EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: amiq on August 16, 2014, 08:07:52 pm
-
How on earth did such a dick-head get voted in?
Was the alternative even worse (hard to believe).
-
OK, I'm going to pass by your Scottish flag and mention this instead:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/15/3471837/queensland-energy-fee-kills-solar/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/15/3471837/queensland-energy-fee-kills-solar/)
(A story that mentions Tony Abbott as a supporter of of the policies described.)
-
He says
What the Scots do is a matter for the Scots and not for a moment do I presume to tell Scottish voters which way they should vote.
then, of course, he goes on to do just that.
Ignore the numpty. Paying heed to politicians just encourages them.
-
IBTL :)
-
Budgie Smugglers.
That will be all.
-
..but disgusting to clean up afterwards.
-
Abbott is the best of a dodgy bunch. Imagine Bill Shorten as PM......
-
Why would you want to bother? What do you imagine the difference would be? I mean fundamentally not policywise. Being the best of that dodgy bunch is a very low standard. A bit like being the least rotten apple in the barrel.
As similar as they are, there are some differences. Abbott is not a union stooge to start with.
Ah, politics.
-
Ah, politics.
Politics = locked threads.
Can anyone figure out a way to run a country without politics? (And without dictatorships as the alternative...)
-
Ah, politics.
Politics = locked threads.
Can anyone figure out a way to run a country without politics? (And without dictatorships as the alternative...)
An interesting question / experiment, to be sure...
The biggest problem seems to be, how does one game the system (because everyone's always looking for their little break), and how does one game the game (one of the more prominent problems with inequality, the powerful -- even if not directly involved in legislation -- can and do strongly influence the creation and implementation of laws in their favor, and against their competitors').
I don't think there will ever be a solution for that, since either the system is stable as initially started, but too overly simple to support a dynamic society / economy (cannot adapt and change itself), or it is sufficiently nuanced to support such, but the exact same feature which proves beneficial is simultaneously detrimental when inevitably used against common interest.
The problem is as old as evolution itself -- some system or process will always find new ways of harnessing what's available, or die. And, I believe the problem is as fundamental as mathematics itself: Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem states that, a system is either consistent but uselessly simple, or sufficiently powerful to be useful, but that, within those rules, one can formulate an expression that is simultaneously true and not true.
(Now, if this isn't the most technical effort to pull a political thread into on-topic fields, I don't know what is! ;D )
Tim