No kidding. I definitely went to the store with a tape measure to make sure that I'd be able to fit three booster/car seats across the back of the largest minivan on the market! I had to search a while to find seats that fit, too!
And I've got 6 kids. I am not a commercial logistics or transportation operation, but I have a need for a vehicle that holds at least 8 people - more if I take kids' friends or relatives with me. You may find this a surprise, but I know of at least four families *off the top of my head* with this many kids.
Statistically speaking, there is a market for large vehicles because there are noncommercial uses for large vehicles that are unrelated to one's self-worth.
Do some people drive vehicles larger than needed for ridiculous reasons? Yes!
Does that mean that all large vehicles purchases fall into that category? No.
I was told that only a doctor's office could fax a prescription in to "prevent fraud."
The original is a letter-sized piece of paper with the doctor's signature on it. If I wanted to be fraudulent, I could fake a prescription to look exactly like this piece of paper, and hand carry the fake to the pharmacy - no problem!
One of my coworkers had an interesting take on this contest - he feels that if you have enough spare time apart from geek projects to feel you should sign up for a/. account, you're not geeky enough and you've lost the "nerd points" war./. account setup time could have been used to do something *really* geeky:)
There's this unique device available which can assist with that. It's called your electric meter, and it's conveniently located adjacent to your domicile. More than that, it's marked clearly in English, and you can sample data from it as often as you like. Best of all, its COMPLETELY FREE to access and it's already present with your electric service.
Has it been your experience that personal attack is an effective mechanism for winning others to your way of thinking?
Assuming they're within the same city limits I described, you should be able to get to their house via public transport easily
But they are not. Some of my good friends live 30-50 miles from me.
....Why not load six kids onto the bus?
Let's assume that it's a 45 minute bus ride all the way across town. In my car, I can keep toys, books, emergency clothes, snacks and water to entertain the kids in case we run into trouble. If I want to do the same thing on public transport, I have to carry all of that stuff in addition to managing coats, diaper bag, etc. WAY too much hassle.
I was merely highlighting the fact that with a decent public transport system, ownership of a car is optional.
Your argument assumes many more things besides creation of a public transport system. You assume that people *want* to live in cities. I don't. You assume that people will willingly change their way of thinking and living for the more "efficient " life oriented around city living.
I'm glad that city life and public transport work for you. Anecdote does not equal data. Not everyone is like you. There are a lot of people like me in the US. I remain unconvinced that additional infrastructure along would obviate my need to have a personal vehicle.
Your post is filled to the brim with assumptions which are not valid.
You've had a car since you were 16
Nope. I rode my bike 20 miles a day all through high school, and lived without a car for a great deal of my college years. Until my job required me to travel during my senior year, I agree that a car was not a necessity.
the sort of real estate you can afford can only be found 25 Km from downtown
Nope. We have plenty of money and could afford to buy a place in downtown Washington if I wanted to.
You however, did not, so you didn't even look, and you have no idea what's available.
Nope. I didn't look at dwelling places downtown because I hate the idea of being piled on top of my neighbors in a condo or townhouse. I want my kids to play in a yard. I don't like the crowds downtown.
and your "I have kids" excuse is crap. Lots of people take their kids on the bus. I see it every day
I'm not saying it's not possible to take kids on the bus. I'm saying I don't WANT to load my kids on the bus. The OP suggests that there's NO reason to own a car. With six kids I don't want to manage my kids on the bus. I can keep books and toys in my car that keep my kids entertained. They can sit with each other instead of in whatever seats happen to be available when the bus arrives. We don't have to walk to a bus stop or wait in the heat, cold, or rain to go where we want to go.
I'd also bet dollars to doughnuts that at least one of your kids is over the age of 12
I'll take that bet all day long. My oldest is 7. For what it's worth, your "kid can travel by herself" argument is irrelevant. 'm taking about when we go TOGETHER. Families used to do that, you know, do things as a family?
If I didn't want to risk getting sick, I wouldn't go outside.
Perhaps you're more enlightened than others, but I think that it's inconsiderate to have a sick person around people who aren't sick. My kids are quite sociable, but don't go to day care, or to public school.
At the end of the day, I remain unconvinced that there's NO reason to own a car. Your points about delivery are valid for people who like living in town, but for someone who feels crowded in town, they are less valid.
I live about 25km from downtown Washington DC in a city of ~60K people. You assert that I should be able to get by solely on public transport? You can see *no* reason for me to own a car?
Let's throw out the idea that I need a car to get to work. I'll even pretend that if I was taking efficient public transport that my commute would not QUADRUPLE! I'll pretend that, but I don't believe that.
I am the father of six. There are eight of us in the household currently. Buying groceries for my family means one and a half trips per week to the store. One to the "regular" grocery store to buy what's not available at the "club" store, and one to the club store. Each trip requires that I move four gallons of milk and a lesser but substantial volume of apple juice and apple sauce, fresh fruit, and bread, in addition to the large boxes containing diapers and wipes. What if my wife wants bottled water to drink?
Is it reasonable to expect that I will load all of these items onto public transport and lug them from the nearest bus top to my house? What about when I need to buy materials for home improvement, for car maintenance, to buy large/heavy tools, etc.
What about when my family wants to visit someone? Should I really load six kids onto the bus when they have a play date? What if I have a sick kid who needs to go the pediatrician? Do you want my kid sitting near you?
Ron Paul had a small but VERY vocal following. The majority of people would not support the views he espoused. The majority view is moderate, as established in recent voting records - we're politically pretty evenly split.
Ron Paul's views are extreme. He definitely appealed to those who agree with him, but even if his following would have been doubled if people had "just heard" his message, that's still not enough support to get him even close to being elected.
His worldview is far too simplistic. To suggest that we can ignore foreign problems and pull out of trouble spots without having dramatic domestic economic consequences shows how little he understands the nature of today's marketplace. While his views may be closer to the founding fathers' views than any other candidates, their view of international relations could not be successful in today's world. In today's world, I'm confident that many of their views would be different.
Ron Paul is not the nominee, but that has VERY little to do with coverage from the mainstream media.
No, I don't believe everything I see in the media.
Cops are all to complicit in the government's plan to extract ever more money from honest people through excessive traffic ticketing.
So tickets are merely about revenue-generation? What about the laws of physics? As a father, I know that sometimes my kids have incredibly bad judgment, and that can mean them running out in the street without thinking.
It's important to enforce speed laws because of the laws of physics. This site is consistent with what I've read elsewhere, so I'll quote it...
If you're driving down the street at 25MPH and my kid runs out in the street, you'll stop in ~85 feet. If you're going 35 MPH, you need 51 MORE feet to stop - in my neighborhood that's the length of another HOUSE! I want people driving the speed limit or less to give them the chance to stop without killing my kids or the ones across the street where the crazy people live who let their 2 year old play outside WITHOUT SUPERVISION (and yes, I've called CPS.)
traffic law enforcement is important. Ticked off about tickets? Stop speeding? I did and found that my tension level decreased, my mileage went up, and I no longer hit the brakes every time I see a police car.
It's up to you, but I'm fine with the cops writing speeding tickets.
Well, just read the narrative.... Was "be fruitful and multiply and hold dominion over the Earth" ever "said" to Eve?
so... reading the narrative it says "and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it;" Since the narrative explicitly says that I take that to mean that God made that statement to Adam and Eve. The narrative does not say which day it was, but we can say that it was day 6 or later. Most likely it was on day 6, but the narrative doesn't explicitly say that.
How would that have been theoretically possible, since Adam and Eve wouldn't even have left the garden, except for their expulsion due to sin
I don't think that we can say that they would not have left the garden were it not for the fall of man. Post-fall they were not allowed to return to the garden, but there was no explicit compulsion to be present pre-fall.
So, having reviewed the narrative, I find no mention of other people preceeding Adam and Eve. May I point you to biblegateway.com as an online reference so that you can point me to the verses that back up your assertion?
You can see contradiction, or you can see resolution, based upon your predisposition.
I don't see any contradiction at all. Can you please clarify this statement?
TMI had a meltdown, and what happened? Zero deaths OR INJURIES as a result.
You can't blame nuclear power for the disaster at Chernobyl. Blame the broke Russians and their stupid reactor design, but bad design is the designer's fault, not nuclear power.
Nuclear power can be made safely, and we have a long track record of exactly that. I'm not a pro-nuke activist, but let's be reasonable, shall we?
Again, your post is irrational, and your main points simply don't stand up to comparison with facts. You can believe what you want, but understand that it's unrelated to facts.
FWIW, Bush didn't put religion over science, he put moral restraint on amoral science. Look at what happened as a result - this week the man who made the initial breakthroughs on embryonic stem cell research made a new breakthrough with adult stem cells, eliminating the moral problems with killling embryos for the benefit of adults.
In summary, I think that your points are that Sept 11 was an inside job - a cover up to hide the fact that the government bailed out the rich invested in a hedge fund, and an excuse to cow the masses into believing that threats by outsiders to US national security are real so that the military industrial complex can make more money by waging a war which is actually no threat to our security.
I can't even begin to address how ridiculous these ideas are.
With respect to the "Trillion Dollar Bet" - it makes sense to me that if US investors have an enormous number of dollars invested in risky investments overseas when the overseas markets tank, the loss of those holdings could affect the market as a whole, and that could cause significant problems for joe sixpack.
Take a look at what is happening now due to the subprime mortgages issued to people who could not afford them. Our economy is on the edge of slowdown as a whole because of the significant decrease of transactions in the housing market. The fed needed to take action to protect the public, and it did.
Ideologues around the world have stated that they want to kill us. According to your view, how should we respond? Let them attack our ships, our embassies, our large cities, while we ignore them because the battle is economically disproportionate?
Physical proximity does not mean that you have facts.
Please list explicit examples of Dobson and his team doing unethical things. I challenge you on this point, because I don't believe you can do it.
There is no question that Focus on the Family has an agenda. Their agenda is social rather than political, and they have gone to great lengths and great expense to separate political activities from social activities.
Love him or hate him, James Dobson is a man who lives and dies by his integrity to his beliefs. I'd be stunned to see him involved in a scandal involving a compromise of his beliefs. Don't you think that if anyone had dirt on him it would be made public by those who oppose him?
Focus on the Family was created by James Dobson because his religious views lead him to want to help marriage and families be stronger and healthier as defined by his Christian worldview. He is not pretending to be about anything.
If you can *prove* your allegations, which I assert are libelous, please post facts. Otherwise you're simply repeating nonsense you've heard through channels which have little connection to the truth.
You can complain all you want about the gross inequities of leaders being paid ridiculous money when the "working man" is getting screwed - the problem is that good leaders are VERY hard to find.
I've seen complaints about the peter principle above this thread. It's true. Most people in leadership are poor at it, and don't even understand what they need to do to get better at it.
For an organization to find a strong leader who understands their corporate goals and culture - particularly those of an odd beast like an open source community combined with a corporation - it's virtually impossible!
Quite simply, you have to pay the leader what the market demands for the skills.
When you've got a team of amazing individuals, you need an amazing leader to help them work toward a common set of goals. Look at the LA Lakers between 1999 and 2000. What was the primary difference? They brought in Phil Jackson to lead their brilliant individual performers, and look at the result - a championship! Was Jackson worth the pay? I don't know, but I can't help but wonder why they couldn't win the championship before he arrived and did win after he arrived.
Think you are (or someone you know is) a priceless technology stud? Without someone to identify the "why" and the "for whom" of that person's work, along with coordinating the performance of others, those mad ski11z are worth much less.
As a frequent listener to the program (are you?) Focus on the Family is non-political. Focus is a charitable organization which is set up in such a way that contributions are tax-deductible. Due to rules governing this type of enterprise, they are prohibited from endorsing candidates.
There is another organization called "Focus on the Family Action" which is a political action group. Contributions to that organization are *not* tax deductible, and they can be used for overt political purposes. If you hear an explicitly political message on the broadcast, rest assured that Focus on the Family Action paid Focus on the Family for the broadcast time.
Focus on the Family, while non-political, does talk about issues on which public policy are based. It's one thing to say "we want our society to do such-and-such."
It's another to say "Senator So-and-so should be opposed because" or "Please contact your representative to tell them to vote against proposal whatever"
Focus on the Family Action takes political stands.
Focus on the Family expresses views about how individuals should make choices about how to live, and also offers commentary on what society as a whole should do. Is that bribery? Sounds like an informed populous to me....
There was a time when IBM was the juggernaut, and a young Microsoft was eyeing the giant and assessing whether the stones from its' sling might topple IBM. Interestingly, Microsoft took a niche and exploited it masterfully and then extended their market share and influence to the leadership position it occupies today - but IBM is strong and has massive revenue.
Even if Google grows to dominance and eats some of Mcrosoft's lunch, as Microsoft did to IBM, that does not spell the end of Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
I just sold a 5 year old powerbook for $450 - cheap compared to recent transactions on eBay.
Now *that* is funny!
:)
I'm doing my part.
No kidding. I definitely went to the store with a tape measure to make sure that I'd be able to fit three booster/car seats across the back of the largest minivan on the market! I had to search a while to find seats that fit, too!
And I've got 6 kids. I am not a commercial logistics or transportation operation, but I have a need for a vehicle that holds at least 8 people - more if I take kids' friends or relatives with me. You may find this a surprise, but I know of at least four families *off the top of my head* with this many kids.
Statistically speaking, there is a market for large vehicles because there are noncommercial uses for large vehicles that are unrelated to one's self-worth.
Do some people drive vehicles larger than needed for ridiculous reasons? Yes!
Does that mean that all large vehicles purchases fall into that category? No.
Not everyone is like you.
I was told that only a doctor's office could fax a prescription in to "prevent fraud."
The original is a letter-sized piece of paper with the doctor's signature on it. If I wanted to be fraudulent, I could fake a prescription to look exactly like this piece of paper, and hand carry the fake to the pharmacy - no problem!
Sometimes it makes me crazy!
One of my coworkers had an interesting take on this contest - he feels that if you have enough spare time apart from geek projects to feel you should sign up for a /. account, you're not geeky enough and you've lost the "nerd points" war. /. account setup time could have been used to do something *really* geeky :)
Man - you're making me feel inadequate!
I'm not running Myth because my time is valuable, and I'd MUCH rather have the appliance experience than the geek cred of running Myth at home.
I considered it some time ago, and made a go of it (probably 5-6 years ago) at the time, Tivo "just worked" and Myth was a hassle.
It's the same reason I use a Mac for non-linear video editing. My Mac "just works."
What Linux makes possible given the time investment, my Mac makes easy.
Tivo is easy too, and my time is worth a great deal to me. Both the Mac AND Tivo are cheap, comparatively.
how can I monitor my actual consumption
There's this unique device available which can assist with that. It's called your electric meter, and it's conveniently located adjacent to your domicile. More than that, it's marked clearly in English, and you can sample data from it as often as you like. Best of all, its COMPLETELY FREE to access and it's already present with your electric service.
No, you idiot, I said
....Why not load six kids onto the bus?
Has it been your experience that personal attack is an effective mechanism for winning others to your way of thinking?
Assuming they're within the same city limits I described, you should be able to get to their house via public transport easily
But they are not. Some of my good friends live 30-50 miles from me.
Let's assume that it's a 45 minute bus ride all the way across town. In my car, I can keep toys, books, emergency clothes, snacks and water to entertain the kids in case we run into trouble. If I want to do the same thing on public transport, I have to carry all of that stuff in addition to managing coats, diaper bag, etc. WAY too much hassle.
I was merely highlighting the fact that with a decent public transport system, ownership of a car is optional.
Your argument assumes many more things besides creation of a public transport system. You assume that people *want* to live in cities. I don't. You assume that people will willingly change their way of thinking and living for the more "efficient " life oriented around city living.
I'm glad that city life and public transport work for you. Anecdote does not equal data. Not everyone is like you. There are a lot of people like me in the US. I remain unconvinced that additional infrastructure along would obviate my need to have a personal vehicle.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Your post is filled to the brim with assumptions which are not valid.
You've had a car since you were 16
Nope. I rode my bike 20 miles a day all through high school, and lived without a car for a great deal of my college years. Until my job required me to travel during my senior year, I agree that a car was not a necessity.
the sort of real estate you can afford can only be found 25 Km from downtown
Nope. We have plenty of money and could afford to buy a place in downtown Washington if I wanted to.
You however, did not, so you didn't even look, and you have no idea what's available.
Nope. I didn't look at dwelling places downtown because I hate the idea of being piled on top of my neighbors in a condo or townhouse. I want my kids to play in a yard. I don't like the crowds downtown.
and your "I have kids" excuse is crap. Lots of people take their kids on the bus. I see it every day
I'm not saying it's not possible to take kids on the bus. I'm saying I don't WANT to load my kids on the bus. The OP suggests that there's NO reason to own a car. With six kids I don't want to manage my kids on the bus. I can keep books and toys in my car that keep my kids entertained. They can sit with each other instead of in whatever seats happen to be available when the bus arrives. We don't have to walk to a bus stop or wait in the heat, cold, or rain to go where we want to go.
I'd also bet dollars to doughnuts that at least one of your kids is over the age of 12
I'll take that bet all day long. My oldest is 7.
For what it's worth, your "kid can travel by herself" argument is irrelevant. 'm taking about when we go TOGETHER. Families used to do that, you know, do things as a family?
If I didn't want to risk getting sick, I wouldn't go outside.
Perhaps you're more enlightened than others, but I think that it's inconsiderate to have a sick person around people who aren't sick. My kids are quite sociable, but don't go to day care, or to public school.
At the end of the day, I remain unconvinced that there's NO reason to own a car. Your points about delivery are valid for people who like living in town, but for someone who feels crowded in town, they are less valid.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I live about 25km from downtown Washington DC in a city of ~60K people. You assert that I should be able to get by solely on public transport? You can see *no* reason for me to own a car?
Let's throw out the idea that I need a car to get to work. I'll even pretend that if I was taking efficient public transport that my commute would not QUADRUPLE! I'll pretend that, but I don't believe that.
I am the father of six. There are eight of us in the household currently. Buying groceries for my family means one and a half trips per week to the store. One to the "regular" grocery store to buy what's not available at the "club" store, and one to the club store. Each trip requires that I move four gallons of milk and a lesser but substantial volume of apple juice and apple sauce, fresh fruit, and bread, in addition to the large boxes containing diapers and wipes. What if my wife wants bottled water to drink?
Is it reasonable to expect that I will load all of these items onto public transport and lug them from the nearest bus top to my house? What about when I need to buy materials for home improvement, for car maintenance, to buy large/heavy tools, etc.
What about when my family wants to visit someone? Should I really load six kids onto the bus when they have a play date? What if I have a sick kid who needs to go the pediatrician? Do you want my kid sitting near you?
Public transport is not always the answer.
Ron Paul had a small but VERY vocal following. The majority of people would not support the views he espoused. The majority view is moderate, as established in recent voting records - we're politically pretty evenly split.
Ron Paul's views are extreme. He definitely appealed to those who agree with him, but even if his following would have been doubled if people had "just heard" his message, that's still not enough support to get him even close to being elected.
His worldview is far too simplistic. To suggest that we can ignore foreign problems and pull out of trouble spots without having dramatic domestic economic consequences shows how little he understands the nature of today's marketplace. While his views may be closer to the founding fathers' views than any other candidates, their view of international relations could not be successful in today's world. In today's world, I'm confident that many of their views would be different.
Ron Paul is not the nominee, but that has VERY little to do with coverage from the mainstream media.
No, I don't believe everything I see in the media.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Cops are all to complicit in the government's plan to extract ever more money from honest people through excessive traffic ticketing.
So tickets are merely about revenue-generation? What about the laws of physics? As a father, I know that sometimes my kids have incredibly bad judgment, and that can mean them running out in the street without thinking.
It's important to enforce speed laws because of the laws of physics. This site is consistent with what I've read elsewhere, so I'll quote it...
If you're driving down the street at 25MPH and my kid runs out in the street, you'll stop in ~85 feet. If you're going 35 MPH, you need 51 MORE feet to stop - in my neighborhood that's the length of another HOUSE! I want people driving the speed limit or less to give them the chance to stop without killing my kids or the ones across the street where the crazy people live who let their 2 year old play outside WITHOUT SUPERVISION (and yes, I've called CPS.)
traffic law enforcement is important. Ticked off about tickets? Stop speeding? I did and found that my tension level decreased, my mileage went up, and I no longer hit the brakes every time I see a police car.
It's up to you, but I'm fine with the cops writing speeding tickets.
Well, just read the narrative....
Was "be fruitful and multiply and hold dominion over the Earth" ever "said" to Eve?
so... reading the narrative it says "and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it;" Since the narrative explicitly says that I take that to mean that God made that statement to Adam and Eve.
The narrative does not say which day it was, but we can say that it was day 6 or later. Most likely it was on day 6, but the narrative doesn't explicitly say that.
How would that have been theoretically possible, since Adam and Eve wouldn't even have left the garden, except for their expulsion due to sin
I don't think that we can say that they would not have left the garden were it not for the fall of man. Post-fall they were not allowed to return to the garden, but there was no explicit compulsion to be present pre-fall.
So, having reviewed the narrative, I find no mention of other people preceeding Adam and Eve. May I point you to biblegateway.com as an online reference so that you can point me to the verses that back up your assertion?
You can see contradiction, or you can see resolution, based upon your predisposition.
I don't see any contradiction at all. Can you please clarify this statement?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Exactly where do you read that Genesis says that Adam and Eve were a subset of a human population?
TMI had a meltdown, and what happened? Zero deaths OR INJURIES as a result.
You can't blame nuclear power for the disaster at Chernobyl. Blame the broke Russians and their stupid reactor design, but bad design is the designer's fault, not nuclear power.
Nuclear power can be made safely, and we have a long track record of exactly that. I'm not a pro-nuke activist, but let's be reasonable, shall we?
On what philosophical foundation do you stand when you say that God is wrong to kill?
The only one with authority to kill is the creator. Is it wrong for you to delete code you wrote?
Again, your post is irrational, and your main points simply don't stand up to comparison with facts. You can believe what you want, but understand that it's unrelated to facts.
FWIW, Bush didn't put religion over science, he put moral restraint on amoral science. Look at what happened as a result - this week the man who made the initial breakthroughs on embryonic stem cell research made a new breakthrough with adult stem cells, eliminating the moral problems with killling embryos for the benefit of adults.
Whew. What color is the sky in your world?
Wow. This post is incredible.
In summary, I think that your points are that Sept 11 was an inside job - a cover up to hide the fact that the government bailed out the rich invested in a hedge fund, and an excuse to cow the masses into believing that threats by outsiders to US national security are real so that the military industrial complex can make more money by waging a war which is actually no threat to our security.
I can't even begin to address how ridiculous these ideas are.
Building 7 was not intentionally taken down.
Implosion specialist's analysis, based on facts and scientific analysis
With respect to the "Trillion Dollar Bet" - it makes sense to me that if US investors have an enormous number of dollars invested in risky investments overseas when the overseas markets tank, the loss of those holdings could affect the market as a whole, and that could cause significant problems for joe sixpack.
Take a look at what is happening now due to the subprime mortgages issued to people who could not afford them. Our economy is on the edge of slowdown as a whole because of the significant decrease of transactions in the housing market. The fed needed to take action to protect the public, and it did.
Ideologues around the world have stated that they want to kill us. According to your view, how should we respond? Let them attack our ships, our embassies, our large cities, while we ignore them because the battle is economically disproportionate?
Wow.
*POO* IHBT!
Physical proximity does not mean that you have facts.
Please list explicit examples of Dobson and his team doing unethical things. I challenge you on this point, because I don't believe you can do it.
There is no question that Focus on the Family has an agenda. Their agenda is social rather than political, and they have gone to great lengths and great expense to separate political activities from social activities.
Love him or hate him, James Dobson is a man who lives and dies by his integrity to his beliefs. I'd be stunned to see him involved in a scandal involving a compromise of his beliefs. Don't you think that if anyone had dirt on him it would be made public by those who oppose him?
Focus on the Family was created by James Dobson because his religious views lead him to want to help marriage and families be stronger and healthier as defined by his Christian worldview. He is not pretending to be about anything.
If you can *prove* your allegations, which I assert are libelous, please post facts. Otherwise you're simply repeating nonsense you've heard through channels which have little connection to the truth.
You can complain all you want about the gross inequities of leaders being paid ridiculous money when the "working man" is getting screwed - the problem is that good leaders are VERY hard to find.
I've seen complaints about the peter principle above this thread. It's true. Most people in leadership are poor at it, and don't even understand what they need to do to get better at it.
For an organization to find a strong leader who understands their corporate goals and culture - particularly those of an odd beast like an open source community combined with a corporation - it's virtually impossible!
Quite simply, you have to pay the leader what the market demands for the skills.
When you've got a team of amazing individuals, you need an amazing leader to help them work toward a common set of goals. Look at the LA Lakers between 1999 and 2000. What was the primary difference? They brought in Phil Jackson to lead their brilliant individual performers, and look at the result - a championship! Was Jackson worth the pay? I don't know, but I can't help but wonder why they couldn't win the championship before he arrived and did win after he arrived.
Think you are (or someone you know is) a priceless technology stud? Without someone to identify the "why" and the "for whom" of that person's work, along with coordinating the performance of others, those mad ski11z are worth much less.
As a frequent listener to the program (are you?) Focus on the Family is non-political. Focus is a charitable organization which is set up in such a way that contributions are tax-deductible. Due to rules governing this type of enterprise, they are prohibited from endorsing candidates.
There is another organization called "Focus on the Family Action" which is a political action group. Contributions to that organization are *not* tax deductible, and they can be used for overt political purposes. If you hear an explicitly political message on the broadcast, rest assured that Focus on the Family Action paid Focus on the Family for the broadcast time.
Focus on the Family, while non-political, does talk about issues on which public policy are based. It's one thing to say "we want our society to do such-and-such."
It's another to say "Senator So-and-so should be opposed because" or "Please contact your representative to tell them to vote against proposal whatever"
Focus on the Family Action takes political stands.
Focus on the Family expresses views about how individuals should make choices about how to live, and also offers commentary on what society as a whole should do. Is that bribery? Sounds like an informed populous to me....
And the representative from the *other* party won't be?
There was a time when IBM was the juggernaut, and a young Microsoft was eyeing the giant and assessing whether the stones from its' sling might topple IBM. Interestingly, Microsoft took a niche and exploited it masterfully and then extended their market share and influence to the leadership position it occupies today - but IBM is strong and has massive revenue.
Even if Google grows to dominance and eats some of Mcrosoft's lunch, as Microsoft did to IBM, that does not spell the end of Microsoft.