So are politicians. They will certainly doom themselves either way. Besides that, I said there would be fewer restrictions, not none. If need be, taxes could be one of those restrictions. This isn't one way or the other, there's plenty of ways to improve the idea without simply scrapping it and calling it impossible (it's not).
"Politicians have advisors who are experts in their fields."
It's pretty odd then how they all manage to be tools of large corporations to push for treaties such as the ACTA and such, isn't it? I'm sorry, but there is simply too much room for corruption this way.
"You can work on past performance"
Really? Does this appear to be working now? Hint: it isn't.
"California has something approaching that"
Again, with restrictions. I'm not talking about a full-fledged direct democracy where the peoples will is absolute law, just much more so than now (as in, there would be some restrictions, as said above).
Cheaper? Maybe for the initial cost of developing such a bot for a temporary amount of time, but the bot doesn't cost anything after that as far as I know.
"If the politicians did what the people wanted they'd eliminate taxes and double spending"
Not if the people didn't want to 'ruin' (as long as we continue to use worthless artificial currency, at least) their country (as in, their country, not a politicians). Their choice.
"should select our leaders"
Here is part of the problem. There is no guarantee (far from it) that they will actually carry out their promises. They could say that they hate corrupt corporations before the elections, and then after they win, accept bribes from said corrupt corporations to construct treaties such as the ACTA. Too much room for corruption.
"its only saving grace is that it's better than anythng else we've tried."
We haven't tried much else, including my suggestion. Also, what I suggested was, in fact, a democracy. It was just closer to a direct democracy than anything else.
Good for you, I really value and care about your lack of interest in my opinion. Please keep posting your deep insights in this comments section where one usually posts comments with opinions and/or facts.
Honestly, this "3d" stuff doesn't look that good, anyway. Whether I'm watching a "2d" movie or a "3d" movie doesn't matter to me in the slightest. That means I'm not going to waste money on an overly expensive television for something that I don't even care about. What a waste.
Yes, because normal people earn money every hour of the day. Fantastic logic! I built it in my free time (read: it only took a few hours), so no money was 'lost'.
"consists chiefly of those who are willing to, you know, employ you and send you a regular paycheck for the foreseeable future."
Now, now. I said "want to work for" not "need to work for." I was demonstrating that they are obviously idiots.
"I have no idea why you are apparently working from the assumption that the job-hunting process involves sitting on the living room floor sorting the numerous large stacks of job offers"
"You look up each name in google and within 15 seconds decide to toss or keep"
There's the first mistake! Instead of (tedious, but accurate) actually finding out their skills, they take the quick and inaccurate way out and judge people by online behavior (which might not even be them).
"Now which one seems more probable?"
Which one seems more fair and accurate? This is the error of lazy employers.
Again, that is just insane. What kind of fucking retarded employer would not only judge someone based on online behavior (which mostly has nothing to do with offline behavior, as people react differently offline than online in most cases), but trust spam results and such? Not one you'd want to work for, that's who.
If her employers search for her name using a search engine and trust spam links and such, well, that's not a company she would want to work for anyway, I assume. They'd be fucking idiots (like people who judge others based on behavior online, which has nothing to do with their behavior offline in most cases). Yahoo is just a search engine anyway, they don't and shouldn't have any or little responsibility for websites they link to.
Yahoo is just a search engine, as far as I know they don't have any responsibility for the websites that people find while using it (if they do, they shouldn't). Good thing she lost, because she's a fucking idiot.
Wait... a slightly better system is a utopia, now? I guess the current system is so terrible that people even think a slight improvement would be perfect.
"if the government had to obey every daily opinion poll nothing would get done"
Not daily opinion, but facts. There would still be restrictions on what could pass (which the people would help ensure), but any major decision that affects the people would be voted on. This probably wouldn't have worked a long time ago when we didn't have advanced communication technology, but now that we do, such a task has become much easier.
"is not perfect but not too bad either."
The version we have now is ruining us with corruption and greed.
"Probably not if you have a full time job and you accounted for the hourly rate on the time you spent on building it."
Man, I keep seeing this and it makes absolutely zero sense. Did you know that people usually build computers when they're not at work? Did you know that people don't work 24 hours a day (which means building a computer in their free time doesn't cost them any money)?
Slashdot Mirror
"If someone runs into your backyard and shoots at squirrels - because he doesn't like them - you are supposed to grab your gun and give him a hand?"
I'd probably shoot him, instead.
"There's a reason why your mother taught you that two wrongs don't make a right"
No, that's just basic logic.
"You can't have a democracy AND a government that overrides the will of the people"
Apparently we do now (not really, but with all of the people who believe this is actually a democracy...).
"you're only left with one option: changing who people want to give money to."
I was always aware of this, it's just not going to be an easy task.
"But people (collectively) are stupid"
So are politicians. They will certainly doom themselves either way. Besides that, I said there would be fewer restrictions, not none. If need be, taxes could be one of those restrictions. This isn't one way or the other, there's plenty of ways to improve the idea without simply scrapping it and calling it impossible (it's not).
"Politicians have advisors who are experts in their fields."
It's pretty odd then how they all manage to be tools of large corporations to push for treaties such as the ACTA and such, isn't it? I'm sorry, but there is simply too much room for corruption this way.
"You can work on past performance"
Really? Does this appear to be working now? Hint: it isn't.
"California has something approaching that"
Again, with restrictions. I'm not talking about a full-fledged direct democracy where the peoples will is absolute law, just much more so than now (as in, there would be some restrictions, as said above).
Cheaper? Maybe for the initial cost of developing such a bot for a temporary amount of time, but the bot doesn't cost anything after that as far as I know.
Yeah, and that's why people are unfairly judged by the behavior of someone on the internet that might not even be them.
"If the politicians did what the people wanted they'd eliminate taxes and double spending"
Not if the people didn't want to 'ruin' (as long as we continue to use worthless artificial currency, at least) their country (as in, their country, not a politicians). Their choice.
"should select our leaders"
Here is part of the problem. There is no guarantee (far from it) that they will actually carry out their promises. They could say that they hate corrupt corporations before the elections, and then after they win, accept bribes from said corrupt corporations to construct treaties such as the ACTA. Too much room for corruption.
"its only saving grace is that it's better than anythng else we've tried."
We haven't tried much else, including my suggestion. Also, what I suggested was, in fact, a democracy. It was just closer to a direct democracy than anything else.
Good for you, I really value and care about your lack of interest in my opinion. Please keep posting your deep insights in this comments section where one usually posts comments with opinions and/or facts.
Honestly, this "3d" stuff doesn't look that good, anyway. Whether I'm watching a "2d" movie or a "3d" movie doesn't matter to me in the slightest. That means I'm not going to waste money on an overly expensive television for something that I don't even care about. What a waste.
Such insolence! That "little banner" is the very thing that makes them hacker-proof!
Yes, because normal people earn money every hour of the day. Fantastic logic! I built it in my free time (read: it only took a few hours), so no money was 'lost'.
"then you have a manageable task: finding out the skills of whoever made the initial cut and selecting the right one for the job."
Alright, then mistakes will continue to happen and nothing will change. All because of lazy employers.
"consists chiefly of those who are willing to, you know, employ you and send you a regular paycheck for the foreseeable future."
Now, now. I said "want to work for" not "need to work for." I was demonstrating that they are obviously idiots.
"I have no idea why you are apparently working from the assumption that the job-hunting process involves sitting on the living room floor sorting the numerous large stacks of job offers"
I didn't, you just misinterpreted what I said.
"can easily take a job offer off the table"
So in other words, be a mindless drone? Yes. I realize that, however, that doesn't make it any less idiotic.
"You look up each name in google and within 15 seconds decide to toss or keep"
There's the first mistake! Instead of (tedious, but accurate) actually finding out their skills, they take the quick and inaccurate way out and judge people by online behavior (which might not even be them).
"Now which one seems more probable?"
Which one seems more fair and accurate? This is the error of lazy employers.
Again, that is just insane. What kind of fucking retarded employer would not only judge someone based on online behavior (which mostly has nothing to do with offline behavior, as people react differently offline than online in most cases), but trust spam results and such? Not one you'd want to work for, that's who.
If her employers search for her name using a search engine and trust spam links and such, well, that's not a company she would want to work for anyway, I assume. They'd be fucking idiots (like people who judge others based on behavior online, which has nothing to do with their behavior offline in most cases). Yahoo is just a search engine anyway, they don't and shouldn't have any or little responsibility for websites they link to.
Yahoo is just a search engine, as far as I know they don't have any responsibility for the websites that people find while using it (if they do, they shouldn't). Good thing she lost, because she's a fucking idiot.
Oh, of course. Now it makes complete sense!
Cheeks cheeks cheeks cheeks cheeks cheeks cheeks.
"but I honestly WANT some of those people to have more restricted access."
That's very interesting considering the fact that after reading your poorly constructed comment, I want you to have more "restricted access."
Wait... a slightly better system is a utopia, now? I guess the current system is so terrible that people even think a slight improvement would be perfect.
That string of words has no meaning.
"If you believe otherwise, I pity you."
The chance is still there, but it's slim.
"Accepted - your personal morality doesn't matter to me."
Didn't say it had to.
"download a pirated copy than go and assess an alternative for themselves"
As you said, there is always a risk of getting a virus, so I would usually try out alternatives first.
"if the government had to obey every daily opinion poll nothing would get done"
Not daily opinion, but facts. There would still be restrictions on what could pass (which the people would help ensure), but any major decision that affects the people would be voted on. This probably wouldn't have worked a long time ago when we didn't have advanced communication technology, but now that we do, such a task has become much easier.
"is not perfect but not too bad either."
The version we have now is ruining us with corruption and greed.
"Probably not if you have a full time job and you accounted for the hourly rate on the time you spent on building it."
Man, I keep seeing this and it makes absolutely zero sense. Did you know that people usually build computers when they're not at work? Did you know that people don't work 24 hours a day (which means building a computer in their free time doesn't cost them any money)?