That's called haggling or bargaining and is old as the notion of trade.
The other approach, of course, is to pursue incremental change. In the same "ZOMG tricks" lens, that's boiling-the-frog-slowly.
No, you push for massive overreach. You never start negotiations asking for what you want.
Then it goes to an "election", the "opposition" party (come on, they all drink at the same bars, do lines of coke in the same toilets) wins, and the "watered down" bill basses with bipartisan support.
We don't live in democracies. Two reasons:
1. regular employees don't get a "winter break"
and
2. Until we have real time visibility of political donations, filtered through an anti-corruption body, we can't know whether the people in government deserve, or are eligible, to be there.
We're talking about the EU here, everyone gets 4-6 weeks off a year
Not only do most Europeans get our 4-6 weeks of paid vacation. We also don't subtract any sick days from vacation days as is common in the US. We also get paid while sick. In some places by the employer, in some places by the government. Sometimes full pay, sometimes a reduced amount. We also have excellent government paid health care. We also have long termination notices. We have protection for temporary workers (so generally few Europeans work in Amazon jobs with day laborers picked up in the outskirts of the cities). Working weeks are typically 35-40 hours. We have protection for part time workers too. They can not be discriminated against. We have 1-3 years paid maternity leave. In some countries it's paid by employer (with refund from government), in other places it's paid by government directly. Usually the pay is part of salary. We have high participation of women in the labor market. We have paid paternity or parental leaves that are often longer than the American maternity leaves. We have government or labor union set minimum wages but most people make more than the minimum wages. Very few Europeans hold two jobs. If we lose our job, we have various welfare payouts and most importantly; we don't lose healthcare. At the end of working life, Europeans retire with public pensions and private supplements.
Now, there are variations from country to country since not all of the above is EU based; actually little of it is. I am speaking as someone who live in Denmark, Spain, the US and now Bulgaria. Every country in Europe has more of one thing and less of another. In Denmark, for example, the paid maternity leave is only at around one year, and women get paid what amounts to only a small fraction of their salary. In Bulgaria it's up to 3 years, of the first is 90 percent of salary, the second is around minimum wage and the third is without pay.
But generally speaking, European workers live a very sheltered and, I would say, privileged working life. I have yet to meet Europeans fearing loosing a job the way Americans do.
If you really think we are a democracy, then do you think someone in the US could win the presidency with a good platform and no money, versus someone with a bad platform and a lot of money?
This shows that “democracy” is not a synonym for “good governance.”
much like law and justice...
Star Trek has lots of wisdom, growing up in the 90s was a great time
Err, this simply means that EP didn’t rubber-stamp the proposal, as happens most of the time, but that the plenary will vote on it in September, and MEPs may propose amendments.
I.e. what should be a standard democratic process, but isn’t in EU for some time how.
They will not “try again” - attempt one is still ongoing and may very well succeed due to gross misunderstandings of the process and the general impression among people that the battle was won and it’s over.
It really isn’t just yet.
Anyways, Interesting analog. Intellectual dishonestly aside...
I have no first hand knowledge, but it seems highly probable.
I've heard similar stories with regards to censors. I've also seen it at work with release reviews. Pointy-haired management was given something obvious to correct, to keep them from thinking of something out of left field.
It depends on who is on the other end. Against someone who isn't that intelligent, who prioritizes and really just wants to show their dominance, it can work great. Against a genuinely observant and intelligent perfectionist, it's the wrong move.
I've seen it done with alignment and spelling errors. The pointy haired boss feels superior and useful in their attention to detail, and everyone has their needs fulfilled.
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1220...
Reminds me of ancedotes of devs intentionally wasting ram in old school console game development; locking it up in some obscure way; just so that at the 11th hour, you can remove it and claim "amazing optimizations". ;)
My point is: changes.
So yeah, changes. Not just what, though. Who. You gotta ask the right person to have the right answer, democracy be dammed.
(Just to be clear, I will resent them for a long time for this. Representatives should not be able to override the people's direct decisions.)
So if you want to get something passed, you brainwash 1/4 of the population to demand it.
I'd rather my laws were divorced from manipulated emotion
If it applied to all laws, you could pretty easily imagine some negative consequences (attempts for marriage equality or suffrage could have been delayed by decades if the opposition tried to introduce laws in a way that would be guaranteed to not pass). And what if the circumstances change within that decade so that an old law proposal now makes much more sense.
I do think that the law-making process should have quite a few more safeguards. The way that after-the-fact amendments work (in America or Australia for instance) is quite scary -- though Australia does have double dissolution which intends to prevent deadlocks and the Senate changing laws without authority from the House of Representatives.
It's not so much about "harmonizing the markets" - it's just full speed ahead, high and low, idealistic, corporatistic, amateurish or razor sharp, but all the time relentless building the superstate.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/eu-affairs/2...
It's also extremely weird how a satire political party regularly makes the most sense by bluntly stating like it is.
Maybe that's the actual secret to proper politics: Saying it like it is, spiced up with some fun.
It's a matter of finding out how; you can probably just ask the right people and you will have your answer.
It's not clear what you intend to do with these names, but I don't see anything good coming out of it.
As to what intent there is with those names, it could be boycotting products/services from certain organizations -- which is a very valid and legal form of protest.
If you’re fearful of your name being public, associated with this line of work, you should probably reevaluate your actions.
If you support or participate in the further tightening of copyright (when considering how extreme copyright law already is), you are the enemy, and citizens are well within their rights to publicly document your actions.
When has attacking an abstract idea ever accomplished anything?
Who was the enemy in that movement? Did making lists of enemies help? Or was it more battle of ideas where people's minds were changed pver time?
Unfortunately I have a feeling we're about to see this scenario unfold with respect to gay marriage and LGBTQ issues in general. Theocrats do not like to lose, any more than copyright maximalists do.
Whether people are married to their ideas through money or ideology, you are left with little recourse. History is written by the victor, not the noble.
When one group wants people like yourself to lose medical care and die where is the middle position?
Ultimately I expect them to eventually react violently to losing power and have to be put down by force in order to preserve some notion of democracy.
On perhaps your side of the pond it seems that one side wants to strangle the medium for culture and civilization in order to make a few bucks in hopes that a fraction will stick to their hands. These people are surely personally your enemy whether you recognize it or not.
It's kind of scary to start assembling lists of peoples' names that are your opponents.
If you want to defeat your opponents, a great thing to do. Keep track of them. The best service you can give to an enemy, is to forget him.
>My opponents are bad laws and bad ideas. Let's make lists of those.
Don't you think that bad ideas are possessed by bad people?
In my view of the world, the root of all good and bad are the people. People's deeds and ideas don't live separate lives from physical human beings having/doing them.
Individual people may have both good ideas and bad ideas, and those may change over time.
Lists of opponents' names are a really bad solution because they ignore the distinction between people and ideas.
Dude — already happening.
Let's imagine a world where as you suggest, corporation names are revealed but not individuals. Well, where does that leave us? Maybe I'll just go as myself instead of my company. I won't represent my company, I just happen to be its CEO, its chief lobbyist, or whatever.
So no, we'd need full transparency. This kind of thing is common among various branches of democratic governments. Presidents' schedules are usually mostly public, fundings of various sorts are public, etc.
Opaqueness leads to darkness.
Just demonstrating that you know a lot of even remotely private information about somebody is a very effective intimidation method.
Keep this US-biased political crap out of articles in general, but even more so on articles about European policy.
Link tax and other new laws will make sure that networks that spread truths goes underground.
I've even seen some proponents of the bill lament that the lobbying by the "GAFA" (google, apple, facebook and amazon) won, so I'm sure some of them actually believe that they're fighting the good fight against the multinational behemoths who are trying to pillage European resources. It's relatively easy to justify the bill if you take it purely at face value without thinking about the consequences: the big players like Google make a ton of money by linking to other people's work without redistributing any of the profits to the creators, let's fix that. Of course, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and clueless politicians.
That or it's the Illuminati, who knows.
The truth about the fuckedupedness of our civilization is all readily available for you to read. Just no-one cares.
I haven't found a book even close to state of the art... For a reasonable price.
Springer research collections come close but they're very expensive. Journals are expensive and worse...
Even more insane is that the overwhelming majority of society (not just Millennials) thinks that the Holocaust was the most deadly mass murder in the 20th century.
The "40% don't know that 6 million Jews died" is technically accurate (page 2) but slightly misleading. They thought less than 2 million people died, which is still pretty crazy. The phrasing I provided was how I saw it in the new article(s) that pop up. And that's for the people who actually have heard of it. Apparently 22% have never heard of the Holocaust at all or aren't sure they have ever heard of it (also page 2). However, the 66% stat is straight off of page 4 and not misleading in the slightest.
< https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_t... >
So.. flat earth, anti-vax, 9/11 truther, NWO, aliens or... what? What's your poison?
Also it is important to keep in mind the old tricks used to pass bad laws: they push initially for worse laws then after public protest they slowly step back to the initial goal to pretend people were listened to, so that not only they get what they wanted, but the public is also being fooled into believing their protest were successful and they have politicians who actually listen to them. How lucky!