Their votes count in the way that they cast ( or dont cast ) them.
No one is talking here about them not having a vote. And why should a corporation proxy their vote for them? Why should a corporation have input into government is the question. Why should a person working for a large corporation ( assuming this nominal person's goals align exactly with the corporate goals ) have a larger voice than someone working for a smaller corporation that has less money to donate? Or someone who would not vote along the lines that the corporation they work for wants?
Also, corporation goals are likely to be more limited than the individual persons making up that corporation ( the corporation will mostly be interested in things affecting their bottom line ( PR stunts to make people like the corporation are part of this ) ). It's kinda like giving a dog a vote. They will vote for food, immediately, every time, without thought about the moral issues, nor the long term sustainability of that food, etc, etc. A person might well vote against their economic interests to further other facets of life.
As a flavor of this, note that most companies involved in car making, in petroleum production, etc, etc tend to put their weight behind legislation to reduce or eliminate environmental legislation. I recall a push not too long ago by corporations to limit liability. I recall talking points from corporate types wanting the Sarbanes Oxley legislation defanged.
I would fully expect that donations would fall off sharply.
But, as things stand now, money is more important than votes, and that is what our elected officials listen to. I think this is wrong, and I dont see too many other ways to eliminate this influence. So, I would rather have the donations fall off than continue with corporations seeking profits defining how government is run. ( note, there is nothing wrong with corporations seeking profits, that is fully expected, but it is no way to run a government )
I dont seem many problems with it either, and if there are some, I think we can find and fix them. It will take a lot to get this enacted, as the entrenched interests will be quite against it, as they like buying influence.
I like all of it, except the dollar for a candidate, dollar for the pool idea. It dilutes the effect, but does not do away with it. So, those wishing to control the agenda will just make sure to invest 2 or 3 dollars for every one they invest now. They obviously think the 1 dollar is effective in getting their agenda enacted, I dont see them stopping at 2 or 3.
I dont have any links, sorry. Just an idea that flitted thru my mind when discussing this issue with a friend of mind.
I dont know that the nickle and diming away of the money is a big deal, they cant spend it on themselves.:-)
The bigger deal in my mind ( aside from putting it into effect in the first place ) is that people are not donating money, by and large, from a desire to see the system work, but from a desire to influence and control. But I dont think we want that money anyway.
Either remove corporate money, and limit personal donations, or have one big pool of money that everyone can contribute to ( and all politicians draw from equally ) without any ability to direct money to particular candidates.
Doing it the other way around would mean that corporations and the wealthy would be completely unregulated ( which I know fits some agendas, but it ignores human nature ).
Except that once we abandon ISS, start planning again, it will be 20~ years gone, then we will start putting up the successor device. And it will be a 30 year old sacrosanct obsolete POS. With calls to evacuate it and start new.
Maybe in an ideal world. Unfortunately sometimes marketing sets the time, requirements, and scope...
Personally, I dont see this part as unfortunate. It makes sense that they would want things prioritized as they want them.
and doesn't have the brains to realize that some things are impossible. They don't even ask their programmers, nevermind listen to them. And the programmers either do it or lose their jobs.
This is the part that I dont care for. If they were to communicate with the programmers, there would be fewer death marches for the programmers ( not that they care ), and the software would do a better job of meeting their highest priority needs.
More likely, however, is that they just provided a conflicting or incomplete set of requirements and didn't see the issue(s) that the programmers may or may not have brought to their attention. Some problems are just hard to see until they manifest.
Yes. The problems are hard to see until you are upon them. In my experience, neither side does a good job of communicating with an eye towards fixing problems rather than blame. What I dont understand is why the problems of the last project are not learned from by management in either side.
The programmer probably needed about 3 months to put together the project, but Marketing had already set the dates, and he/she/it only had about 2 weeks to push it out.
But it's not marketing's fault that they set a deadline without any knowledge, it is the programmer's.
What happens if you pop in your Linux, OS2, FreeDos, etc, etc bootable install disk right after powering on the machine, and you never ever see the EULA screen?
Does your ownership "fade" if you stop putting your labour into it? Or does it remain yours for all time? And how much labour makes it yours? If someone else comes and mixes in orders of magnitude more labour, does it become theirs at some point?
So, now we have a definition for "ownership", and as a bonus, a definition of "theft". I am thinking it is not the only one.
Now, why is it ridiculous to stick a flag in the ground and declare something "yours"?
And what is up with moderation on this? I dont necessarily agree with it, but that should not require moderation in the down direction.
Slashdot Mirror
Their votes count in the way that they cast ( or dont cast ) them.
No one is talking here about them not having a vote. And why
should a corporation proxy their vote for them? Why should
a corporation have input into government is the question. Why should
a person working for a large corporation ( assuming this nominal
person's goals align exactly with the corporate goals ) have a larger
voice than someone working for a smaller corporation that has less
money to donate? Or someone who would not vote along the lines
that the corporation they work for wants?
Also, corporation goals are likely to be more limited than the individual
persons making up that corporation ( the corporation will mostly be
interested in things affecting their bottom line ( PR stunts to make
people like the corporation are part of this ) ). It's kinda like
giving a dog a vote. They will vote for food, immediately, every time,
without thought about the moral issues, nor the long term sustainability
of that food, etc, etc. A person might well vote against their economic
interests to further other facets of life.
As a flavor of this, note that most companies involved in car making,
in petroleum production, etc, etc tend to put their weight behind
legislation to reduce or eliminate environmental legislation. I recall
a push not too long ago by corporations to limit liability. I recall
talking points from corporate types wanting the Sarbanes Oxley legislation
defanged.
I would fully expect that donations would fall off sharply.
But, as things stand now, money is more important than votes,
and that is what our elected officials listen to. I think
this is wrong, and I dont see too many other ways to eliminate
this influence. So, I would rather have the donations fall
off than continue with corporations seeking profits defining
how government is run. ( note, there is nothing wrong with
corporations seeking profits, that is fully expected, but it
is no way to run a government )
I dont seem many problems with it either, and if there are some, I think we
can find and fix them. It will take a lot to get this enacted, as the
entrenched interests will be quite against it, as they like buying influence.
Yes, it cuts down the value of your money, but it still buys a candidate.
I am of the opinion that the only direction our elected officials should have
should be votes.
I like all of it, except the dollar for a candidate, dollar for the pool
idea. It dilutes the effect, but does not do away with it. So, those
wishing to control the agenda will just make sure to invest 2 or 3 dollars
for every one they invest now. They obviously think the 1 dollar is
effective in getting their agenda enacted, I dont see them stopping at
2 or 3.
I dont have any links, sorry. Just an idea that flitted thru
:-)
my mind when discussing this issue with a friend of mind.
I dont know that the nickle and diming away of the money is
a big deal, they cant spend it on themselves.
The bigger deal in my mind ( aside from putting it into
effect in the first place ) is that people are not donating
money, by and large, from a desire to see the system work,
but from a desire to influence and control. But I dont think
we want that money anyway.
You have it backwards.
Either remove corporate money, and limit personal donations,
or have one big pool of money that everyone can contribute to
( and all politicians draw from equally ) without any ability
to direct money to particular candidates.
Doing it the other way around would mean that corporations
and the wealthy would be completely unregulated ( which I
know fits some agendas, but it ignores human nature ).
Use your imagination!
Think of the old pennyfarthing bikes.
Make the wheels bigger, and one revolution will be enough.
"Dear, I need to go to the store"
"Ok, I will put on the store wheels"
"Thanks, dear!".
I believe you mean "Hemi".
Use "strings" and find out!
Great thought.
Except that once we abandon ISS, start planning again,
it will be 20~ years gone, then we will start putting
up the successor device. And it will be a 30 year
old sacrosanct obsolete POS. With calls to evacuate
it and start new.
Because everyone else said "Goodness, this is so obvious, it just cant be patentable".
RealID: The Lens of the Arisians! You, too, can be a Lensman!
Personally, I dont see this part as unfortunate.
It makes sense that they would want things prioritized
as they want them.
This is the part that I dont care for. If they were to communicate with
the programmers, there would be fewer death marches for the programmers
( not that they care ), and the software would do a better job of meeting
their highest priority needs.
Yes. The problems are hard to see until you are upon them.
In my experience, neither side does a good job of communicating
with an eye towards fixing problems rather than blame.
What I dont understand is why the problems of the last project
are not learned from by management in either side.
Lemme guess...
The programmer probably needed about 3 months to put together the project,
but Marketing had already set the dates, and he/she/it only had about 2 weeks
to push it out.
But it's not marketing's fault that they set a deadline without any knowledge,
it is the programmer's.
Sarcasmville.
What happens if you pop in your Linux, OS2, FreeDos, etc, etc bootable install
disk right after powering on the machine, and you never ever see the EULA
screen?
And isnt that John Carter just there?
Cue "Basic Lives!" comments in
10
20
30
I wish I still had your mod points also.
In space, no one can hear you ping.
Does your ownership "fade" if you stop putting your labour into it?
Or does it remain yours for all time? And how much labour makes it
yours? If someone else comes and mixes in orders of magnitude more
labour, does it become theirs at some point?
So, now we have a definition for "ownership", and as a bonus, a
definition of "theft". I am thinking it is not the only one.
Now, why is it ridiculous to stick a flag in the ground and declare
something "yours"?
And what is up with moderation on this? I dont necessarily agree with it,
but that should not require moderation in the down direction.
Great idea.
I doubt it will happen. Why? It will mean fewer rows
for passengers and therefore less revenue per flight.
What does it mean to "own land"?
I guess I must be ungeneral, because I enjoy multi-threaded programming.
I wish I was doing more of it.
Have you a wing of B-52's? If so, all you need is attack plan "R".
"Buck" Turgidson.
PS: Dont forget to switch in your CRM-114 discriminator!