Oops! correction WAS: Re: OOPS! PowerCOBOL batch compiles
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: OOPS! PowerCOBOL batch compiles
Next: New to COBOL
From: HeyBub on 2 Aug 2010 21:53 SkippyPB wrote: >> >> When a smattering of the members of [group] assert something and no >> other member of [group] objects, one can fairly assume the assertion >> is universally accepted by all members of [group]. >> >> This concept is called "assent by silence" [qui tacet consentire >> videtur]. >> > > No it is not. It is called apathy. > +1
From: Pete Dashwood on 3 Aug 2010 07:12 Howard Brazee wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 12:23:28 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" > <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >> >> In a Democracy, we seldom get the politicians we want; we invariably >> get the politicians we deserve. I first made this observation 40 years ago after being bitterly disappointed that the people I supported did not win the election. In the ensuing years I have become older and wiser and reflected on it. If we have implemented a system which gives us a voice, but have grown too lazy and apathetic to get more than a 40% turnout to the polls on election day (in Australia, it is illegal not to vote, although you can legally spoil your paper; in NZ voting is optional), then we do indeed deserve the idiots that get into power. If the population has become so inured to bad results ("Don't vote; the Government will get in...") that people have become politically apathetic or apolitical, then we do indeed deserve the idiots that get to into power. If the system has become so badly broken that "public service" is all about getting your snout in the trough, then we do indeed deserve the idiots that get to into power. > > I disagree - depending on how you are defining "we". Or are you > saying that trying very hard but failing to get the politician we want > means we deserved what we got because of our failure? And our > children deserved it as well because of our failure? > > When we get the politicians we want, we deserve what we get. Whether they are the ones we want or the ones we don't want, in a democratic society, we deserve what we get. I stand by my statement. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Howard Brazee on 3 Aug 2010 10:55 On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 23:12:59 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >If we have implemented a system which gives us a voice, but have grown too >lazy and apathetic to get more than a 40% turnout to the polls on election >day (in Australia, it is illegal not to vote, although you can legally spoil >your paper; in NZ voting is optional), then we do indeed deserve the idiots >that get into power. I thought they just got taxed for not voting, thanks for the clarification. The question is - does mandated voting result in better results? And the other question is who is "we", that deserve the idiots? Those who voted for the idiots? Those who campaigned tireless and voted for the idiots' opponents - but failed? -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: HeyBub on 3 Aug 2010 15:50 Howard Brazee wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 12:23:28 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" > <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >> >> In a Democracy, we seldom get the politicians we want; we invariably >> get the politicians we deserve. > > I disagree - depending on how you are defining "we". Or are you > saying that trying very hard but failing to get the politician we want > means we deserved what we got because of our failure? And our > children deserved it as well because of our failure? > > When we get the politicians we want, we deserve what we get. Lawrence J. Peter (discoverer of the "Peter Principle") once said: "I have been studying governments, man and boy, for over forty years. I have yet to discover whether we are being led by well-meaning fools or by really bright people who are just putting us on." My rendition: "In a suitably advanced society, it is impossible to tell whether a government action is motivated by malice or incompetence."
From: Howard Brazee on 3 Aug 2010 15:53
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 14:50:26 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >Lawrence J. Peter (discoverer of the "Peter Principle") once said: "I have >been studying governments, man and boy, for over forty years. I have yet to >discover whether we are being led by well-meaning fools or by really bright >people who are just putting us on." I suspect many of our leaders in government and elsewhere are somewhere in between. >My rendition: "In a suitably advanced society, it is impossible to tell >whether a government action is motivated by malice or incompetence." Trolls are another example of people who play roles until that role is them. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |