Must admit I enjoyed quacking some latin, counting on
some reaction by the latin-quacks outside the latin nations.
(global latin-belt??)
As well as how latin Monti said goodbye and farewell to Welch.
(something about writing a book??)
Consensus is a difficult thing, some say it is the
global goal of this century, and the most important
understanding of the late 19th century.
Holland did their thing, but missed some aspects, but
as a result grass is a matter of consensus and respect
for (some) individuals.
From a finnish point of view, Kista and Sweden never
really implemented the idea, although it almost
worked without the consent until recently.
One can even return to the 18th century of illumination,
and ask what the media can do or undo.
Not that both the romans and the greek, as well as
early babylonians thought about the same things,
egyptians inbetween, although translations can be tweaked
in many ways.
Ilmarinen
"ruled by the consent of the ruled" should cover the
basics, the CIA 10% threshold for unstability gives a good
max proportion of the those who strongly oppose the rule.
The real thing is that to achieve a 60-90% concensus,
the 40-50% simple majority has to focus on how to
explain and adjust their thing, not just bang the
49% minority in the head until they stop quacking.
Not that I found lots of mechanism in the US system
fascinating, interesting and especially very optimized.
(and without the 1-10% quacking village idiote,
no nation nor standard can survive) |
