Harry's Blog

Week in Review: March 5

Welcome to the first Week in Review. The point of this is to throw in all the various things that I've found interesting but can't justify making a full blog post out of them. The content will vary depending on what I happened to find over the past week, but I have a feeling that eventually the format will settle down somewhat. Anyway, here goes:

Program of the week

IOGraph — It's a simple Java program that runs in the background that tracks your mouse movements and saves them into an image that you can save and share with everyone. Unfortunately my usage of a trackpad doesn't make for exciting results, so instead I'm just going to link to an image made by the creator of the program.

Video (series) of the week

It's a visualisation of the notes of a piano, with each octave taking up a full rotation around the spiral. There are vidoes for similar pieces in the "Related Links" thing (hopefully), but I felt the Hungarian Rhapsody was the best one to show.

On this day

On this day in 1770, escalating tensions between American colonists and British troops stationed in Boston caused what is now known as the Boston Massacre, which resulted in five deaths. In the ensuing trial, it was decided that the soldiers (represented by future President John Adams) were threatened by the colonists. Six of the soldiers were acquitted, while the other two were found guilty of manslaughter.

Oddball news article of the week

Australian government claims their site was hacked. How was it done? By typing in the web address.

Some closing thoughts

The Olympics would have been a lot more fun if they installed a flux capacitor on all the bobsleds.
The urge to blog is a dirac delta function. It is zero everywhere except at one point where it's infinite, but at the end all you end up with is one post.
I am surprised that no one has thought of using a university quad for a Tower Defense LARP.
No matter how had you try, you cannot stare down black ice.

Enjoy your weekend!

Welcome to the New Blog, Take 2

As you have noticed, I have started making blog posts again. Last time I tried, well, it ended kinda badly. Actually, to say it ended implied that it even started, which would be kinda generous. And yet, apparently I've decided to try again. However, this time I am more prepared this time. For one, I've made sure to build up a backlog of posts, so I know I'll at least be able to get through a nominal amount of time before I stop posting again. Ideally, I'll be able to post three times a week, as well as a "week in review" of stuff that basically don't deserve their own post. Of course, that's if I can continue coming up with material at that pace, which may or may not happen. We'll see.

Also, you can help too! If you have an idea, or a link, or anything else I might find fascinating, let me know! There's a handy comment box down below, or you could shoot me an e-mail using the link at the bottom of the page! Anyway, tune in tomorrow for the first Week in Review.

Bottled Water

I don't exactly consider myself an avid environmentalist. I don't contribute to Greenpeace, I don't go out of my way to buy organic, and I probably throw away more than I have to. However, one thing that irks me to no end is the prevalent use of bottled water. I mean, there are times when it's useful (for example, if you're in an area where water isn't readily available), but there is no need to drink bottled water at home when there is equally good tap water right at the sink. People might complain that it isn't healthy, but municipal water is in fact regulated, and when something goes wrong (which rarely happens), it's a big deal! Now, as we all have heard numerous times, a picture is worth a thousand words [citation needed]. Thankfully, someone has already created an infographic (which is worth a lot more than 1000 words, right?), which allows me to be a lazy bum and link to some other dude's work instead (click for the actual thing).

Why I Use Windows

The other day, I was typing up my physics lab in Microsoft Word. The Linux geek sitting next to me noticed this, and proceeded to bug me about not using Latex. In this case, the fact that I had to submit it in just over an hour and a half was enough to keep me on my merry way, but the thought did pop up: Why do I use stuff like Microsoft Word instead of other, probably more powerful options?

I should probably note that I am in no way, shape, or form against open-source software and its ilk. In fact, on two occasions, I have run Ubuntu Linux on my computer. The trouble is, both those times resulted in me having to reformat my hard drive due to a stupid mistake of some sort. You see, open-source software tends to want to give more power to the user. The caveat, however, is that it results in more opportunities for the user to mess up, and it almost always results in a much steeper learning curve.

It's easy to see why there's the greater chance of accidentally blowing up your hard drive. As for the higher degree of difficulty, consider the following equation, written in both LaTeX and Microsoft Word 2007:

LaTeX: \[z \left( 1 \ +\ \sqrt{\omega_{i+1} + \zeta -\frac{x+1}{\Theta +1} y + 1} \ \right)\ \ \ =\ \ \ 1\]

MSWord: z(1 + v(\omega_(i+1)+ \zeta-(x+1)/((\Theta+1) ) y+1) = 1

In addition, Word automatically processes the equation as you go along, while LaTeX requires you to compile the file before viewing it, which is rather laborious if you don't know what you're doing. This does not mean LaTeX doesn't have its advantages, though. Word files can only be opened by other computers with Word 2007, while LaTeX generates PDFs that can be viewed by anyone. Furthermore, LaTeX is much more powerful, as you can include stuff like variables and loops.

In my daily usage, I don't really need a whole lot. There's rarely a case where Word doesn't have what I'm looking for, and I usually don't have to worry about compatibility, since I typically just print the files and turn them in. However, if there is a situation where neither of these is true, I would see no problem with using LaTeX for the time being.

Of course, the one thing I did not mention was cost. In my case, I happened to get Microsoft Office as part of a bundle that I had to purchase for the university anyway, so I didn't actually pay anything. On the other hand, had I had to pay for it, I would certainly not buy it. I used OpenOffice before, and in the four years that I used it, I had very few problems.

I should also note that I am not outright endorsing either one. I am just saying that each method has situations where they would be more useful, and that there is oftentimes no true right answer as to which one is better.

Now Apple, well that's a different story. Maybe I'll come back to that later.

Welcome to the New Blog

Well, as you can probably tell, the Rants have become a blog. Yay for being a conformist. Anyway, I'm hoping that this format change will give me more of an opportunity to post more stuff, as now I'm not really restricting myself to ranting about stuff any more (not that I was really doing a whole lot of that in the first place). In addition, there is now a comments section, so now if you want to send me a death threat, you can do so right here! There's also an RSS feed and better navigation, so it's finally possible to keep up with this without having to remember to check back every couple of months.

While I'm at it, there are a couple of ground rules for comments. First off, please remember that anyone can read what you write, and I reserve every right to edit/delete your comment. So no profanity, no personal threats, no advertising, no spam, and no acting like a complete and utter idiot. If you want that, go somewhere else. Other than that, have fun! I implemented comments for a reason.

Finally, you may have noticed that most of the original Rants were brought over, while some were not. The reason why I didn't transfer over all of them was because either they were outdated or because I'm planning on revisiting them later. And yes, I will fix the dates at some point so they'll actually correspond to when I wrote them, instead of having a bunch of posts saying 9/20/09.

Anyway, here's the blog, and I hope you'll enjoy reading it.

Religion

I have been told that there is a landmass between North America and Antarctica. I have never been there, but I have been informed that it exists. I have never seen it, but people claim to have seen it or know someone who has seen it. However, I have yet to see any concrete proof that it does exist. It's on a lot of maps? A conspiracy of cartographers, I would say.* Oceanic currents work well with it in place? Perhaps the models are wrong. Just look at Copernicus and Ptolemy.

As you're probably thinking, all that was utter nonsense. Just because we can't concretely prove the existence of something doesn't mean we shouldn't believe it to be true. In fact, how can we prove anything? How do we know that our senses aren't deceiving us? Why not just assume nothing exists? The problem with that is that there would be no point to this reasoning -- you're stuck here, so you might as well make assumptions about your surroundings.**

Furthermore, at one point you do need to take some sort of leap of faith. Tell me, what caused the universe? A black hole from another universe? An experiment by some extra-dimensional species? The collapse of another universe? But what created that? More of the same? Is it an infinite cycle? But then how are you supposed to know this? What line of thought caused you to come up with that? In the end, it ends up pointing to a leap of faith.

In addition, I would like to consider the following: There is an object, millions upon millions of miles away, that is somehow pulling us towards it. There are no strings, no suction force, no nothing. It is just its mere presence that is forcing us in its direction. Newtonian gravity, you say. Everyone's heard of it. Yet stop to think of it for a second. It seems absurd for an object to affect another object without directly affecting it.*** And relativity is even more absurd -- time slowing down, objects shrinking? Yet almost everyone agrees that it is true without second-guessing it. So why should we automatically reject other things just on the grounds of absurdity? Considering that we accept absurd things already, it seems odd to use it as an argument against something.

You may have noticed that so far, I have yet to mention the words "god" or "religion" or "supreme being" or whatnot. There is a good reason for this -- somehow when a person starts talking in defense of one particular sect, then all credibility gets thrown out the window, no matter how logical the argument is. This is probably because of the 0.1% of the population that shout from street corners. So, I'd like you to do a favor -- please don't assume my arguments are junk because it's about religion. If 1000 people went to street corners and shouted "Believe in South America," you aren't about to reject the existence of it just because of a bunch of loud-mouthed people, so why do so with religion?

The first thing that I'd like to make clear is that I am a Methodist. That is, I do not believe in many of the Roman Catholic traditions.**** We do not have a pope, we do not have saints (at least not in the same way), we do not call Crusades, and we have much less of a hierarchy. Rather, many Protestant sects believe that all one needs to do is accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior. All that one needs to do is shown in the Bible, and primarily the Gospels -- that is, the sayings of Jesus, and not a politically-motivated figure a thousand years after the fact.

Now, I have heard a lot of people ask why I can trust the Bible, which in itself was written and translated and whose books were selected by humans, or why I believe in Christianity in the first place. While there are some logical reasons,***** it also brings into play that "leap of faith" that I had talked about earlier. You have to believe in something,****** and I feel that in my case, various experiences in my life has pointed me in the direction of my current beliefs.*******

One other pet peeve that I have is the claim that religion is bad because it inhibits science or that one can be ethical without being religious. The issue with this is that it's missing the point of religion entirely. The reason why I am a Christian is because I believe that it will get me into Heaven. The same applies to everyone else who is actively a Christian. Religion does not exist to make the world the best place possible. It exists to prepare the way for the afterlife. It's like saying that food is bad because it takes up land that could be used for buildings. While it's technically true, it's not taking into account that people use food for survival, not for land usage.

Obviously, this is not supposed to be an exhaustive list of arguments. Furthermore, I did not write this to try to convert people to Methodism. Rather, I feel that certain types of people have been attempting to further the cause of atheism by using unsound logical arguments and for the most part have gotten away with it. Yet I feel like that once in a while, people should be able to hear from a side that has been rather outspoken -- those who are logical yet have faith in God. And no, they don't contradict.

*I know, that was supposed to refer to England. But since I define the country I was born in to be England, that doesn't really work now, does it?
**Plus, as one person demonstrated this afternoon, solipsism turns you into an absolute prick, and I don't think anyone wants to see that happen.
***Thanks to David English for the gravity analogy.
****I should make clear that I don't think people should be Catholic, but rather I feel that several of their traditions are superfluous. After all, we have the same single basic fundamental principle.
*****I'd like to refer you to Jeff's column for details.
******In this case, "no god" is technically an option, but unless you can provide answers about your "belief" in the same way that the average religious person can, I still consider you agnostic. Perhaps that will be explained later.
*******For the record, my dad is Southern Baptist and my mom was Anglican. My faith is not entirely because that's what my parents did, it's because of what has happened to me throughout my life.

Addendum: I would suggest that everyone read this article. If we could all agree on those things, there would be a lot less shouting.

Hours

I look at the clock one more time. It's 1:30. Yet again, I am going to have to suffice with five hours of sleep. This is a story that has been repeated many times by students everywhere. Can this be prevented? Certainly. One of two things can occur -- you spend less time awake, or you are given more time to sleep. While the former is possible, eliminating any sense of procrastination is not going to work unless everyone is turned into a robot without a desire to play Starcraft or whatnot. Rather, it would be easier to allot more time in the day, which can be spent sleeping, or at least making sure you don't have to pull an all-nigher.

What do I mean by that? Well, right now we live in a 24/7 world over two dozen time zones. What happens at noon in the US takes place at 5 PM in London, 7 PM in Moscow, midnight in Singapore, and 9 AM in Los Angles. In this technology-driven globalized world, there is little distinction between night and day. So, why do we need to make our day based on the rotation of the Earth if we cannot achieve what we need to do within that time period?

Consider the following: a 28-hour day. Instead of the five hours of sleep I mentioned earlier, I would get nine instead. I would be more refreshed and awake. Instead of rushing to get my work done so I could be able to feel my bed, I could take my time for once. In addition, you would probably actually need less sleep per 168-hour period then under present circumstances The reason why I suggested the 28-hour day is that it synchs up with the present week rather well. One week currently consists of 7 24-hour days, which would change to 6 28-hour days. It wouldn't fit perfectly with the month or the year, but the former has rather arbitrary designations anyway (what's with February, anyway?) and the latter is not perfect either, with its leap years and whatnot.

Also, do you want to be able to see a sunrise or sunset? Watch it during your lunch break. Have a kid who thinks it's really neat to stay up late? Well, he does get to stay up late at night and still get to bed at his bedtime. Of course, if you're the type of person who tends to rely on the position of the sun to tell the time, you'll have to adjust, but then again, Daylight Savings Time also causes that problem.

Will this be an easy change to do? Of course not. If it were, someone would have probably come up with the idea already, and we'd probably be enjoying our time at 13:45 AM right now. Clocks would have to be changed and schedules would have to be altered, among other things, but in the long run, it would provide for a net benefit. And anyway, planners only last a year or so, clocks are very easy to come by, and plus, you can be the proud owner of a vintage 24-hour timepiece! Feel free to think about it. And remember, you would have an extra four hours to think if you get the 28-hour day.

States

Let's face it - there are too many states in the US. According to the completely unscientific survey known as "Sporcle", less than half of people can name all the states even if they're given a map. This is generally considered to be a grave embarrassment and an example of why Americans are so stupid, but let's face it: It is really hard to remember fifty names at once. Heck, most people can't even name all their classmates in a normal English class, so why are we forcing people to remember places that they will probably never visit in the first place?

The solution, of course, is to reduce the number of states. There are two main ways to go about it: You could simply merge states, or you could remove them from the Union in one way or another. The former would be more applicable in cases where the land is valuable for the nation, and would result in no loss of territory. On the other hand, it would be much quicker to sign a law saying that so-and-so state is not part of the United States. While there would be some economic repercussions, if the states affected are of little value, then not much will be missed.

Obviously, there are several ways to go about this. Some are complete nonsensical - make California and Florida their own countries, for example. While it would do a good job of getting rid of some of the crazier folk, it would mean everyone would have to obtain a visa if they wanted to go to a warm beach. (Actually, on the other hand, Americans do need to travel outside the country more often, so maybe that wouldn't be such a bad idea after all.) Rather, one should take great care in deciding what states to change, as otherwise disastrous results will occur.

First off, how many of you have heard of anything coming out of North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, or Idaho? No hands? That's because nothing happens there. I wouldn't be surprised if these states were created for the sole purpose of putting a nice, round number of stars on the flag. So, obviously, they are the first to go. That's five down already.

Meanwhile, we should consider what one of the original purposes of this was - to make sure that young Americans everywhere aren't completely confused by a complicated compendium of cartography. So, in order to take care of that, simply merge some of the problem states. Kentucky and Tennessee? You can't mix them up if they're just one entity. Same with Alabama and Mississippi, or Nebraska and Kansas, or Washington and Oregon, or Arizona and New Mexico, or Indiana and Illinois. Furthermore, there has always been issues with people muddling up North and South Carolina, so you might as well combine them too. In fact, Greenville, North Carolina has a law that it is not responsible if someone confuses it with its South Carolinian neighbor. Right there, we have reduced the number of states by seven without having to give up any land to foreign countries.

Then, you have to give something to the map-makers. After all, they are the ones who will have to present the revisions to the general public, and they should get some sort of reprieve for their hard work. So, get rid of all those small states by, say, merging all those states east of New York into one that's somewhat bigger. Same goes for Delaware - make it a part of Maryland. In addition, it's never nice to deal with insets - those boxes that contain Alaska and Hawaii. Normally, I would recommend nixing both, but then we wouldn't be able to make fun of Alaska anymore, and plus, they have oil.

It sounds good and all, but this leaves us with 31 states. This is not good, as that would cause a weird flag design, and that just can't happen. In this case, it's probably the best option to get rid of West Virginia. While it does leave an unsightly hole in the middle of the country, there is the advantage that they probably won't actually notice for about ten years.

So here you have it - a United States of America, just as good, with only 30 states. I urge you to inform your congressman of this ingenious plan, provided that he doesn't represent, say, South Dakota.

Election Liveblog

11:07 PM: So yeah, this isn't really a Rant, but I can't think of where else to put it. As you may very well know, there are many commentators (I dare not use the word pundit, that word should be banned) and bloggers who present their view of the election. And so, I decided that I would voice my opinion as well, as frankly, I have my own way of looking at things. Mainly I'm doing this for my own personal thing -- later, I'll probably come back and wonder what I was smoking. Anyway, I'll probably put up a few more things as we get closer to election night.

11:14 PM: Reporting live from Thursday night, I figured I might as well give my prediction for the election. So, here's a map, with much thanks to the US Election Atlas:

(Obama 378, McCain 160)

First off, a couple of technical notes. You may notice that Obama is red and McCain blue. That's how the map assigns colours to the candidates. Also, it makes more sense if you think about it. After all, the liberal party in many nations are red, while conservatives tend towards blue. It's just reversed in the US.

Anyway, I see Obama winning all Kerry states plus New Mexico and Iowa easily. In addition, Virginia and Colorado appear to be likely Democratic, while Nevada and Florida have a substantial lean as well. Most polling in North Carolina and Missouri show a lead for Obama, though they will likely be close races. Then there's Indiana. It hasn't gone for the Democrat since the Lyndon B. Johnson landslide of 1964, but a combination of a large amount of working-class voters and its proximity to Obama's home state of Illinois could see it flip.

Finally, there's Montana. The Mountain West isn't the Republican stranglehold the last couple of elections will make you want to believe. In fact, Clinton won this state in 1992. It's a very progressive state and has two Democratic senators and a Democratic governor. Furthermore, Montana is not scared to support third-party candidates -- after all, 30% of the vote went to Ross Perot in 1992 -- which means that people like Bob Barr and Ron Paul could siphon votes from the Republican ticket. I wouldn't be surprised if the race goes either way in this state.

Tomorrow: More stuff. Probably Senate predictions. Or something like that.

6:31 AM: All right, it's Election Day. Obama already has a slight lead in New Hampshire, thanks to Dixsville Notch. I can assure you that that means nothing.

Meanwhile, my predictions on the Senate:
Safe Dem: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia
Lean Dem: North Carolina, Oregon
Tossup: Minnesota
Lean GOP: Georgia, Kentucky
Safe GOP: Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi (both races), Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, Wyoming (both races)

No surprises here, hopefully. The Mississippi special election may end up being tighter than what I've said, but I have a feeling that it will remain in Republican hands. Minnesota is weird, thanks to an independent who has been polling about 15%. There will probably be some people who will jump ship, so to speak. The thing is, no one is sure how all this will work out in this already close election, so the best thing to do is wait. Finally, Georgia has a runoff if neither candidate gets 50% of the vote, which could happen in a close race thanks to a Libertarian candidate. However, it probably won't make that much of a difference.

And so, my Senate prediction: Democrats 57, Republicans 41, Other 2.

3:44 PM: Am I the only one who's sick of hearing about "Joe the Plumber"?

3:50 PM: The BBC is reporting that some polling places in North Carolina will be open for an hour later, until 8:30 PM.

3:55 PM: Lots of issues with people having to take provisional ballots. This shouldn't affect the Presidential race as it did last time due to the lead that Obama has, but I could easily see a few House or Senate results depend on how these votes are counted. Regardless, expect a big battle in the courts.

4:03 PM: Technical note: The page will now refresh once a minute. Also, when it refreshes, it will automatically go to the bottom of the page.

4:08 PM: Also, for those of you wondering what a provisional ballot is: If a voter is denied at a polling station for whatever reason, he can cast a provisional ballot if he feels like he is entitled to vote. After the polls close, the vote is reviewed and if it is valid, it is counted.

4:18 PM: A thought about calling races: A person in line at a polling station when it closes can still vote, even if it takes three hours after closing. I bet that many networks won't realise that fact and project a winner of several races right when polls close. Now, in 2000 and even 2004 this wasn't a problem; a person in line won't have reliable access to news. However, in this digital and mobile age, someone can go to an election site and see what's going on. If, say, Pennsylvania is called at 8:15 and people are still in line then, someone might see that the state has been called and leave the line. This probably won't affect anything on the Presidential level, but it could make a difference in a close House race.

4:47 PM: A light drizzle here in Northern Virginia, for what it's worth.

4:50 PM: Presidential result map and Senate result map.

4:53 PM: I intend to update it real-time, or as real-time as possible. I've got CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CBS, and BBC election maps up.

4:55 PM: CNN, feel free to find some "facts" that we don't know already.

5:03 PM: Early voting in Colorado reportedly was 80% of all votes cast in 2004. If that's any sign, turnout is going to be huge.

5:04 PM: Why are exit polls being released before any polls have closed?

5:10 PM: No, I am not going to do a map for the 435 Congressional races.

5:13 PM: Depending on what happens tonight, we might see the Dow hit 10,000 tomorrow.

5:21 PM: Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport is the reason why people usually wait until a person dies before naming something after him.

5:25 PM: The Onion is awesome.

5:30 PM: There has been talk about the Bradley Effect -- that people will say they will vote for Obama while actually voting for McCain so they can not make themselves appear racist. However, there was no such thing in the primaries -- in fact, Obama outperformed the polls.

5:39 PM: Polls will close in parts of Kentucky and Indiana in less than half an hour. No one should be calling any Presidential or Senatorial races yet, since polls will still be open in the parts of the state in the Central Time Zone. However, there is one race to watch, and that is Indiana's 3rd district. Right now, it's leaning Republican, but if the Dems have a good day today, they will be able to pick up a seat.

5:48 PM: For those who are watching exit polls like hawks, don't. They are only very general indicators. In 2000, exit polls showed Gore winning Alabama.

5:53 PM: I want one of those giant touch-screen thingies for Christmas.

6:00 PM: It's 6:00...

6:05 PM: Good. No one has called Kentucky yet.

6:10 PM: I wish someone would talk about IN-03. It's a great canary.

6:19 PM: Fox is reporting a few returns from Kentucky. There's not much, but it will be interesting how much the Senate and Presidential races differ from each other. Well, once the map loads...

6:22 PM: With 4000 votes in, McCain is leading 57%-40% while McConnell is ahead 52%-48% in the Senate race.

6:23 PM: These early results probably mean very little, but the Kentucky Senate race will be determined by how many people vote for McCain and Lunsford.

6:25 PM: At 7:00 PM, polls will close in Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Vermont, the rest of Kentucky and Indiana, and parts of New Hampshire and Florida.

6:31 PM: Races to watch: IN-Pres, KY-Sen, KY-02, VA-Pres, VA-02, VA-05, SC-01, GA-Pres, GA-Sen, GA-08, FL-13, FL-16, FL-21, FL-24, FL-25. All of these went for the Republican in their previous elections except for GA-08 and the scandal-infested FL-16.

6:37 PM: No results in for IN-03 yet. Also, results are coming in from Indiana as well, but no states called by anyone yet.

6:39 PM: According to CNN's webpage, LA-04 will not be holding an election tonight.

6:40 PM: The problem with the Reverend Wright ads: We've all had to deal with them during the Primaries. We already know about him. He's old hat.

6:48 PM: Good news: Google Maps uses the AP for reporting purposes, which means that I have a new source of data.

6:52 PM: Obama is doing very well compared to Kerry in Indiana, at least with the results in so far. Credit to FiveThirtyEight.

6:57 PM: Only three minutes left...

7:02 PM: Obama wins Vermont, McCain wins Kentucky. Surprise, surprise.

7:06 PM: And the Senate has been called in Virginia and South Carolina. Again, as expected.

7:10 PM: Y'know, I should have thought about adding a comments section. If anyone has a good place where I could put one up, let me know.

7:13 PM: There are now links to the maps on the bottom of the page.

7:18 PM: Poll closings at 7:30: North Carolina, West Virginia, Ohio.

7:21 PM: Races to watch: NC-Pres, NC-Sen, NC-Gov, WV-02, OH-Pres, OH-01, OH-02, OH-15, OH-16.

7:27 PM: South Carolina has yet to be called by anyone...

7:31 PM: According to CNN, 18% of the vote are going to third parties...

7:33 PM: In Florida, that is.

7:33 PM: Maps has been updated.

7:36 PM: Working on a comments page...

7:43 PM: Comments page! Please be nice, though.

7:45 PM: CBS calls West Virginia for McCain.

7:49 PM: 8:00 Poll closings: Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, and parts of Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, and Texas.

7:52 PM: NBC calls South Carolina for McCain.

7:53 PM: BBC has followed suit.

7:55 PM: 5 minutes until the deluge...

7:57 PM: Everyone has called South Carolina for McCain now.

7:57 PM: And Fox News has preemptively called a bunch of states.

8:00 PM: 8:00!

8:02 PM: Alabama, Mississippi too close to call, according to CNN

8:03 PM: CBS calls New Hampshire for Obama.

8:04 PM: Actually, everyone except for CNN has called it.

8:05 PM: NBC has called Pennsylvania for Obama.

8:06 PM: The Presidential map has been updated.

8:09 PM: NBC calls the New Hampshire Senate for the Democrats. No surprise Republican surge here.

8:09 PM: And Senate map has been updated.

8:15 PM: BBC calls the North Carolina Senate for the Democrats. Meanwhile, Kentucky and Georgia are still too close to call.

8:18 PM: Only Arkansas closes at 8:30. I like.

8:20 PM: Alabama has yet to be called. This is bad news for McCain.

8:25 PM: Still close in Virginia and North Carolina. We could be here for a while.

8:30 PM: Arkansas is too early to call. Shouldn't it be an easy win for McCain?

8:33 PM: Some networks have called Arkansas and Alabama for McCain. Also, NBC now has called North Carolina Senate for the Dems as well.

8:36 PM: Indiana will take a while to call, as they take forever to tally results.

8:37 PM: NBC calls Georgia for McCain, an hour and a half after the fact.

8:38 PM: CNN is slow at calling races.

8:39 PM: The speed at which these races have been called signal bad news for the Republicans.

8:41 PM: CNN calls Pennsylvania for Obama, the last to do so.

8:44 PM: Guess who has not called Alabama yet?

8:47 PM: 9:00 closures: New York, Rhode Island, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming.

8:49 PM: The House is not really doing much so far.

8:50 PM: West Virginia has yet to be called by most networks. This is probably bad news for McCain in Ohio.

8:51 PM: Note: All times are EST. Because I live in the Eastern Time Zone.

8:52 PM: Georgia could very well end up in a runoff election.

8:53 PM: CNN: The Leader in Lag

8:54 PM: MSNBC projection: Democrats end up with 261 seats, a gain of about 25.

8:58 PM: It's been an hour, and Mississippi has yet to be called by anyone.

8:59 PM: Fox News: Obama is down 2,000 in the popular vote out of a total of about 20,000,000 reported.

9:00 PM: It's projection time!

9:02 PM: North Dakota called for McCain, as per CNN.

9:02 PM: Lots of Democrats hoping for an upset there.

9:05 PM: Both maps updated.

9:08 PM: MSNBC calls Arkansas for McCain.

9:09 PM: How has neither Mississippi Senate race been called yet?

9:13 PM: Georgia has now been called by all networks, even by the Cautious News Network.

9:14 PM: This is starting to become a very predictable election.

9:17 PM: IN-03 called for the Republicans. No tidal wave for the Democrats this year.

9:17 PM: Though while I say that, Fox calls FL-24 for the Dems.

9:18 PM: New Mexico for Obama, according to Fox

9:18 PM: Fox News has projected that Obama has won Ohio.

9:20 PM: How has North Dakota been called and not South Dakota?

9:24 PM: And now ABC has called Ohio.

9:27 PM: And now everyone except for one (I wonder who) has called Ohio for Obama.

9:28 PM: No states lose their polls at 9:30. This is nice.

9:29 PM: NBC has West Virginia too close to call. It appears that race isn't as big a factor as previously thought.

9:29 PM: Virginia is neck-and-neck, while Obama has a slight lead in North Carolina.

9:31 PM: 71% of precincts reporting in Virginia, as opposed to 23% in Fairfax County.

9:32 PM: People are very hesitant to call states this time around.

9:34 PM: Pennsylvania is completely blue, according to CNN.

9:35 PM: And now CNN has called Ohio. Fat ladies, you may now sing.

9:37 PM: NBC calls Kentucky Senate for McConnell. The Democrats' path to 60 seats has been narrowed.

9:39 PM: Senate map updated.

9:40 PM: NBC and CNN have finally called West Virginia for McCain.

9:41 PM: Of note: No one has called Virginia, Mississippi, Texas, South Dakota, or Nebraska.

9:47 PM: And now Texas is being called for McCain.

9:50 PM: Current electoral tally: Obama 200, McCain 124.

9:51 PM: ABC has finally called Mississippi for McCain. That took a lot longer than expected.

9:54 PM: 10:00 poll closings: Iowa, Utah, Montana, Nevada, and parts of Idaho and Oregon.

9:57 PM: Mississippi exit polls: Whites voteed for McCain 82/17, African-Americans voted for Obama 99/1 (!)

9:59 PM: The lull before the storm...

10:00 PM: And it's 10:00!

10:01 PM: Iowa and Utah have been called by all.

10:03 PM: Many very tight races in Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, and Missouri.

10:03 PM: Also, not a lot of the vote in for Colorado and Arizona.

10:05 PM: Obama is holding his own in Nebraska and South Dakota, though I have a feeling that a lot of the vote is coming in from the cities.

10:09 PM: Also, there are now no more Republican congressmen in New England.

10:10 PM: Meanwhile, the referendum in South Dakota on banning abortion has failed.

10:13 PM: Obama has a big lead in Orange County, Florida. It went about 50/50 four years ago.

10:15 PM: MSNBC is going to wait until all the votes are in before calling Virginia, North Carolina, and Indiana.

10:20 PM: Obama is at 207. With California, 262. With Oregon, 269. With Washington, 280. With Hawaii, 284. There's no way McCain can win unless Arnold Schwarzenegger blows up California.

10:28 PM: North Carolina is now 3000 votes apart.

10:31 PM: Meanwhile, Obama is winning the city of Staunton by 11 votes.

10:33 PM: ABC has called Nebraska for McCain, though I'm not sure about NE-02.

10:34 PM: In more detail: Nebraska and Maine has a system in which the winner of the state gets two electoral votes while the winner of each congressional district gets one electoral vote each.

10:35 PM: Nebraska's second district is mainly the city of Omaha, which could potentially go for Obama.

10:39 PM: McCain now has a tiny lead in North Carolina.

10:44 PM: And in about 16 minutes, polls will close in Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, and Hawaii.

10:46 PM: It looks like Virginia will be close, but Fairfax County might just eke out an Obama win.

10:47 PM: CNN has way too much money in its technology budget. will.i.am is appearing in the CNN newsroom via hologram.

10:49 PM: Congrats to Rupiah Banda, the new President of Zambia.

10:51 PM: Palm Beach County is only at 27% reporting out of 80% reporting for the state. This bodes well for Obama.

10:53 PM: Nebraska and South Dakota have both been called for McCain by everyone. Well, everyone except for CNN.

10:55 PM: Mississippi's special Senate election has been called. If the Democrats are to hit 60 seats in the Senate, they will have to win Minnesota and Georgia.

10:59 PM: Also, neither Colorado nor Louisiana have been called in the Senate races yet. The Democrats probably aren't very glad about that.

11:00 PM: Congratulations, President-elect Obama.

11:03 PM: California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and Virginia have all been called for Obama.

11:05 PM: Current tally: Obama 297, McCain 147.

11:05 PM: And now the AP has called Florida for Obama.

11:11 PM: Another note: Obama is leading in NE-02. Please make a note of it.

11:12 PM: Now that the President has been decided, there still remains the issue of the Senate and the House.

11:14 PM: And now Colorado is going for Obama. Now that a winner has been decided, there's less need to be as cautious.

11:17 PM: In the Senate, Democrats have won Colorado and Louisiana while Republicans have won Idaho.

11:19 PM: McCain has just conceded to Obama.

11:19 PM: Also, McCain at least got his home state of Arizona, according to CBS.

11:22 PM: Currently, Obama is up only 3% in the popular vote, but there's a lot of votes that still need counting.

11:27 PM: And now Nevada has been called for Obama.

11:31 PM: So far the only states yet to be called for the Presidential race are North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, and Alaska.

11:32 PM: On the Senate side of things, Georgia, Minnesota, Oregon, and Alaska are still up for grabs.

11:43 PM: I am going to take a quick break.

11:58 PM: Alaska will not close polls until 1:00 AM, though I doubt there will be much surprise there.

12:07 AM: It appears that the Democrats will gain a net of around 15-25 seats, around expected.

12:08 AM: Also, everyone now agrees on the electoral vote count.

12:24 AM: Obama has hit 50 million in the popular vote, and he's going to get over 15 million more from California alone.

12:31 AM: My guess is that Obama will win Indiana and North Carolina while McCain wins Missouri. I have no clue how Montana will turn out.

12:41 AM: The Oregon Senate has been surprisingly close.

12:45 AM: It looks like a total of about 135,000,000 votes were cast in the election.

12:48 AM: Alaska closes in about 12 minutes. After the races there are called, I will probably sign off until the morning.

1:23 AM: Well, Alaska is going for McCain. Democrats have picked up 5 seats in the Senate right now, and two more will probably flip their way. Meanwhile, they have picked up 16 seats in the House, and probably several more. It's been a good night for liberals, but it's not a dream come true.

1:24 AM: And it is getting late, and so I'll be seeing you on the flip side in about five hours. Good night, everyone.

6:11 AM: Well, my prediction is finally wrong. McCain won Montana, though I'll be quick to add that it wasn't be a majority. Meanwhile Missouri is too close to call, with Obama being down by 0.2% with all of the precincts in. North Carolina's the same way; McCain is down by 0.3%, but provisional ballots have yet to be counted. Meanwhile Indiana has been called for Obama, but not by all.

6:20 AM: Senateside, Oregon is 73% in and it is still a tight race. Meanwhile, Chambliss is holding on to Georgia, but he is right on the 50% line, and if he doesn't get a majority, there will be a runoff election. As for Minnesota, there is an 1800-vote difference between the two candidates. Finally, Ted Stevens is just holding on in Alaska, but just barely and not by enough for it to be called. I have a feeling that he wished he was allowed to vote.

6:24 AM: Finally, the Democrats have a 251-173 advantage in the House with 11 districts yet to be decided.

10:38 AM: Breaking news from Minnesota: the AP has uncalled the race for Coleman. The two major candidates differ by about 500 votes, and there will be a mandatory recount there. It looks like we won't know the final results for a long time.

1:30 PM: Well, it looks like Georgia Senate will be headed to a runoff. So there will be one more election on December 2nd.

6:33 PM: All right. It looks like NC-Pres, MO-Pres, NE-02-Pres, and AK-Sen will not be resolved until absentee, early, and provisional ballots have all been counted. Meanwhile, there is still a good deal of the vote to be counted for OR-Sen. MN-Sen has been fully counted, and there is a difference of about 700 votes, which means there will be an automatic recount, and so we probably won't know the final results until December. And lastly, Chambliss has gotten 49.9% of the vote for GA-Sen, which means that there will be a runoff election on December 2nd.

6:43 PM: And so, with it seeming that little will be determined in the near future, I am officially saying goodbye. It was fun running this little thing, and I hope you enjoyed it. Maybe I'll see you around in four years.

Domination

We all have our goals. Some want to be pilots, others want to create a drug to cure cancer. Still others have a desire to spend their lives playing video games all day and getting drunk at night. Yet at one point or another, we all have had a desire to take over the world. The trouble, though, is that it always seemed just out of reach. This guide is for these people, those who want to become Supreme Leader of Earth, yet cannot seem to be able to figure out how to do it.

There are four main paths you can take to conquer the world. First, there is the oft-tried method of taking control of an empire and expanding it until you control 100% of the Earth's surface. Proponents of this idea include many historical leaders such as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Josef Stalin, who have each tried it to moderate success. The main advantage to this plan is that once you manage to wrest control of an able nation, your initial expansion should be moderately easy. However, once other states begin to notice, the climb steepens drastically. You need to be able to justify your actions while continuing to expand. Once a coalition of the remaining nations cannot take you down, you're golden. Just make sure you don't get too overconfident while mopping the last remaining vestiges of external opposition.

The problem with conquest is that it is time-consuming. True, people have managed to forge massive empires in a period of a few years, but you soon face the problem of diminishing returns. Your armies will eventually get weary, and the distance required begins to add up. In addition, there will always be those who are opposed to your cause, and after a while, they will make themselves very well known. You can suppress them, but more will rise up to back their cause if you do so. Also, it is a very costly method in terms of human life, which may or may not be a problem for you. Finally, if someone else tries to take over the world at the same time as you, he can just treat you as just another country that he get to dominate. Use this method if you know how to use your military and you don't mind a few dead bodies lying around.

The second method of world domination is to take the world hostage. That is, manage to take control of one vital aspect of the Earth and negotiate control of the planet. This has not been successfully attempted yet, but it has been portrayed many times in the media, most recently by Stewie Griffin. This is probably the most imaginative way to take over the world, but at the same time it is extremely difficult to begin. Examples include creating a weather control device (as was done by Sir August de Wynter of Avengers fame), or by taking control of a nation's supply of nuclear missiles. How you do this is completely up to you, but it will probably take a lot of stealth, as if you are discovered you are rendered powerless. However, once you manage to take over, say, the world's communications systems, the process all of a sudden becomes much easier. Let all the major governments know that you're going to cripple the Earth unless hey make you ruler, and there you go.

Popular reaction to your takeover shouldn't be too harsh, depending on how you structure your government. No lives were lost (not directly, at least), and there was little time of crisis. In addition, more people might even respect you for uniting the planet under one leader. The only major complaint would be a loss of power by the former rulers and possibly a loss of personal freedoms. The main thing to consider is that you should still keep that red button that activates your superweapon handy just in case. Also, you should be able to take over no matter the situation, unless your opponent is dealing with mind control (see below) or another superweapon. If that happens, prepare for a standoff, along with a lot of sabotage attempts.

The third, and perhaps the most far-fetched, way to take over the world is by use of mind control. There are a few instances when people have tried this method, the most famous real-life example being Grigori Rasputin. Others who have attempted this include The Brain in many of his failed attempts and Yuri Molotov of Red Alert fame. Such a mind-control device would have to affect the victim at a long distance, not wear off over time, be able to work on multiple people at once, and be quick to use. The most likely candidate that matches all these requirements is a beacon of some sort that would force everyone in range to agree to whatever you happen to suggest. How one would make that is unknown at this time, though most theories involve radio waves or microwaves of some sort. Although it would be very difficult to produce such a device, the biggest boost to the theory of using mind control is that there is absolutely no chance of revolt. Everyone will agree to you as their leader and they will never quarrel with you, as they do not have the necessary free will.

Instead of trying to enslave the entire planet to your whims, you could instead try to control the necessary political and religious leaders and have them cede the world to you. It allows for a more personal approach in that you only need to dominate a select few minds for a limited period of time. All of a sudden, you have vastly increased the number of potential mind control devices that you could employ. You will have to face resistance, but it will be similar (if not less) to that if you threatened to nuke the Earth if you aren't handed over the planet on a silver platter. The viability of mind control is going to go up as new technologies are discovered, so you may want to consider it for the future. In addition, if someone else tries to conquer the world at the same time, then just give him a personal demonstration of your technology.

One other way to conquer the world is to lead a rebellion and take over the existing planetary government. Naturally, someone would have had to succeed before you, but at least they're doing all the dirty work. The theory is that over time, people will become dissatisfied with the current leader, and will want a new one. At a certain critical point when dissent is high enough, egg on a revolution. However, there is one critical thing to consider: you should never lead the first revolt. The first group to take over will find themselves in the midst of chaos, and as a result will not last very long. This is what befell the Jacobins of the French Revolution and the dvoevlastie system of the Russians in 1917. Once the new leaders start to crumble, only then should you actively join the fray and lead a group to success. By that time, everyone will be sick of chaos and will want to settle down, which should lead to a period of stability for your new government.

This is perhaps the easiest method to take over the world, but it is somewhat risky. First, someone else has to have taken over first. Then there has to be sufficient dissent, which may not actually happen. After that, there is always the possibility of fragmentation during the revolution, splitting the planet into multiple nations once again. However, if you do succeed, then your people will love you for a long time, as you helped overthrow the tyranny of the old government, even if you're much worse than your predecessor.

Once you take over the world, you can basically do whatever you want. There's no one (except for your respective religious deity) who is above you. You could ban cars or you could ban the use of the letter 'a'. It's all up to you. Just make sure you don't get too overconfident, as there's always some guy that knows the way around the ventilation ducts in your Imperial Palace who just so happens to want to kill you. All you have to do with regards to them is to switch .Main Control Centre. with .Garbage Disposal Room. on the map or something similar. If you can stop people like them, you'll be golden. Finally, when you do conquer the Earth, make sure to reward those who helped you get to the top. We would appreciate it.