I am an American born and raised post-nuclear baby-boomer. I feel our
current political configuration is inherently corrupt due to the 1976
Supreme Court ruling that money is speech (Buckley v. Veleo). When
that decision was made, the equal-time rule vanished, dollars became
soft, and campaigns got hard. The funds required for winning an
election give the lobbyists control over government. Whenever there is
debate on this issue, the consensus is that it can?t be stopped.
Ralph Nader tried by insisting ?public financing for public
elections?, but could not get traction. It is obvious to most, that we
must limit campaign contributions, but no one, other than Ralph, is
talking of eliminating them.
As an electronic engineer, I am familiar with many techniques to
compensate for erratic response and to stabilize perturbed systems. I
think money can be cancelled out through a form of common mode
rejection. I have several pages describing this plan.
I respect Google, not only because it is a great service, but also
because I understand they have a by-law or something like ?first, do
no evil?(CBS60minuts?). I will gladly pay to give this idea, to
whoever insisted on that line. So my question is, how do I get it to
him without it getting buried, or a Karl Rove spinning it in to orbit? |
Clarification of Question by
freedumb-ga
on
06 Jul 2005 01:10 PDT
To understand my thinking, it is important to draw, and agree on, many
analogies. As in politics, common ground is where the charge is null,
where there is agreement, where it is not polarized. Can we agree
that, voting is good, and assign it a positive charge? I have used
many signal processing techniques and have been noticing for years how
if you substitute the logical social equivalence into various
well-defined formulas, you find anomalies that beg for correction.
I describe a web service in my paper and want to give it to google
because I know it will be done properly
|
Clarification of Question by
freedumb-ga
on
07 Jul 2005 02:41 PDT
Once upon a time, there was a small randomly gathered group of young
partiers at the local watering hole. Although it was not proper
etiquette to engage in regilous or political discussion in an open
forum, the courageous humanitarian decided to see if common ground
could be found on a sensitive topic. Carefully straddling both sides
of an extremely volatile issue, he was hit in the head with a 2by4
from his flank, and he learned an important lesson. While sparking
debate may be noble, you must first establish everyone?s position, and
then light the match. Otherwise, where a helmet.
The audacious remark that motivated the unexpected attack was that,
someday, science would be able to simulate the womb, and therefore
abortion would never be necessary. Before that, I had carefully carved
a compassionate on-the-fence position, ostensibly defending the
current Solomon-like trimester arrangement, and I thought I was doing
well enough to move to the next supposition. Wow, was I wrong! The
venom spewed at me is still sticky.
Now, had I been working on an artificial womb, I might have been
extremely discouraged....
On the day I posted this question, it was locked for several hours. I
have no idea who, if any, researcher is working on it. I mentioned to
Cynthia in another question, that I would post something else,
thinking I could give some easier task. So, let me restate my request,
as it may have been misunderstood.
I have condensed down to one page, a summery of a yet unpublished
paper titled ?Using Signal Processing Techniques for Democracy?. To
earn the pay, all I request is that it be read by someone with ethics
whom I respect, who is in a position to implement it. I think it
describes a novel Web service that will soon be copied and perverted,
so I feel it must be done right the first time. I give permission for
someone to Gmail me with an address, so I can forward a PDF. An
intelligent review, positive or negative, will satisfy my
requirements.
|
Clarification of Question by
freedumb-ga
on
07 Jul 2005 05:50 PDT
It?s not that I?m suspicious or paranoid or anything, but is that you
Carl? Isn?t bad enough that you and Novak just got Miller put in jail.
Well, since I can?t really tell who is out there, and I see no offers
of a private link, then chslaw, and or, myoarin, can I ask a few
questions? Am I to assume that you are researchers, even though you
come through as comments? Is the semicolon the punch line in the prod?
And finally, where?s Cynthia?
|
