I agree on the American people part, and there are some politicians who act as you say, but the bulk of them seem to be out for their own good rather than the public good. I do think that the American people would vote better if the choices they had to vote amoungst were better, and I think the corporate money is hindering that.
And compromise in the political process is necessary, I understand that, and agree that we dont want dictators in charge. And I'm quite sure it is a dirty business, and that that will not fundamentally change, but I do think it could get better, with less opportunities for corrupt behaviour, and more transparentness.
Yes, but elections end up being a sound bite glamour contest where the real selection is really done in the fund raising stage, and we are just picking from a prefiltered list of goons. And the campaigns become about focus groups finding a message that "resonates", rather than "here is what I believe you want, and what I will do if elected", and "this is what I stand for". It is not 100% that way, but it should be 0% that way, and it is not.
On the party thing, I agree. I dont count myself a libertarian, I think they all have some points that are good, and a lot that are bad. I probably "align" more "left" than anything, but I would love to have something better to vote for.
I have worked with a number of H1B's, and they were good programmers, but hardly Top People. Good, yes, a bit above the average ( you would expect that ), but not ones we could not replace.
You may have had a different experience, but it does not match mine.
I think the issue is finding top talent *at a given price*.
it just means the few hundred people we have asked to represent us in the system aren't doing it very well.
Which brings us full circle. I believe that we will be better represented if corporations are not drowning out our voices with all the money they use to influence the process. I dont call for weakening government, really, I want to change who is in charge.
Laws and regulations that enforce their will. Allow them to push competitors out of that free market. Allow them to become, defend and exploit monopolies. Ensure that consumers and borrowers have little or no recourse, regardless of ethical considerations.
Business wants things set up to suit itself. If government could not touch business, why do you assert that business would not try to influence government? I would assert that the opposite would be true, that if government could not touch business, that business would run amok.
Not to mention, why would we want such a thing in the first place? Business's just want things set up to maximize their profits. Legislation to maximize profits would be even more the order of the day than it is now.
Just another reason why corporate money needs to not be part of the political process. The politicians worry about getting reelected, and corporate money is crucial to that goal.
The "...forbidden by law to store or share..." part is the thing.
SSN is such a poor ID ( for security/validation ) because many commercial entities require it. So, my point was that they would just require the new ID, no ID, no product/service, and we are back in the same pit.
There are, as you point out, ways to make it more secure.
Funny, the "impossible-to-counterfeit" identification idea was explored a very long time ago by E.E. "Doc" Smith with his Lensmen series. The Lens of Arisia is that ID. Not practical until we meet the Arisians ( or someone like them... ):-)
Bah. If they can figure out how to do the automated search, they can figure out how to compile a list from that and get approvals for them. If the problem were truely just that, they could get the process amended in a way that was reasonable and retained the needed oversight.
Or how about this? If there is so much information that they *cant* get approval, how are they going to do anything with the data? There is too much, right?
Would you trust a Democrat with this power? If so WHY?
The whole structure of this goverment is to keep any one person or branch of government from having too much power or control.
I am not sure how the wiretapping might not have been illegal, but I cant see how the "law and order" "trust us, we are the good guys" cant see how it would have been better to go ahead and run these wiretaps past the FISA court ( or, if FISA did not, indeed, have jurisdiction, point that out and get something established that did ). Just so there was some oversight, as intended by the constitution framers.
I am not entirely comfortable with the administration listening, but I do understand that they were probably not listening to Aunt Betty ( I have an Aunt Betty, so this is funny... ). But the temptation to use this to listen to political rivals, al la Hoover would be sorely tempting, I think. I dont trust *any* politician on this issue, Democrat, Republican, or *.
Very nice language in a post where you attempt to paint me as someone who ruins discourse. And a very good way of making a monologue and waving away the main point.
Just in case you are not though, go and *read* the article. The date moves matter, and are a political stunt. You are the apologist here.
All that said, I have plenty to say bad about the Democratic party, and I dont support them no matter what they do.
I watched T3 with the commentary turned on a while ago, and all the guy could talk about was "the franchise". It was jarring for me, I mean, how about you not worry about "the franchise" and make a good movie?
Slashdot Mirror
It has *nothing* to do with any of those things.
Al Gore ithm
There! Now you know.
You are supposed to start with 10, and increment by 10.
It will be the new Small Edition X server.
Politician. Big difference.
I agree on the American people part, and there are some politicians who
act as you say, but the bulk of them seem to be out for their own good
rather than the public good. I do think that the American people would
vote better if the choices they had to vote amoungst were better, and I
think the corporate money is hindering that.
And compromise in the political process is necessary, I understand that,
and agree that we dont want dictators in charge. And I'm quite sure it
is a dirty business, and that that will not fundamentally change, but I
do think it could get better, with less opportunities for corrupt behaviour,
and more transparentness.
If our colleges and universities are so bad, why is it that people come
to America to study?
The H1B and outsourcing movements are about not wanting to pay for
the work.
Yes, but elections end up being a sound bite glamour contest where
the real selection is really done in the fund raising stage, and we
are just picking from a prefiltered list of goons. And the campaigns
become about focus groups finding a message that "resonates", rather
than "here is what I believe you want, and what I will do if elected",
and "this is what I stand for". It is not 100% that way, but it
should be 0% that way, and it is not.
On the party thing, I agree. I dont count myself a libertarian,
I think they all have some points that are good, and a lot that are
bad. I probably "align" more "left" than anything, but I would love
to have something better to vote for.
I have worked with a number of H1B's, and they were
good programmers, but hardly Top People. Good,
yes, a bit above the average ( you would expect
that ), but not ones we could not replace.
You may have had a different experience, but it does
not match mine.
I think the issue is finding top talent *at a given price*.
Which brings us full circle. I believe that we will be better represented if corporations
are not drowning out our voices with all the money they use to influence the process. I dont
call for weakening government, really, I want to change who is in charge.
I would not call that very answerable.
One would be a government answerable to people, and limited
in how it treats people.
If you are just going to throw up your hands and limit yourself
to the options you know now how will you learn any others?
No, my point was that only the complainers make progress.
Those that accept the status quo get the status quo.
On the alternatives, I disagree that those are the only options.
If I thought they were, I would select as you have outlined.
Laws and regulations that enforce their will. Allow
them to push competitors out of that free market.
Allow them to become, defend and exploit monopolies.
Ensure that consumers and borrowers have little or
no recourse, regardless of ethical considerations.
They do it now, why would they stop?
It could be worse, so accept it?
Nah, I dont like living in caves.
Assume for a moment that you have everything you want from above.
Why wouldnt businesses continue to involve themselves in goverment?
Then they can get their way via the free market *and* the govt.
Business wants things set up to suit itself. If government could
not touch business, why do you assert that business would not
try to influence government? I would assert that the opposite
would be true, that if government could not touch business, that
business would run amok.
Not to mention, why would we want such a thing in the first
place? Business's just want things set up to maximize their
profits. Legislation to maximize profits would be even
more the order of the day than it is now.
Just another reason why corporate money needs to not be part of the
political process. The politicians worry about getting reelected,
and corporate money is crucial to that goal.
The "...forbidden by law to store or share..." part is the thing.
:-)
SSN is such a poor ID ( for security/validation ) because many
commercial entities require it. So, my point was that they would
just require the new ID, no ID, no product/service, and we are
back in the same pit.
There are, as you point out, ways to make it more secure.
Funny, the "impossible-to-counterfeit" identification idea was
explored a very long time ago by E.E. "Doc" Smith with his
Lensmen series. The Lens of Arisia is that ID. Not practical
until we meet the Arisians ( or someone like them... )
There are 235 card carrying communists working in the state department!
Bah. If they can figure out how to do the automated search,
they can figure out how to compile a list from that and
get approvals for them. If the problem were truely just that,
they could get the process amended in a way that was reasonable
and retained the needed oversight.
Or how about this? If there is so much information that they
*cant* get approval, how are they going to do anything with
the data? There is too much, right?
Would you trust a Democrat with this power? If so WHY?
The whole structure of this goverment is to keep any one person
or branch of government from having too much power or control.
I am not sure how the wiretapping might not have been illegal,
but I cant see how the "law and order" "trust us, we are the
good guys" cant see how it would have been better to go ahead
and run these wiretaps past the FISA court ( or, if FISA did
not, indeed, have jurisdiction, point that out and get something
established that did ). Just so there was some oversight, as
intended by the constitution framers.
I am not entirely comfortable with the administration listening,
but I do understand that they were probably not listening to
Aunt Betty ( I have an Aunt Betty, so this is funny... ). But
the temptation to use this to listen to political rivals,
al la Hoover would be sorely tempting, I think. I dont trust
*any* politician on this issue, Democrat, Republican, or *.
You also cant assume that the transition will not be an abrupt occurance, either.
Nice troll you have going on there.
Very nice language in a post where you attempt to paint me as someone
who ruins discourse. And a very good way of making a monologue and
waving away the main point.
Just in case you are not though, go and *read* the article. The date
moves matter, and are a political stunt. You are the apologist here.
All that said, I have plenty to say bad about the Democratic party, and
I dont support them no matter what they do.
If I read correctly, it was the state level republicans that
changed the date, and the democrats are reacting to that.
I agree with you.
I watched T3 with the commentary turned on a while ago, and all the
guy could talk about was "the franchise". It was jarring for me,
I mean, how about you not worry about "the franchise" and make a
good movie?