The basic principles of Systems Thinking

[Quantum Windbag]

Thanks for ignoring my first draft, which said:

"Getting an elephant pregnant twice only produces two additional elephants if the timing is correct. The universe is not static."

r u on drugs?

 

[asterism]

Most people say "regulation" when they actually mean "oversight." The result is micromanagement and a market response to gaming that structure.

Passing a law and enforcing penalties for speed limits in certain areas is oversight. Intruding into the market to make it impossible to manufacture a car that exceeds said speed limit is micromanagement. If that micromanagement is successful, the original regulation is ignored which creates a false state of compliance. Then the system to enforce the regulation by way of penalties is ineffective, and someone figures out how to put together an old roadster.

We're drifting towards micromanagement and as a result are getting less actual oversight. In the business world, Sarbanes-Oxley is the best current era example. It was meant to counter fraud, but it did so in a way that was easily gamed. However since it was technically legal to commit fraud and be in compliance, the system broke down.

The recent financial reform seems to continue that strategy.

You have some good points here. I do not necessarily agree with the way you define everything, but that would just be arguing semantics, and is pretty much a waste of time.

My problem with regulations, or micromanagement, is that it tends to focus on problems. If they focused on solutions instead things would work better, at least in my opinion. I will admit the possibility that I could be wrong here, but I will also claim the arrogance to doubt it.

There is no solution to the troubles of financial markets. Oversight is the best we can do and that is all open to the temper of the times.

There is no way to eliminate fraud and destruction in financial markets when greed and the profit motive are allowed to join forces.

Nothing wring with profit. Greed in the big picture, greed itself, is harmless as long as it is not running the system.

So perhaps actual oversight might work. We haven't had that in a long long time.

 

[asterism]

Thanks for ignoring my first draft, which said:

"Getting an elephant pregnant twice only produces two additional elephants if the timing is correct. The universe is not static."

r u on drugs?

No.

I assumed you saw my first post, which I later edited.

It was a bad first draft.

 

[asterism]

You have some good points here. I do not necessarily agree with the way you define everything, but that would just be arguing semantics, and is pretty much a waste of time.

My problem with regulations, or micromanagement, is that it tends to focus on problems. If they focused on solutions instead things would work better, at least in my opinion. I will admit the possibility that I could be wrong here, but I will also claim the arrogance to doubt it.

There is no solution to the troubles of financial markets. Oversight is the best we can do and that is all open to the temper of the times.

There is no way to eliminate fraud and destruction in financial markets when greed and the profit motive are allowed to join forces.

Nothing wring with profit. Greed in the big picture, greed itself, is harmless as long as it is not running the system.

Do you really think adding more regulations and oversight is going to stop people from doing things that are illegal? Look at the guy that leaked those documents to Wikileaks recently. He was in one of the most secure places on Earth, was searched going in and out of the romm he worked in, yet still managed to download classified materials to a CD and walk out with it. How would more oversight have prevented that?

People who want something badly enough will always figure out a way to do it, and the really smart ones have the advantage of learning from other people's mistakes. They can test the system and find the weaknesses, and no matter how smart the person who designs it is, they cannot possibly think of everything.

Look at number 8 on your list and apply some thought to finding a solution instead of focusing on doing something that cannot possibly work. Apply a small change in the right place instead of applying an obvious solution in the wrong one. Learn form your own posts and stop spouting the tired ideas that others do. Be an individual.

I can't speak for QW, but I don't want more oversight and more regulation, I want actual effective oversight and less regulation.

Proper oversight would have prevented Manning from ever being allowed to access that amount of data, much less smuggle it off the premises. But the focus got shifted to maintaining the security procedures, not the overall mission. Those who manage this security system took their eye off the ball and an unnamed (by me) 3 Star General needs to get fired.

It's ironic that the same entity which created this technological capability lacks the focus to understand it. Some operator down in the basement of a certain big building at Ft. Meade, MD is pulling his hair out and looking for a 20 year old document that he wrote describing this very situation.

People used to get shot on sight for attempting to subvert information security protocol. My my my how times have changed.

 

[Dante]

Thanks for ignoring my first draft, which said:

"Getting an elephant pregnant twice only produces two additional elephants if the timing is correct. The universe is not static."

r u on drugs?

No.

I assumed you saw my first post, which I later edited.

It was a bad first draft.

I actually thought this might be the case, but I'm out of understanding tonight.


too many bull crap posts by members who should know better.

 

[Dante]

You have some good points here. I do not necessarily agree with the way you define everything, but that would just be arguing semantics, and is pretty much a waste of time.

My problem with regulations, or micromanagement, is that it tends to focus on problems. If they focused on solutions instead things would work better, at least in my opinion. I will admit the possibility that I could be wrong here, but I will also claim the arrogance to doubt it.

There is no solution to the troubles of financial markets. Oversight is the best we can do and that is all open to the temper of the times.

There is no way to eliminate fraud and destruction in financial markets when greed and the profit motive are allowed to join forces.

Nothing wring[wrong] with profit. Greed in the big picture, greed itself, is harmless as long as it is not running the system.

Do you really think adding more regulations and oversight is going to stop people from doing things that are illegal? Look at the guy that leaked those documents to Wikileaks recently. He was in one of the most secure places on Earth, was searched going in and out of the romm he worked in, yet still managed to download classified materials to a CD and walk out with it. How would more oversight have prevented that?

People who want something badly enough will always figure out a way to do it, and the really smart ones have the advantage of learning from other people's mistakes. They can test the system and find the weaknesses, and no matter how smart the person who designs it is, they cannot possibly think of everything.

Look at number 8 on your list and apply some thought to finding a solution instead of focusing on doing something that cannot possibly work. Apply a small change in the right place instead of applying an obvious solution in the wrong one. Learn form your own posts and stop spouting the tired ideas that others do. Be an individual.

I said good bye and now I'm back. Get IT?

now: What is it you do not get about boring me with internal arguments?

Nothing can stop people from doing things that are illegal, and for anyone to suggest someone else takes that stance is an argument for forced lobotomies.

#8? Ypou haven't read my posts and if by some small chance you have, yuou should stop drinking or doing whatever it is that has you misunderstanding most everything written down.

---

Many regulations work just fine, because not all regulation are equal, or are after the fact solutions meantto solve problems.

All regulations suffer from the law of unintended consequences, but arguing the case for doing nothing because of the law of unintended consequences does not make for a credible argument. Doing nothing is subject to the law of unintended consequences.

---

Dealing with financial markets is a special case.


After the S&L scandal of the 80s, bigwigs said the problem was not enough guidance during deregulation.

As long as there are humans trading there will be fraud and corruption of any and all rules. Human nature. There is NO solution except constant vigilance as a way of mitigating the human element.

---

There is no solution to the troubles of financial markets. Oversight is the best we can do and that is all open to the temper of the times.

There is no way to eliminate fraud and destruction in financial markets when greed and the profit motive are allowed to join forces.

Nothing wring with profit. Greed in the big picture, greed itself, is harmless as long as it is not running the system.

 

[Dante]

You have some good points here. I do not necessarily agree with the way you define everything, but that would just be arguing semantics, and is pretty much a waste of time.

My problem with regulations, or micromanagement, is that it tends to focus on problems. If they focused on solutions instead things would work better, at least in my opinion. I will admit the possibility that I could be wrong here, but I will also claim the arrogance to doubt it.

There is no solution to the troubles of financial markets. Oversight is the best we can do and that is all open to the temper of the times.

There is no way to eliminate fraud and destruction in financial markets when greed and the profit motive are allowed to join forces.

Nothing wring with profit. Greed in the big picture, greed itself, is harmless as long as it is not running the system.

So perhaps actual oversight might work. We haven't had that in a long long time.

It would all depened on the goal of the Oversight and what powers the oversight would have to gather info, issue results and suggestions, etc...

We have had oversight of the financial markets: weak and neutered.

 

[Dante]

There is no solution to the troubles of financial markets. Oversight is the best we can do and that is all open to the temper of the times.

There is no way to eliminate fraud and destruction in financial markets when greed and the profit motive are allowed to join forces.

Nothing wring with profit. Greed in the big picture, greed itself, is harmless as long as it is not running the system.

Do you really think adding more regulations and oversight is going to stop people from doing things that are illegal? Look at the guy that leaked those documents to Wikileaks recently. He was in one of the most secure places on Earth, was searched going in and out of the romm he worked in, yet still managed to download classified materials to a CD and walk out with it. How would more oversight have prevented that?

People who want something badly enough will always figure out a way to do it, and the really smart ones have the advantage of learning from other people's mistakes. They can test the system and find the weaknesses, and no matter how smart the person who designs it is, they cannot possibly think of everything.

Look at number 8 on your list and apply some thought to finding a solution instead of focusing on doing something that cannot possibly work. Apply a small change in the right place instead of applying an obvious solution in the wrong one. Learn form your own posts and stop spouting the tired ideas that others do. Be an individual.

I can't speak for QW, but I don't want more oversight and more regulation, I want actual effective oversight and less regulation.

Proper oversight would have prevented Manning from ever being allowed to access that amount of data, much less smuggle it off the premises. But the focus got shifted to maintaining the security procedures, not the overall mission. Those who manage this security system took their eye off the ball and an unnamed (by me) 3 Star General needs to get fired.

It's ironic that the same entity which created this technological capability lacks the focus to understand it. Some operator down in the basement of a certain big building at Ft. Meade, MD is pulling his hair out and looking for a 20 year old document that he wrote describing this very situation.

People used to get shot on sight for attempting to subvert information security protocol. My my my how times have changed.

"I want actual effective oversight and less regulation" with this statement you head into an argument with a bias that precludes an honest evaluation of what is needed.

I would love to believe that less regulation were a magic pill. Why? Regulation is expensive and it can hamper some desired outcomes, but they are not valid and credible reasons to head into an evaluation with prejudice against regulation.

More effective regulation with adequate but minimum oversight might dictate less regulation, but that is not what you're arguing for.

as far as the Ft. Meade issue goes: Not much has changed except for maybe your ability to believe in a mythical past. I do not know you well enough to validate that guess.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is no solution to the troubles of financial markets. Oversight is the best we can do and that is all open to the temper of the times.

There is no way to eliminate fraud and destruction in financial markets when greed and the profit motive are allowed to join forces.

Nothing wring[wrong] with profit. Greed in the big picture, greed itself, is harmless as long as it is not running the system.

Do you really think adding more regulations and oversight is going to stop people from doing things that are illegal? Look at the guy that leaked those documents to Wikileaks recently. He was in one of the most secure places on Earth, was searched going in and out of the romm he worked in, yet still managed to download classified materials to a CD and walk out with it. How would more oversight have prevented that?

People who want something badly enough will always figure out a way to do it, and the really smart ones have the advantage of learning from other people's mistakes. They can test the system and find the weaknesses, and no matter how smart the person who designs it is, they cannot possibly think of everything.

Look at number 8 on your list and apply some thought to finding a solution instead of focusing on doing something that cannot possibly work. Apply a small change in the right place instead of applying an obvious solution in the wrong one. Learn form your own posts and stop spouting the tired ideas that others do. Be an individual.

I said good bye and now I'm back. Get IT?

now: What is it you do not get about boring me with internal arguments?

Nothing can stop people from doing things that are illegal, and for anyone to suggest someone else takes that stance is an argument for forced lobotomies.

#8? Ypou haven't read my posts and if by some small chance you have, yuou should stop drinking or doing whatever it is that has you misunderstanding most everything written down.

---

Many regulations work just fine, because not all regulation are equal, or are after the fact solutions meantto solve problems.

All regulations suffer from the law of unintended consequences, but arguing the case for doing nothing because of the law of unintended consequences does not make for a credible argument. Doing nothing is subject to the law of unintended consequences.

---

Dealing with financial markets is a special case.


After the S&L scandal of the 80s, bigwigs said the problem was not enough guidance during deregulation.

As long as there are humans trading there will be fraud and corruption of any and all rules. Human nature. There is NO solution except constant vigilance as a way of mitigating the human element.

---

There is no solution to the troubles of financial markets. Oversight is the best we can do and that is all open to the temper of the times.

There is no way to eliminate fraud and destruction in financial markets when greed and the profit motive are allowed to join forces.

Nothing wring with profit. Greed in the big picture, greed itself, is harmless as long as it is not running the system.

Are you so stupid you cannot have more than one discussion at a time? Please point out where I said anything about anything you just said anywhere in this thread.

I specifically asked you a question about how more oversight would make a difference, and explained why I believe we need to find a different approach. I was trying to have an intelligent conversation about a subject that is both new to me and actually interesting. You respond by attempting to be clever and insulting, and thereby prove that you are about as intelligent as the average slug. No where did I even attempt to suggest that you were advocating any type of mind control. All I did was encourage you to think for yourself, something you have just clearly demonstrated you are incapable of.

 

[asterism]

Do you really think adding more regulations and oversight is going to stop people from doing things that are illegal? Look at the guy that leaked those documents to Wikileaks recently. He was in one of the most secure places on Earth, was searched going in and out of the romm he worked in, yet still managed to download classified materials to a CD and walk out with it. How would more oversight have prevented that?

People who want something badly enough will always figure out a way to do it, and the really smart ones have the advantage of learning from other people's mistakes. They can test the system and find the weaknesses, and no matter how smart the person who designs it is, they cannot possibly think of everything.

Look at number 8 on your list and apply some thought to finding a solution instead of focusing on doing something that cannot possibly work. Apply a small change in the right place instead of applying an obvious solution in the wrong one. Learn form your own posts and stop spouting the tired ideas that others do. Be an individual.

I can't speak for QW, but I don't want more oversight and more regulation, I want actual effective oversight and less regulation.

Proper oversight would have prevented Manning from ever being allowed to access that amount of data, much less smuggle it off the premises. But the focus got shifted to maintaining the security procedures, not the overall mission. Those who manage this security system took their eye off the ball and an unnamed (by me) 3 Star General needs to get fired.

It's ironic that the same entity which created this technological capability lacks the focus to understand it. Some operator down in the basement of a certain big building at Ft. Meade, MD is pulling his hair out and looking for a 20 year old document that he wrote describing this very situation.

People used to get shot on sight for attempting to subvert information security protocol. My my my how times have changed.

"I want actual effective oversight and less regulation" with this statement you head into an argument with a bias that precludes an honest evaluation of what is needed.

I would love to believe that less regulation were a magic pill. Why? Regulation is expensive and it can hamper some desired outcomes, but they are not valid and credible reasons to head into an evaluation with prejudice against regulation.

More effective regulation with adequate but minimum oversight might dictate less regulation, but that is not what you're arguing for.

Actually, that is exactly what I am arguing for.

as far as the Ft. Meade issue goes: Not much has changed except for maybe your ability to believe in a mythical past. I do not know you well enough to validate that guess.

What's mythical?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

as far as the Ft. Meade issue goes: Not much has changed except for maybe your ability to believe in a mythical past. I do not know you well enough to validate that guess.

What's mythical?

Anything he did not personally experience or think up.

 

[Dante]

I can't speak for QW, but I don't want more oversight and more regulation, I want actual effective oversight and less regulation.

Proper oversight would have prevented Manning from ever being allowed to access that amount of data, much less smuggle it off the premises. But the focus got shifted to maintaining the security procedures, not the overall mission. Those who manage this security system took their eye off the ball and an unnamed (by me) 3 Star General needs to get fired.

It's ironic that the same entity which created this technological capability lacks the focus to understand it. Some operator down in the basement of a certain big building at Ft. Meade, MD is pulling his hair out and looking for a 20 year old document that he wrote describing this very situation.

People used to get shot on sight for attempting to subvert information security protocol. My my my how times have changed.

"I want actual effective oversight and less regulation" with this statement you head into an argument with a bias that precludes an honest evaluation of what is needed.

I would love to believe that less regulation were a magic pill. Why? Regulation is expensive and it can hamper some desired outcomes, but they are not valid and credible reasons to head into an evaluation with prejudice against regulation.

More effective regulation with adequate but minimum oversight might dictate less regulation, but that is not what you're arguing for.

Actually, that is exactly what I am arguing for.

as far as the Ft. Meade issue goes: Not much has changed except for maybe your ability to believe in a mythical past. I do not know you well enough to validate that guess.

What's mythical?

I thought you might be arguing for this. Glad I could help you define exactly what you meant to say. We agree in principle.

Mythical? Your claim of change. "My my my how times have changed"

 

[Dante]

btw, the douchebagh otherwise known as the USMB self-defined windbag can be an annoyance when he has his fits of pique, but he has on occasion shown signs of intelligent life.

give him some room.

 

[asterism]

"I want actual effective oversight and less regulation" with this statement you head into an argument with a bias that precludes an honest evaluation of what is needed.

I would love to believe that less regulation were a magic pill. Why? Regulation is expensive and it can hamper some desired outcomes, but they are not valid and credible reasons to head into an evaluation with prejudice against regulation.

More effective regulation with adequate but minimum oversight might dictate less regulation, but that is not what you're arguing for.

Actually, that is exactly what I am arguing for.

as far as the Ft. Meade issue goes: Not much has changed except for maybe your ability to believe in a mythical past. I do not know you well enough to validate that guess.

What's mythical?

I thought you might be arguing for this. Glad I could help you define exactly what you meant to say. We agree in principle.

Ideas are accepted easier if the other people think they thought of it themselves.

Mythical? Your claim of change. "My my my how times have changed"

You don't think there has been a change in security protocol in the Intelligence Community?

 

[Dante]

Actually, that is exactly what I am arguing for.



What's mythical?

I thought you might be arguing for this. Glad I could help you define exactly what you meant to say. We agree in principle.

Ideas are accepted easier if the other people think they thought of it themselves.

Mythical? Your claim of change. "My my my how times have changed"

You don't think there has been a change in security protocol in the Intelligence Community?

\\I apologize?

I was speaking to secrets being divulged, not any bs protocols that happen to eventually fail..

 

[asterism]

I thought you might be arguing for this. Glad I could help you define exactly what you meant to say. We agree in principle.

Ideas are accepted easier if the other people think they thought of it themselves.

Mythical? Your claim of change. "My my my how times have changed"

You don't think there has been a change in security protocol in the Intelligence Community?

\\I apologize?

I was speaking to secrets being divulged, not any bs protocols that happen to eventually fail..

True, failure is always eventual. However in this case, the protocols changed to accelerate it. There is no reason one person had the access nor the ability to leak that much information. Someone was asleep at the switch and as I stated earlier, someone at the top needs to go.

 

[Old Rocks]

most of you will never get IT.

and that's okay. we need ignorance. It makes the world a wonderful and interesting place as well as a frightening and troubling place. that is life, wonderful, interesting, frightening and troubling.

The technology has gotten to powerfual and pervasive for ignorance. That is why we are headed for a systems crash. 41 years after the Moon landing and the PhD economists can't even talk about how many TRILLIONS we have lost due to the planned obsolescence of technology deliberately manufactured to be crappy.

Bring up the subject and see what kind of pseudo-intellectual trash arguments you get. Try finding an economist that can explain how a piston engine works.

psik

That is not the real problem. Find a an upper management person in the automotive industry that can explain how a piston engine works. About the same probability.

 

[Dante]

Ideas are accepted easier if the other people think they thought of it themselves.



You don't think there has been a change in security protocol in the Intelligence Community?

\\I apologize?

I was speaking to secrets being divulged, not any bs protocols that happen to eventually fail..

True, failure is always eventual. However in this case, the protocols changed to accelerate it. There is no reason one person had the access nor the ability to leak that much information. Someone was asleep at the switch and as I stated earlier, someone at the top needs to go.

hmmm...how old was the information and was it really of any value?

access to old, almost useless info?

 

[Dante]

btw, the douchebagh otherwise known as the USMB self-defined windbag can be an annoyance when he has his fits of pique, but he has on occasion shown signs of intelligent life.

give him some room.