Such a system could exist on an encrypted, anonymous network such as Freenet. It probably stands to reason, though, that the technology required for an AP system are not yet proven and in place. The general idea is sound, though.
Those who operate the AP pools have it at their option to accept or reject specific "targets." A nominally ethical AP administrator would probably not feel so good about letting a Senator who has, by most measures, done no wrong. In the end, though, the people running the AP can decide who is a valid target and who is not.
However, think about your scenario. If an organization did put $20M into an AP pool, that sort of thing would not go unnoticed--financial transactions are not untraceable. Sure, it could be done supposedly on the behalf of thousands of others. But the point is that *anyone* can use the system. It levels the playing field. You and your friends and their friends and so on can add up money to expedite the death of someone you all intensely dislike.
Protections can be circumvented. No amount of bodyguards can protect you from an assassin who is skilled and motivated enough. The point of the money is to provide the motivation. It's not a matter of "who has the most money" because *anyone* could contribute to an AP pool, in any amount they desire. One person putting $10 on someone's head isn't much, but if the person in question has pissed off 10,000 people enough for them to donate $100 apiece, well, now there's a million dollar pot to be had.
Since the present systems of accountability are not working well in the US, creating a direct form of accountability such as this may end up becoming a solution. Those who do a good job have little to worry about. Yes, an organization with an axe to grind could put up the money to have them killed, but consider that an AP system would allow members of Slashdot (as an example) to have the heads of the MPAA/RIAA killed, it becomes a question of who puts up the money first and how quickly the bad guys are rubbed out. Of course, this is all futile if there are more evil people than good people, if you believe in such things.:)
I am not exactly advocating this as a valid form of government or an acceptable thing to attempt. I am saying I have done some research on the subject and find it an innovative and truly revolutionary idea, for good or ill. If such a system is ever put in place and survives its growing pains, you can expect the political landscape to change dramatically within a matter of a decade.
Sounds like you're advocating "assassination politics." Do some reading on the subject. Using anonymous, digital cash and heavy encryption, systems can be set up that are technically legal, but that provide incentives for ordinary people to add to a deadpool, and entice assassins to "predict" the date and circumstances of a public figure's death, thus receiving the money in the deadpool. Needless to say, this would utterly change the nature of politics.
What Lexmark is creating is a vertical monopoly. The ultimate vertical monopoly for a printer manufacturer would be to sell a printer that only uses their paper, their ink cartridges, and their software. But unless you control the market in which you attempt to do this, you are likely to fail.
Apple's efforts show what happens when you try to create a vertical monopoly. Not there's anything wrong with Apple, but their tiny market share has much to do with the fact that they control the hardware, the operating system, and the software (at least to some extent). Only one company can make Apple-type computers, and that's Apple.
Only one company can make Lexmark-compatible cartridges, and that's Lexmark. Where is the difference here?
I was considered a "problem child" in elementary school. I had difficulty concentrating and was generally obnoxious. My fourth grade teacher suggested to my parents that they have me evaluated for learning disorders. Doctors diagnosed me with ADHD, OCD, Tourette's Syndrome, and a bunch of other things, and so ensued the medication. I was medicated from the time I was 8 to the time I was 16, when I decided to stop taking everything.
Now I deal with my poor attention span in a constructive manner. If anyone ever looks at the taskbar on my computer at any given moment, they'll see a few dozen programs open, and me switching between them every thirty seconds or so, unless I'm really concentrating on something. When I work, as long as I have a few projects to deal with simultaneously, I get things done quite quickly. I've learned to turn my inability to focus on one thing at a time into an advantage by accomplishing many tasks at once. I don't know how well this works for others, but it's worked for me--and I don't miss the medication.
Software vendors get sued all the time for downtime caused by defects in their products. It just doesn't tend to make the news because it's strictly between the companies involved.
These lawsuits usually end in settlements (either of money or service.) They're not really a big deal. You just don't hear about them a lot because the interested parties have nothing to gain by airing their dirty laundry in public.
Yeah, that's what most of it is. I still end up paying 10% of my income as federal income tax, a few more percent as state income tax, and the rest of it makes up Medicare and Social Security.
Either way, I think a few hundred bucks a month is more valuable to me than it is than the top 1% of the population.
You would be wrong in assuming people who make less than $25,000 a year pay no taxes.
I make a few less than $25K at the moment, and 22.75% of everything I make is never seen again. I promise you I could use that money more than some military contractor, or some layabout who thinks they're too good to work.
On that note, I know people who don't work that end up getting more than I do thanks to Uncle Sam's entitlement programs. Go democracy!
Actually, AOL was working on such next-generation features when they were dealing with the FCC. They agreed that, as a compromise, any such IM system would be interoperable with other clients/networks.
What did AOL do when they entered into this agreement? They promptly killed off their planned next-gen IM features. Pretty smart move, on their part.
Slashdot Mirror
Such a system could exist on an encrypted, anonymous network such as Freenet. It probably stands to reason, though, that the technology required for an AP system are not yet proven and in place. The general idea is sound, though.
:)
Those who operate the AP pools have it at their option to accept or reject specific "targets." A nominally ethical AP administrator would probably not feel so good about letting a Senator who has, by most measures, done no wrong. In the end, though, the people running the AP can decide who is a valid target and who is not.
However, think about your scenario. If an organization did put $20M into an AP pool, that sort of thing would not go unnoticed--financial transactions are not untraceable. Sure, it could be done supposedly on the behalf of thousands of others. But the point is that *anyone* can use the system. It levels the playing field. You and your friends and their friends and so on can add up money to expedite the death of someone you all intensely dislike.
Protections can be circumvented. No amount of bodyguards can protect you from an assassin who is skilled and motivated enough. The point of the money is to provide the motivation. It's not a matter of "who has the most money" because *anyone* could contribute to an AP pool, in any amount they desire. One person putting $10 on someone's head isn't much, but if the person in question has pissed off 10,000 people enough for them to donate $100 apiece, well, now there's a million dollar pot to be had.
Since the present systems of accountability are not working well in the US, creating a direct form of accountability such as this may end up becoming a solution. Those who do a good job have little to worry about. Yes, an organization with an axe to grind could put up the money to have them killed, but consider that an AP system would allow members of Slashdot (as an example) to have the heads of the MPAA/RIAA killed, it becomes a question of who puts up the money first and how quickly the bad guys are rubbed out. Of course, this is all futile if there are more evil people than good people, if you believe in such things.
I am not exactly advocating this as a valid form of government or an acceptable thing to attempt. I am saying I have done some research on the subject and find it an innovative and truly revolutionary idea, for good or ill. If such a system is ever put in place and survives its growing pains, you can expect the political landscape to change dramatically within a matter of a decade.
Sounds like you're advocating "assassination politics." Do some reading on the subject. Using anonymous, digital cash and heavy encryption, systems can be set up that are technically legal, but that provide incentives for ordinary people to add to a deadpool, and entice assassins to "predict" the date and circumstances of a public figure's death, thus receiving the money in the deadpool. Needless to say, this would utterly change the nature of politics.
What Lexmark is creating is a vertical monopoly. The ultimate vertical monopoly for a printer manufacturer would be to sell a printer that only uses their paper, their ink cartridges, and their software. But unless you control the market in which you attempt to do this, you are likely to fail. Apple's efforts show what happens when you try to create a vertical monopoly. Not there's anything wrong with Apple, but their tiny market share has much to do with the fact that they control the hardware, the operating system, and the software (at least to some extent). Only one company can make Apple-type computers, and that's Apple. Only one company can make Lexmark-compatible cartridges, and that's Lexmark. Where is the difference here?
I was considered a "problem child" in elementary school. I had difficulty concentrating and was generally obnoxious. My fourth grade teacher suggested to my parents that they have me evaluated for learning disorders. Doctors diagnosed me with ADHD, OCD, Tourette's Syndrome, and a bunch of other things, and so ensued the medication. I was medicated from the time I was 8 to the time I was 16, when I decided to stop taking everything. Now I deal with my poor attention span in a constructive manner. If anyone ever looks at the taskbar on my computer at any given moment, they'll see a few dozen programs open, and me switching between them every thirty seconds or so, unless I'm really concentrating on something. When I work, as long as I have a few projects to deal with simultaneously, I get things done quite quickly. I've learned to turn my inability to focus on one thing at a time into an advantage by accomplishing many tasks at once. I don't know how well this works for others, but it's worked for me--and I don't miss the medication.
Software vendors get sued all the time for downtime caused by defects in their products. It just doesn't tend to make the news because it's strictly between the companies involved. These lawsuits usually end in settlements (either of money or service.) They're not really a big deal. You just don't hear about them a lot because the interested parties have nothing to gain by airing their dirty laundry in public.
Yeah, that's what most of it is. I still end up paying 10% of my income as federal income tax, a few more percent as state income tax, and the rest of it makes up Medicare and Social Security.
Either way, I think a few hundred bucks a month is more valuable to me than it is than the top 1% of the population.
You would be wrong in assuming people who make less than $25,000 a year pay no taxes. I make a few less than $25K at the moment, and 22.75% of everything I make is never seen again. I promise you I could use that money more than some military contractor, or some layabout who thinks they're too good to work. On that note, I know people who don't work that end up getting more than I do thanks to Uncle Sam's entitlement programs. Go democracy!
Actually, AOL was working on such next-generation features when they were dealing with the FCC. They agreed that, as a compromise, any such IM system would be interoperable with other clients/networks. What did AOL do when they entered into this agreement? They promptly killed off their planned next-gen IM features. Pretty smart move, on their part.