Ah, got it. The ROI of the rich is steadily going down. But what you're saying is only that one group of rich guys is losing influence compared to another group of rich people. The two groups may be distinguishable but they're still rich.
At worst that just means the aphorism is too vague, not that it's false. "Marcus G. Daniels" <[email protected]> wrote: > Again it means what you mean to rule. I think it means to control > with some threshold of effectiveness. For example, a robotic > control system which aims to keep a robot moving in spite of getting > kicked or when moving over unstable terrain. If such a control > system takes a 100 kilowatt cluster to do what a person can do on 10 > watts of brainstem energy, that suggests that the robotic control > system is not yet as sophisticated as the biological calculator. Ok, > IBM's Watson apparently can now dominate the best humans on Jeopardy, > so sometimes gross power use is justified and effective. Another > example that comes to mind are asymmetrical attacks by organizations > like Al Qaeda. If it takes trillions of dollars to find and kill bin > Laden's ilk (and keep killing them), it makes one wonder what the > next generation of terrorist will look like, and whether the U.S. can > afford to keep extinguishing them. Similarly, several factor more > billion dollars every election cycle to deliver the plutocrats' > message to the country via super PAC advertising and lobbying might > suggest that that control mechanism is not getting stronger, but > rather falling apart and that it may not be sustainable as voters > become more resistant to manipulation.> -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Mutant rags and big T.V. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
