience" will help you in the
                                            end if you don't ponder some important questions first. Like: "do we
                                            measure altitude in feet or meters?", or "should we check if the old
                                            guidance system will work okay in the new rocket?"

                                            - Klaus

                                            >> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:06:16 +0100
                                            >> From: ks@...
                                            >> To: brin-l@...
                                            >> Subject: Re: Obama II
                                            >>
                                            >> > I know as a fact that the Defense Department said they
                                            >> > would require that all programming for applications they used would have to
                                            >> > be done in Ada (I think within 5 years) because Ada was a compiler that
                                            >> > automatically eliminated bugs.
                                            >>
                                            >> AFAIK, the Ada compiler can detect many programmer mistakes at compile
                                            >> time. Of course, one might say that Ada that's mainly because Ada
                                            >> imposes so many restrictions on the programmer that the chance to make
                                            >> mistakes is greatly increased (compared to more "relaxed" languages,
                                            >> which do, for example, implicit type conversion). Ada also supports
                                            >> run-time-checks - which detects bugs when it's already too late (or
                                            >> may even cause bugs in extreme cases).
                                            >>
                                            >> Compared to other languages of the time, like Fortran, it's clearly
                                            >> superior in detecting some classes of bugs early. It also reduces the
                                            >> programmer's efficiency, resulting the number of bugs per time compare
                                            >> to more efficient languages.
                                            >>
                                            >> However, the "best bugs" are introduced during programming, but much
                                            >> earlier. Catching bugs at the earliest possible time is expensive, but
                                            >> the ROI is immense and outweighs the cost by several orders of
                                            >> magnitude. Of course, any manager who was reading this dropped out at
                                            >> the word "expensive", so defective software will remain the standard.
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >> Okay, the word "standard" reminds to get back on-topic. I suspect that
                                            >> the reason for the choice of Ada was that Ada was the first
                                            >> standardized HL programming language. Oh, the military loves
                                            >> standards. No further explanation necessary.
                                            >>
                                            >> Best regards, Klaus
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >> _______________________________________________
                                            >> http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                                            >>

                                            >

                                            >



                                            --
                                            Best regards,
                                            Klaus mailto:ks@...


                                            _______________________________________________
                                            http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                                          • Doug Pensinger
                                            Actually, bugs/design flaws caught during the design phase cost far less than those discovered during the build. Doug GSV Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Nov 12, 2012
                                            • 0 Attachment

                                              Actually,  bugs/design flaws caught during the design phase cost far less than those discovered during the build.

                                              Doug
                                              GSV Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance

                                            • Dan Minette
                                              ... You know that, in over 30 years of programming, I never really had those types of bugs that become features in software. But, I m very unusual, I program
                                              Message 22 of 22 , Nov 17, 2012
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                >
                                                > However, the "best bugs" are introduced during programming, but much
                                                > earlier. Catching bugs at the earliest possible time is expensive, but
                                                > the ROI is immense and outweighs the cost by several orders of
                                                > magnitude. Of course, any manager who was reading this dropped out at
                                                > the word "expensive", so defective software will remain the standard.

                                                You know that, in over 30 years of programming, I never really had those
                                                types of bugs that become features in software. But, I'm very unusual, I
                                                program as a means of thinking out the physics of the problem I'm trying to
                                                solve. In other words, I write software, where the previous generation, or
                                                even physicists 5 years ahead of me, would work things on on paper.

                                                I recall, back in '81, patientily listening to a post doc explaining how to
                                                do the error anaysis of my data. I patiently listened to him, he knew more
                                                than I did on most things and had earned my respect, until there was a
                                                pause.

                                                I then asked him, but isn't this just an approximation, wouldn't running a
                                                Monte Carlo to get the error be more accurate.

                                                He said "yes, but do you have any idea how much it would cost to do a Monte
                                                Carlo error analysis?"

                                                I said "yes, $0.27. I did it this morning."

                                                He looked at me, and said "grad. students have it too easy these days, and I
                                                left his office"

                                                The moral of the story is that if you think carfully about what questions
                                                you ask early, and your job title allows you to do that (as someone who is
                                                expected to come up with inventions that solve problems, you get some
                                                leeway...especially if you have a PhD in physics....it may not be fair that
                                                we get more leeway, but it's my experience), then you can have software that
                                                actually basically works the first time it is tried with a real tool. I've
                                                twice had the experience of "well we'll try this, but we'll have to get back
                                                to you when it fails" and me saying "but, I've tested it pretty extensively
                                                on data in post processing mode, if the same data is in the tool, I'll have
                                                failure modes with unusual data, but it should generally work" and having it
                                                work first time in the tool.

                                                Dan M.



                                                _______________________________________________
                                                http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.