Although it defies logic to those who understand how the initiative system works, apparently people believed that voting “no” would actually cause changes to the status quo. Apparently these changes would effect “the children”, so they had to be stopped.

I think this is the issue that swung people who otherwise either nominally supported homosexual marriage or were indifferent to the issue towards the “yes” camp. And I think that the smart folks who were promoting the “no” side underestimated the gullibility of some folks.

I have no science to back this up, I’m just another insta-pundit blowhard.

Incidentally, if you want to see an interesting discussion about the civil liberty issue, see the über-long comment thread that followed my Facebook status update “David believes amendments to the constitution (even state constitution) should increase, not decrease liberty.”

Not sure if this link will work for you, but you can try it: http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=709540162&v=feed&story_fbid=33559435841

Happy Halloween!

http://www.juicedhybrid.com/Prius-Electric-Mode-Only-p/evmode.htm

I’ll admit - I’m visiting your website for selfish reasons. I was hoping you’d have pictures from reunion. Did you go? Miss you!

i’m somewhat conflicted on the question actually. i think it’s good to give reduced tolls to green vehicles since that helps reduce pollution. but at the same time you might be discouraging people from using transit, leading to increased congestion.

If you care, my glassbooth came up Kucinich, Gravel, Edwards. My Clinton score was higher than my Obama score (within 3 points though.) Truth is though, we don’t vote purely on issues. We’re not voting for vote-casting, policy-making automatons; we’re voting for people. I might actually rather see a president McCain over a president Kucinich, despite disagreeing with McCain on countless issues (43% glassboth match! :) But I think he could probably do the job (and I’m not convinced Kucinich could.)

Of course, none of them has a hard act to follow.

Really? The Patriots. Really? The infamous “Tuck Rule” turned me against them forever. Too bad the Colts don’t play well in the playoffs, I think they’re 9/9 under Dungy and Manning. I hope the Patriots don’t win The Big Game Bowl (no trademark). I would prefer the Chargers beat the Patriots, but Steve Rivers deserves none of the glory that comes with that.

Interesting nevertheless :)

i fully agree with your last statement (that the design and overall experience is what makes a phone attractive), but i think that kinda misses the point.

as you say, the question of open system or closed system is irrelevant to most consumers. however, it’s definitely relevant to developers. and if an open system causes more good third-party apps to be written, then it would drive consumer adoption because consumers would want a phone that supports these cool new apps.

of course, there’s no guarantee that an open system will lead to good third-party apps. while neither palm nor symbian are open, they definitely have sdks that allow a variety of third-party app development. and both of these platforms are littered with the corpses of crappy software. but people have also written some pretty cool software for these platforms. even with the cool software though, the challenge is to create an integrated experience (like what the iPhone does) that makes the phone easy to use for the consumer.

the advantage between a platform with a third-party api (like palm and symbian) and a completely open platform (like android) is less clear. a completely open system makes it easier for startup phone manufacturers, hobbyists, etc. but other than that and the fact that an open system just gives me a nice feeling in my tummy, there’s no big concrete advantages. but i wouldn’t underestimate the potential of a disruptive startup to create some new crazy phone that revolutionizes the cell phone market (a la iPhone). and that’s much easier when there’s a free, open platform for the startup to build on.

p.s. you turned off typekey support?