Any group of more than ten individuals will be compromised by people who are self-interested, greedy, and willing to sacrifice the good of the group for their own personal benefit even to the point of creating misery for a significant percentage of the rest of the group. I have yet to see an example where this doesn't hold true.
The race is to try and minimize the harmful effects of greed and self-absorption. That has become near impossible in a world where everything relies on financial resources, and the motives of the sources and recipients can be easily disguised. It's not a perfect world.
In reality it's not possible to exercise power which one never really had. Google doesn't own their interviewees and they really have no right to demand this of them. In our legal clouded world, though, people are conditioned to think that, just because an agreement was signed or just because a law was passed, that makes it binding and true.
You can sell the Brooklyn Bridge a thousand times but, if you never owned it to begin with, you've never really sold it. As I grow older it seems that a good majority of the world operates on this kind of fraud.
While there is a good measure of logic in the system you propose it does not account for the profit of the banks, their b*stard children the insurance companies, nor does it provide a convenient excuse to funnel money between politicians, corporate leaders, and investment bankers.
You wouldn't want to disturb the tightly watched and controlled system of preserving the financial upper class, would you?
The same argument can be made for all taxes in general with equal logic and clarity. The same terrible truth can also be applied. The system is designed to run with deplorable efficiency because, in every inefficient stack of paperwork, in every inefficient middleman, in every inefficient code, law, or regulation there is an enormous potential to launder money and ensure that those who have it will never lose the benefits of their position.
this is, not necessarily undiscovered country, but a desolate one and rarely visited. It is a perfect opportunity, then, to define the metrics yourself and present your ideas as industry leading and groundbreaking. Without making the time-suck obvious, endeavor to define as many possible metrics as you can. For your final report pick only those metrics which portray your department in medium to positive light so that you can write a full report on how other departments across the nation are doing better, and how other departments across the nation are doing worse. Pick and choose the topic areas carefully such that the departments which are doing better are doing better in areas which you would like to expand--if you can show that they are doing better then you can show where you need greater funding and support. Pick and choose the topic areas so that the departments which are doing worse are doing worse in areas which you have no interest. If those areas can be defined as troublesome areas, or those departments can be shown to be performing poorly at those tasks, then you can make a viable case not to enter into those applications.
Of course you will need to balance your report so that it panders to the personal likes and dislikes of the people to whom you will be presenting. Never fail to keep your target audience in mind.
The data can be made to say anything you want it to. Take the time to write a full-length report which leaves you plenty of material to keep expounding and writing further progress reports on a semi-annual basis. If you look far enough ahead while preparing this initial report then you can secure your job, the expansion of your department, and your own advancement for years to come. If you define the metrics properly and present them shrewdly enough you may even position yourself to gather larger corporate support and you may even find yourself as a groundbreaking leader in your industry.
I daresay this is how the global intelligence community operates.
we don't like paying for our own medical care I have no problem paying for my own medical care. Most of the people I know have no problem paying for their own medical care.
What we have a problem with is paying for our own medical healthcare and paying for the hyperextended government oversight of it as well. We didn't ask for the enormous expenditure of superfluous government involvement.
Humans are greedy and cannot survive without money Why? Is there a shortage of the stuff someplace? Did they forget to print enough? If too many people at the top are keeping too much of it is it possible that they're writing the rules specifically for the purpose of allowing themselves to keep more?
Don't be bitter, but what can we do about it? One set of legislators is just as likely to write the rules in their favor as the next set. How can we possibly opt to stop giving them money when tax collection is automated and we have no direct control over their spending?
When viewed in that light then you're right. There is nothing preventing Congress from passing laws which adhere to the Constitution...
Except for that pesky little pledge to uphold the Constitution. Then, yes, I know, it's all made better by plausible deniability--but that leads to conspiracy theory, doesn't it?
In any other profession it's called operating outside of duties, or insubordination, and is grounds for immediate termination. The flood exploit is obvious when Congress passes close to one thousand new laws every year.
Rakishi has a history of combing political discussions and violently asserting that anyone who isn't a complete chump is a psychologically troubled conspiracy theorist. My interpretation is that Rakishi is well aware of the herd psychology which governments and financial institutions apply to the voters and consumers, and probably is a personal beneficiary of those systems, and it gives Rakishi a b0ner to verbally abuse people who would dare challenge the supremacy of the systems which provide for his or her priveleged lifestyle.
What you've described is a system which is easily defeated by flooding. You're asserting that Congress has no duty to stay within its defined boundaries and that it is the Supreme Court's job to strike down illegitimate legislation. I think the problem is obvious when there are only seven supreme court justices and over five hundred congressional members.
But don't let the obvious prevent you from insulting me. If it makes you feel better then go ahead and do it to your heart's content.
Now the fate of a patent will rely on paying industry professionals to testify,"I had never thought of that"? How is it going to be any different? The patent examiner isn't going to know what would have been obvious (or not) to a trained professional working in the field any more than they're going to have infinite knowledge of all prior art.
Having a written constitution and a bill of rights isn't helping much on this side of the pond. The politicians have found that everything can be explained to the satisfaction of the voters by saying "interstate commerce" and "terror". Those voters who aren't sufficiently convinced are gradually pushed into lower income brackets so they'll have to spend more time at work and less time asking questions of their political leaders.
Not unless you have the backing of the banks ahead of time--and the banks are using Microsoft and their holdings as money laundering puppets.
In generations past the system was described as the "old boy network". In today's world we have a nce of the "rich boy network". The only difference was that, in the old boy network, social grace and political savvy could lead to reward. In the rich boy network the existing rich boys are more than happy to work you over until you're dead.
There must be a solution somewhere but I've yet to find it.
Very astute observation. Microsoft's profit is up--but what is it really attributable to?
As long as Microsoft continues to move billions of dollars every year they will continue to be a convenient money-funnel, a way to launder money and pass the profits on to select individuals while cluttering the paper trail as much as possible.
More and more the stock market and the banking system resembles old mafia movies--money laundering is not the crime, it is the rule. The crime of money laundering is only used by the existing most powerful mafia arm to keep the competition in check.
The politicians already have a patent on this method. It's a variation on photodetector saturation. A sustained swamping of the detector with signal causes the detector to become unresponsive. I think it's Pavlovian.
That's easily taken care of by "The Rules", which state that every point of each law much be voted on individually. Hopefully this will lend itself towards the creation of more concise laws, as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Any group of more than ten individuals will be compromised by people who are self-interested, greedy, and willing to sacrifice the good of the group for their own personal benefit even to the point of creating misery for a significant percentage of the rest of the group. I have yet to see an example where this doesn't hold true.
The race is to try and minimize the harmful effects of greed and self-absorption. That has become near impossible in a world where everything relies on financial resources, and the motives of the sources and recipients can be easily disguised. It's not a perfect world.
In reality it's not possible to exercise power which one never really had. Google doesn't own their interviewees and they really have no right to demand this of them. In our legal clouded world, though, people are conditioned to think that, just because an agreement was signed or just because a law was passed, that makes it binding and true.
You can sell the Brooklyn Bridge a thousand times but, if you never owned it to begin with, you've never really sold it. As I grow older it seems that a good majority of the world operates on this kind of fraud.
While there is a good measure of logic in the system you propose it does not account for the profit of the banks, their b*stard children the insurance companies, nor does it provide a convenient excuse to funnel money between politicians, corporate leaders, and investment bankers.
You wouldn't want to disturb the tightly watched and controlled system of preserving the financial upper class, would you?
The same argument can be made for all taxes in general with equal logic and clarity. The same terrible truth can also be applied. The system is designed to run with deplorable efficiency because, in every inefficient stack of paperwork, in every inefficient middleman, in every inefficient code, law, or regulation there is an enormous potential to launder money and ensure that those who have it will never lose the benefits of their position.
You're obviously overpaid.
Of course you will need to balance your report so that it panders to the personal likes and dislikes of the people to whom you will be presenting. Never fail to keep your target audience in mind.
The data can be made to say anything you want it to. Take the time to write a full-length report which leaves you plenty of material to keep expounding and writing further progress reports on a semi-annual basis. If you look far enough ahead while preparing this initial report then you can secure your job, the expansion of your department, and your own advancement for years to come. If you define the metrics properly and present them shrewdly enough you may even position yourself to gather larger corporate support and you may even find yourself as a groundbreaking leader in your industry.
I daresay this is how the global intelligence community operates.
What we have a problem with is paying for our own medical healthcare and paying for the hyperextended government oversight of it as well. We didn't ask for the enormous expenditure of superfluous government involvement.
Don't be bitter, but what can we do about it? One set of legislators is just as likely to write the rules in their favor as the next set. How can we possibly opt to stop giving them money when tax collection is automated and we have no direct control over their spending?
I am unable to provide any help unless you tell me more about yourself.
When viewed in that light then you're right. There is nothing preventing Congress from passing laws which adhere to the Constitution...
Except for that pesky little pledge to uphold the Constitution. Then, yes, I know, it's all made better by plausible deniability--but that leads to conspiracy theory, doesn't it?
I'm homeless. I can't afford a tinfoil hat.
In any other profession it's called operating outside of duties, or insubordination, and is grounds for immediate termination. The flood exploit is obvious when Congress passes close to one thousand new laws every year.
Rakishi has a history of combing political discussions and violently asserting that anyone who isn't a complete chump is a psychologically troubled conspiracy theorist. My interpretation is that Rakishi is well aware of the herd psychology which governments and financial institutions apply to the voters and consumers, and probably is a personal beneficiary of those systems, and it gives Rakishi a b0ner to verbally abuse people who would dare challenge the supremacy of the systems which provide for his or her priveleged lifestyle.
What you've described is a system which is easily defeated by flooding. You're asserting that Congress has no duty to stay within its defined boundaries and that it is the Supreme Court's job to strike down illegitimate legislation. I think the problem is obvious when there are only seven supreme court justices and over five hundred congressional members.
But don't let the obvious prevent you from insulting me. If it makes you feel better then go ahead and do it to your heart's content.
Flattery doesn't buy dinner.
Now the fate of a patent will rely on paying industry professionals to testify,"I had never thought of that"? How is it going to be any different? The patent examiner isn't going to know what would have been obvious (or not) to a trained professional working in the field any more than they're going to have infinite knowledge of all prior art.
Having a written constitution and a bill of rights isn't helping much on this side of the pond. The politicians have found that everything can be explained to the satisfaction of the voters by saying "interstate commerce" and "terror". Those voters who aren't sufficiently convinced are gradually pushed into lower income brackets so they'll have to spend more time at work and less time asking questions of their political leaders.
I don't know what the solution is anymore.
How difficult would it be for a malicious programmer to swap the functions on the Continue/Cancel buttons?
Since you decline to provide any information about yourself I am unable to help you.
Not unless you have the backing of the banks ahead of time--and the banks are using Microsoft and their holdings as money laundering puppets.
In generations past the system was described as the "old boy network". In today's world we have a nce of the "rich boy network". The only difference was that, in the old boy network, social grace and political savvy could lead to reward. In the rich boy network the existing rich boys are more than happy to work you over until you're dead.
There must be a solution somewhere but I've yet to find it.
Very astute observation. Microsoft's profit is up--but what is it really attributable to?
As long as Microsoft continues to move billions of dollars every year they will continue to be a convenient money-funnel, a way to launder money and pass the profits on to select individuals while cluttering the paper trail as much as possible.
More and more the stock market and the banking system resembles old mafia movies--money laundering is not the crime, it is the rule. The crime of money laundering is only used by the existing most powerful mafia arm to keep the competition in check.
Someone should point that out to the mod who hit me with a redundant.
Middle managers in corporate America do the same thing all the time--then they have HR fire the employees who have anything to say about it.
As a comic and cartoon, "Richie Rich" never should've been published.
The politicians already have a patent on this method. It's a variation on photodetector saturation. A sustained swamping of the detector with signal causes the detector to become unresponsive. I think it's Pavlovian.
If you click "Cancel" an information box is displayed informing you of a patent pending.
That's easily taken care of by "The Rules", which state that every point of each law much be voted on individually. Hopefully this will lend itself towards the creation of more concise laws, as well.