On 14-2-2010 3:07, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 2/13/2010 1:39 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Where did I say they would make $10K a year?  I said make sure their
>> needs are provided for.  Don't pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars
>> a year.
>>
>> There are more ways than "cash in pocket" to pay someone for public
>> service that don't compromise the integrity of the system.
>>
>> Jim
> 
> I think you are missing a major issue here. Its not just about what they 
> are payed. If you select for only those who are unbribable via 
> corporations, you *assume* you are going to end up with those that 
> support the people. All you have to do is look at the nutcases fighting 
> over who the *real* Republicans, or even *real* Tea Baggers, are, to see 
> what you could end up with instead. Many of these people truly believe 
> that their side holds the truth, the other side is all liars, and that 
> their tactics of harping on 1-2 key issues, to get elected, is a way to 
> "get around" all the evil roadblocks, media bias, and liberal control, 
> that might otherwise keep them from representing "the people". They 
> could live in a bloody hut in a frozen snow field, and they would 
> **still** imagine that the majority of Americans where anti-gay, 
> anti-liberal, bible thumping, creationists, and that 90% of everything 
> taught in history and civics classes are lies, unlike their 
> **certainty** that the constitution references God, and probably even 
> once had the Ten Commandments in it, before liberals hid this "fact".
> 
[etc]

In the Netherlands the vast majority of members of parliament (150 in 
total) are either politically motivated (started as a member of a 
political party in their neighbourhood and had a career within the 
party) or were intelligent enough to complete a study at a university 
but did not choose a subject that could get them a job in industry and 
had a career either directly in politics or starting as a civil servant.

The number of nutcases as you call them is generally at most one or two 
and they generally don't last long. At the moment we have more because 
Dutch politics is a little unstable ATM, but I expect most of them won't 
be reelected.

Perhaps we do have the most optimal amount to pay politicians. Not 
enough that people who are in it solely for the money enter. Elsewhere a 
sociopath can make more money. Yet high enough to attract intelligent 
people that love to think and debate about how the future of the country 
should look like. Sometimes even people come from industry later in 
their career and take a step back in salary (though still being able to 
live comfortably), just to feel they are contributing to the country and 
its people.

Post a reply to this message

On 2/13/2010 7:59 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:07:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Bets on how many of which we would end up with?
>
> There's nothing wrong with being an idealist, as long as it's tempered
> with some reality.  I've only been talking about an ideal situation so
> far.
>
> Jim
Hmm. Prefer being a realist. Its like building security systems. An 
idealist expects to be able to "train" people to use the new system. A 
realist designs the system to deal with human nature, since anything 
that you put into the system that works different than people "normally" 
react **will** break. A lot of human psychology you can't change, 
without breaking the people you want to make do something. The result is 
usually not terribly pretty. Like the, "everyone has to use their 
keycard to open the front door", type things. Its fine, if only 1-2 
people every go through the door. The only "solution", if a lot of them 
do, is to only hire assholes that don't open doors for people, or 
destroy their compassion, so they never make the mistake of opening it 
to be nice to someone. The "proper" solution is to not install that kind 
of thing on the bloody front door of the building in the first place.

Politics is much the same. Optimal is never going to happen, and human 
nature is such that the result will be as far from optimal as possible, 
given the conditions, so... your best option is a non-optimal one, 
where, hopefully, most of the flaws balance themselves out, due to the 
cost being distributed among a larger number of interested parties, and 
not just the one guy with a shitty pay check. It can still fail, if you 
also refuse to place limitations, checks and balances, or counters, in 
place against those influences. And, that is *precisely* why we have a 
problem. There are almost none, and the supreme court just erased 
another one of them.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 2/14/2010 7:57 AM, andrel wrote:
> On 14-2-2010 3:07, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 2/13/2010 1:39 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Where did I say they would make $10K a year? I said make sure their
>>> needs are provided for. Don't pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars
>>> a year.
>>>
>>> There are more ways than "cash in pocket" to pay someone for public
>>> service that don't compromise the integrity of the system.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> I think you are missing a major issue here. Its not just about what
>> they are payed. If you select for only those who are unbribable via
>> corporations, you *assume* you are going to end up with those that
>> support the people. All you have to do is look at the nutcases
>> fighting over who the *real* Republicans, or even *real* Tea Baggers,
>> are, to see what you could end up with instead. Many of these people
>> truly believe that their side holds the truth, the other side is all
>> liars, and that their tactics of harping on 1-2 key issues, to get
>> elected, is a way to "get around" all the evil roadblocks, media bias,
>> and liberal control, that might otherwise keep them from representing
>> "the people". They could live in a bloody hut in a frozen snow field,
>> and they would **still** imagine that the majority of Americans where
>> anti-gay, anti-liberal, bible thumping, creationists, and that 90% of
>> everything taught in history and civics classes are lies, unlike their
>> **certainty** that the constitution references God, and probably even
>> once had the Ten Commandments in it, before liberals hid this "fact".
>>
> [etc]
>
> In the Netherlands the vast majority of members of parliament (150 in
> total) are either politically motivated (started as a member of a
> political party in their neighbourhood and had a career within the
> party) or were intelligent enough to complete a study at a university
> but did not choose a subject that could get them a job in industry and
> had a career either directly in politics or starting as a civil servant.
>
> The number of nutcases as you call them is generally at most one or two
> and they generally don't last long. At the moment we have more because
> Dutch politics is a little unstable ATM, but I expect most of them won't
> be reelected.
>
> Perhaps we do have the most optimal amount to pay politicians. Not
> enough that people who are in it solely for the money enter. Elsewhere a
> sociopath can make more money. Yet high enough to attract intelligent
> people that love to think and debate about how the future of the country
> should look like. Sometimes even people come from industry later in
> their career and take a step back in salary (though still being able to
> live comfortably), just to feel they are contributing to the country and
> its people.
Well.. One of the US problem is a) a belief that elites and thinkers are 
"dangerous", and b) a population of people that think stupidity, so they 
don't do/say something that might confuse the general populous, is a key 
indicator of "good politics".

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:29:28 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Hmm. Prefer being a realist.

Go for it.

I find that using the approach of "what would be the ideal place to be" 
as a starting point works quite well.  Then what you do is you apply 
realism to that ideal position and come up with something that's as close 
to the ideal solution as you can.

Starting from a "realist" position means that you start with a suboptimal 
solution, and then you whittle down from that (who ever starts with a 
"realistic" solution and then says "hey, we could actually go a bit 
further than this"?

IOW, starting with a "realist" position limits one's thinking to a lower 
bar, and there's a very small chance of trying something with a slightly 
*higher* bar because one limits oneself to the thinking that "that'd 
never fly".

So I prefer starting out with the ideal solution, but with the 
understanding that the ideal solution is never going to be implemented 
and there will be some compromise.  I find I tend to come up with better 
solutions that way.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 2/14/2010 1:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:29:28 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Hmm. Prefer being a realist.
>
> Go for it.
>
> I find that using the approach of "what would be the ideal place to be"
> as a starting point works quite well.  Then what you do is you apply
> realism to that ideal position and come up with something that's as close
> to the ideal solution as you can.
>
> Starting from a "realist" position means that you start with a suboptimal
> solution, and then you whittle down from that (who ever starts with a
> "realistic" solution and then says "hey, we could actually go a bit
> further than this"?
>
> IOW, starting with a "realist" position limits one's thinking to a lower
> bar, and there's a very small chance of trying something with a slightly
> *higher* bar because one limits oneself to the thinking that "that'd
> never fly".
>
> So I prefer starting out with the ideal solution, but with the
> understanding that the ideal solution is never going to be implemented
> and there will be some compromise.  I find I tend to come up with better
> solutions that way.
>
> Jim
Never said you *start from* a realist position. Sure, you start with the 
ideal, then work from there. The problem often is that some people are 
prone to start and end there, like gun advocates, for example. Had 
another one of them recently on a blog. They point out that people will 
still be violent, people will still attack other people with other 
things, etc. They then *leap* to the conclusion that more people armed 
will "prevent" the problem. Uh.. Run that by me again, because I think I 
missed something some place, and that is without including, "How do the 
people with the guns know, especially untrained, and undisciplined, who 
to shoot back at, and who is just defending themselves?" The same 
arguments they make for why banning them is a problem - which is that 
crazy, stupid, and violent people will still exist, is the *same* 
argument against making sure that 100% of the people in a room all have 
guns. The only people that won't have them are the people who didn't 
want them, wouldn't use one, and couldn't defend themselves with one 
anyway. **EVERYONE** else is someone that has already learned to shoot, 
one assumes fairly accurately, would use one, quite possibly believes in 
using one as a solution to the threat, and is **willing**, if not 
**intending** to kill someone.

Its like telling people that we would all be safer if everyone had a 
portable nuke. I mean, logically, its simply an extension of the same 
thing, right? And no "rational" person is going to get depressed, angry, 
violent, and/or suddenly snap, and set the thing off to get back at the 
neighbor for not returning their rake, right?

Oh.. And they are always willing to a) assert that their are "a lot" of 
cases where is improved the odds of people not dying, while b) their 
only evidence is situations that involved guns, and where there was no 
way to resolve the situation without more of them. Nothing is ever 
mentioned of the thousands of cases of cops, every year, which manage to 
avoid shooting people, as a solution to talking a hostage taker, or some 
other moron, out of a building, safely, and without people getting shot 
at, usually. Its almost like talking to the morons that think torture is 
"necessary" to get good information from people, despite every scrap of 
evidence to the contrary, including the huge amount that suggest that 
you get *bad* evidence from people, if they don't know anything in the 
first place, so you will stop torturing them. The failure of reality to 
match their assumptions just flat out doesn't register with them.

Anyway, point being, sure, you start with "optimal", then you try to 
work out what works at all. But, sometimes, there just isn't any. 
logically, "optimal" you can aim for.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Oh.. And they are always willing to a) assert that their are "a lot" of 
> cases where is improved the odds of people not dying, while b) their 
> only evidence is situations that involved guns, and where there was no 
> way to resolve the situation without more of them.

Not really. If you look at, for example, the FBI unified crime stats, you 
see that having a gun is somewhat safer than doing whatever the attacker 
says, which is in turn somewhat safer than anything else.

It's not like there isn't any scientific evidence.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On 2/14/2010 6:55 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Oh.. And they are always willing to a) assert that their are "a lot"
>> of cases where is improved the odds of people not dying, while b)
>> their only evidence is situations that involved guns, and where there
>> was no way to resolve the situation without more of them.
>
> Not really. If you look at, for example, the FBI unified crime stats,
> you see that having a gun is somewhat safer than doing whatever the
> attacker says, which is in turn somewhat safer than anything else.
>
> It's not like there isn't any scientific evidence.
>
It still doesn't mean that the odds of catastrophic situations isn't 
increased, and any improvement is countered by any situation where the 
person making the threat has more numbers, or a bigger gun. And, again, 
you have to be **willing** to use it, for it to matter at all.

The point was, the statistics apply to any state in which the possible 
victim has something that could be used in defense, and the attacker 
doesn't have something worse. All guns do is escalate the "worse" part, 
without solving the original problem. More of them, bigger ones, etc., 
just keep expanding the category of "worse", and every situation that 
can arise from it. There are legitimate uses for guns, legitimate 
situations where they can be useful, etc. Arming every fracking idiot on 
the street, starting with paranoids, people that think liberals want to 
steal them, and every other sort that is **likely** to actually use one, 
and not as a last resort, is a damn stupid way to fix a problem that 
only exists *when* any idiot that wants to can stuff one in a pocket and 
take it out in public, whether with training, carry permits, or without 
*either*. The people that need defense from people with guns are *not* 
going to be the first ones buying the damn things, so.. logically, the 
solution of making it easier for people to get, use, and carry, them, 
isn't fixing much, of anything.

I imagine something of the same argument was made when someone worked 
out how to make a spear, and they found a guy with one in his gut. "If 
everyone has spears, this wouldn't have happened." Right....

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> you have to be **willing** to use it, for it to matter at all.

This has also been shown not to be true. :-)

> All guns do is escalate the "worse" part, 

Not really. They level the playing field. Muggers don't attack people that 
look like the Terminator. They attack little old ladies. Unless the little 
old ladies probably have a gun.

> I imagine something of the same argument was made when someone worked 
> out how to make a spear, and they found a guy with one in his gut. "If 
> everyone has spears, this wouldn't have happened." Right....

Yes. And then they invented firearms. Shortly after, the feudal period ended.

The whole point of a gun is that it doesn't take a whole lot of physical 
training. The power to use the weapon comes from concealable sources.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 18:50:59 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> The problem often is that some people are prone to start and end there,
> like gun advocates, for example.

And I never said I was one of them, nor do I think I've presented 
evidence that that's how I operate.  What would give you that idea about 
me?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b78ba99$1@news.povray.org...

> Not really. They level the playing field. Muggers don't attack people that
> look like the Terminator. They attack little old ladies. Unless the little
> old ladies probably have a gun.

If it were common knowledge that little old ladies carried guns, they would
get mugged much more frequently (for their guns).

Post a reply to this message