Aaqgs-recognized-dilemma – Law versus ethics
Internet goes everywhere, time to progress into 21st century bereft of earlier experienced moronic incompetent intellectuals like shuck able garland of weights.
aaqgs-I consider Law versus ethics far more important than class distinction to understand history and predictions. Ethical behavior is an internal mechanism -- as individuals we perceive "right and wrong" in a particular situation and act accordingly. Law, on the other hand, is "external". There are rules, promulgated by others, and we choose to comply with those rules or not. The rules may or may not reflect our perception of right and wrong -- but they represent a consensus of what rulers of society feels is "right" or "wrong". So there is a major distinction between ethics and law. Simply following the rules does not make an action ethical -- at least that's the lesson of the Nuremberg war trials. Nor is violation of an unjust law or rule necessarily unethical -- for example, Gandhi's march to the sea to evade the British salt tax, or Rosa Parks taking a seat at the front of the bus may have been illegal, but not necessarily unethical.
History is replete with examples of ethical dilemma created by legal class distinction hurt caused by ruler defined arbitrary laws which favor one identifiable gelled class over another. All laws are generally hurtful to some, but not the others, all the adjectives are important to prevent an author from creating virtual classes of the loser's from any law. The classes must be identifiable and sufficiently organized to demand consideration. A unification organizing effort is needed prior to consideration of the losers, caused or historical. The battle of independence of colonies, of people of color, voting beyond sexes, color discrimination and sex discrimination can be looked so.
But that is history. Anyone a competent can refine the semantics to make the past conform to a's historical account. Then in the guise of “intelligent don't let the history repeat”, it is applied to predictions to argue for desired actions. So common is this technique of thugging, particularly non-skeptic intellectuals that it deserves a neologistic name – semantic-thuggery. A vast super-majority of so called historians are not just reliable event writers, but lunatic subhumans with pet theories of what the events correspond to, and hence devoid of any respect, considered unnecessary burden on Exchequer and should be fired mercilessly. Any useful history will have a number of readers that will financially support the non-science intellectuals.History is simply respectable conspiracy theory
Even science is supported by empirical argument that it is possible to feel the benefits of patent and copyright regime in a far less restrictive, democratic, non-exclusive manner even though it is not administered so but by self-chosen contradictory (up to relevant scientists to deal with them) schemes which must NEVER be open to micro-management by politicians. In this scheme, popular science is rational stoic for all else, a statistical rational skepticism where the pure science rational skepticism (even for scientists re other fields) for effort cost reasons. Advertisement is necessary evil, only solution is internet based rational skeptic database of branded values. Brand values are measurable in non-monopoly-circumstances with $ price averages and spread, indicating the efficiency of inspectors, workers, processes as standard deviation for legally defined sets of services and products. In other words, it must be illegal to provide services below the minimum not defined by a fine print.
Elimination of fine-print is possible and central to my political advantage. It is this, not Marxian class warfare, that define the next few centuries. The evil gelled class is lawyers by super-majority, the success of my program is reduction of professional lawyers to 10-20% of now. It will greatly benefit production, sales, and citizenry to eliminate fine print. It can be done by aaqgs-deviation-contract limit in all fields. Every transaction has a deviation from government printed rules. The length of deviation may be some percent of legal contract length, say 10%. That is the number of bytes the transaction wordage can be from the government contract.
Consider a rental. There are some government rules based on parties in power and court judgments. All modifications and fill-in-blanks constitute the deviation. The full applicable contract can be printed out by a simple program. Quick look at deviation tells the consumer, interest or not.
Parking slip: same thing. Deviations printed on ticket.
A lawyer is NOT very smart. His experience enables him to rapidly match paragraphs with the standard. A longish document becomes a set of deviations. Right cases pop up to match the deviations. It is like human way to do chess, vastly different from poor AI of analyzing trillions of positions. One easy way to test I am right is to finally find a method to emfubar lawyers as a class. It also works to decimate reverse engineers from source code for complex software.
Idea is to break up things into small chunks, instructions in software. Consistent with required order, they are dissociated from semantic order, but some other order, usually some strange, but not arbitrary sense. In programming, it is by name. So all the declarations are moved up, sorted by type and alphabetical by name. Further, all non-recursive procedures are open to possible inline expansion. Consistently, code sentence-set is reordered. Such code is very hard to read. Things are even better for lawyers. To emfubar them, infrequent words or words without court case history can be used.
It is said in lawyer community that only the lawyer who draws up a good contract, like premarital, can prepare a destruction case. My rules eliminate that! No fine print is possible. Deviation-only rule has enormous applications in business contracts and options-trading!
Internet goes everywhere, time to progress into 21st century bereft of earlier experienced moronic incompetent intellectuals like shuck able garland of weights.
aaqgs-I consider Law versus ethics far more important than class distinction to understand history and predictions. Ethical behavior is an internal mechanism -- as individuals we perceive "right and wrong" in a particular situation and act accordingly. Law, on the other hand, is "external". There are rules, promulgated by others, and we choose to comply with those rules or not. The rules may or may not reflect our perception of right and wrong -- but they represent a consensus of what rulers of society feels is "right" or "wrong". So there is a major distinction between ethics and law. Simply following the rules does not make an action ethical -- at least that's the lesson of the Nuremberg war trials. Nor is violation of an unjust law or rule necessarily unethical -- for example, Gandhi's march to the sea to evade the British salt tax, or Rosa Parks taking a seat at the front of the bus may have been illegal, but not necessarily unethical.
History is replete with examples of ethical dilemma created by legal class distinction hurt caused by ruler defined arbitrary laws which favor one identifiable gelled class over another. All laws are generally hurtful to some, but not the others, all the adjectives are important to prevent an author from creating virtual classes of the loser's from any law. The classes must be identifiable and sufficiently organized to demand consideration. A unification organizing effort is needed prior to consideration of the losers, caused or historical. The battle of independence of colonies, of people of color, voting beyond sexes, color discrimination and sex discrimination can be looked so.
But that is history. Anyone a competent can refine the semantics to make the past conform to a's historical account. Then in the guise of “intelligent don't let the history repeat”, it is applied to predictions to argue for desired actions. So common is this technique of thugging, particularly non-skeptic intellectuals that it deserves a neologistic name – semantic-thuggery. A vast super-majority of so called historians are not just reliable event writers, but lunatic subhumans with pet theories of what the events correspond to, and hence devoid of any respect, considered unnecessary burden on Exchequer and should be fired mercilessly. Any useful history will have a number of readers that will financially support the non-science intellectuals.History is simply respectable conspiracy theory
Even science is supported by empirical argument that it is possible to feel the benefits of patent and copyright regime in a far less restrictive, democratic, non-exclusive manner even though it is not administered so but by self-chosen contradictory (up to relevant scientists to deal with them) schemes which must NEVER be open to micro-management by politicians. In this scheme, popular science is rational stoic for all else, a statistical rational skepticism where the pure science rational skepticism (even for scientists re other fields) for effort cost reasons. Advertisement is necessary evil, only solution is internet based rational skeptic database of branded values. Brand values are measurable in non-monopoly-circumstances with $ price averages and spread, indicating the efficiency of inspectors, workers, processes as standard deviation for legally defined sets of services and products. In other words, it must be illegal to provide services below the minimum not defined by a fine print.
Elimination of fine-print is possible and central to my political advantage. It is this, not Marxian class warfare, that define the next few centuries. The evil gelled class is lawyers by super-majority, the success of my program is reduction of professional lawyers to 10-20% of now. It will greatly benefit production, sales, and citizenry to eliminate fine print. It can be done by aaqgs-deviation-contract limit in all fields. Every transaction has a deviation from government printed rules. The length of deviation may be some percent of legal contract length, say 10%. That is the number of bytes the transaction wordage can be from the government contract.
Consider a rental. There are some government rules based on parties in power and court judgments. All modifications and fill-in-blanks constitute the deviation. The full applicable contract can be printed out by a simple program. Quick look at deviation tells the consumer, interest or not.
Parking slip: same thing. Deviations printed on ticket.
A lawyer is NOT very smart. His experience enables him to rapidly match paragraphs with the standard. A longish document becomes a set of deviations. Right cases pop up to match the deviations. It is like human way to do chess, vastly different from poor AI of analyzing trillions of positions. One easy way to test I am right is to finally find a method to emfubar lawyers as a class. It also works to decimate reverse engineers from source code for complex software.
Idea is to break up things into small chunks, instructions in software. Consistent with required order, they are dissociated from semantic order, but some other order, usually some strange, but not arbitrary sense. In programming, it is by name. So all the declarations are moved up, sorted by type and alphabetical by name. Further, all non-recursive procedures are open to possible inline expansion. Consistently, code sentence-set is reordered. Such code is very hard to read. Things are even better for lawyers. To emfubar them, infrequent words or words without court case history can be used.
It is said in lawyer community that only the lawyer who draws up a good contract, like premarital, can prepare a destruction case. My rules eliminate that! No fine print is possible. Deviation-only rule has enormous applications in business contracts and options-trading!
No comments:
Post a Comment