Welfare linesDetroit – A new political action committee calling itself Voice for the Necessitous is working in combination with the Service Employees Internation Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) with the help of the ACLU and MoveOver.org to try to form a new union serving the unemployed and welfare recipients across the US. Their initial press release quotes the organizations spokesman, Manuel Hermanez, former Department of Human Services vice chairman and recent  minority rights lobbyist in Washington as saying “We believe the unemployed and the indigent are seriously under-represented in the workforce and deserve to have a voice in corporate and national labor issues.”

The new union is also working with Hermanez and other lobbyists even before final ratification of the union charter to create the necessary exemptions in existing union protectorate laws to give the organization equal standing with other labor rights organizations and employee unions nationwide. Included in one such proposal, carried as a rider on a ways-and-means budget bill due to come up for a vote next month, includes provisions to allow the new union to have a direct say in both public and private hiring decisions as well as participate in negotiations prior to the drafting of new legislation concerning welfare, medicaid and medicare and unemployment compensation.

Larry Rivens, an unemployed landscape worker said, “I would love to have more of a say in just how much unemployment I get. Right now we just have to settle for whatever the government is payin’!” He also added, “In my business, we don’t work but 5 months out of the year. I need somethin’ to hold me over all winter long! I can’t mow grass through snowstorms!”

Some critics have pointed to another proposed piece of legislation, added as a line item to an appropriations bill in the house which seeks to take a direct cut of the members’ benefit payment checks from the government in order to serve as union dues. When asked about how he justified taking money from people said to be ‘in need’, Hermanez stated “It remains to be seen just how much will actually be requisitioned for negotiating fees and such, but such an organization can’t run without funding. I’m sure that anyone in a position of needing assistance will be more than happy to help fund the union when the union is looking out for their rights as disenfranchised workforce members.”

The proposed union has sparked words of outrage from taxpayer and business organizations alike as some business analysts suggests plans are already in the works to add a tax to either goods or corporate profits to further fund the  predictable increase in government costs that will result.

Larry Hopkins, a former shop steward at a company that used to make solar panels but that went bankrupt two years ago said, “The rights to collectively bargain have been a staple in this country for over 100 years. Now that I am unemployed and have not been working for more than two years, I am no longer eligible for union enrollment. My unemployment checks ran out 6 months ago, and I would love to see someone speak on my behalf in Washington to help get my checks rolling again!”

Group organizers hope to stage a “Million Indigent March” in conjunction with the Occupy Washington chapter. A similar event last month featured visits by Jesse Jackson who was quoted as saying “It’s about time our underemployed minorities received appropriate representation.” and Reverand Al Sharpton who stated that “Anyone opposed to unionizing the poor is obviously a racists bigot who wants to keep the underprivileged man down!”

MWRO-9-29-11-tax-the-rich-25000

No one really remembers the day they closed the escalators but I do. I was just a small child at the time, but I remember that day clearly. It used to be fun to ride on stairs that moved, and it seemed a shame to me that I couldn’t do it that day.

Fewer still remember the day that they opened, but I have heard stories from my grandparents. ‘A wonder of technology’ it used to be called. ‘A modern convenience’ where people could just stand and be propelled effortlessly to other areas of the store.

I have since learned of the days leading up to that day, but most folks don’t place much emphasis on those events either. Such things have become all too common place such that most people don’t even stop to consider which events are problems and which are the causes.

First it was a mother who became concerned when her child got a loose piece of clothing caught in between some of the moving parts. After rigorous inspections and improvements, the escalators were re-opened but with many more warning signs and new features added. Then it was an elderly man who complained of it going too fast. It had caused him to lose his balance and he fell part way down sustaining injuries in the process. So they had to slow the device down.

But then it required too many people to stand on it at once as it took longer to get them to the top. This caused concerns with the Fire Marshall and resulted in fines. This too led some to question the energy usage to carry the additional weight of more people and required the store to replace the engines. The end result was the stairs went even slower on the smaller, more ‘environmentally friendly’ motors that were put in place.

There were other stairs around back of course. Some folks took to taking these instead of waiting the extra time on a crowded treadmill. And the regulations to accommodate the physically disabled had long since initiated the installations of elevators in the back of the store.

But alas, most people didn’t want to bother with the crowded contraption, or were too lazy to climb the stairs and too lazy or too anti-social to want to crowd into an elevator. So alas, one day without much fanfare, the magical stairs were simply closed down, a nondescript sign placed at their feet, occasionally instructions left on where to find the regular stairs or how to locate the elevators.

It wasn’t too long after that when the upstairs of the stores were closed entirely to the buying public. There was already a clatter by some about such large stores anyway. The additional cost to heat them, the inordinate profits going into the hands of a selected few share holders (or so they said). And sales were down since most people were only using half of the store, avoiding the upstairs entirely due to the inconvenience of the hindered moving staircase.

Amid cut backs and downsizing resulting from the lack of profits, the store (and many others like it) began to close their upper floors entirely. In some cases entire stores were abandoned due to the added burden of heating a second half of a building where only the first half would be used. In other cases, the upper floors were converted to office space. This, of course meant that yet other buildings specifically created to use as offices were closed as the white collar support staffs moved to the upper floors of the department stores no longer serving as sales floorspace. Some suggestions were made to use them as warehouse space, but the added costs of moving goods up and down made that implausible.

With more passage of time, people lost interest in going to the large department stores entirely. Many blame it on the ‘online sales’ and the convenience of shopping at home, but it used to be a big deal to go to the mall. It used to be a big deal because the big stores were a big deal. And the big stores were cut down, chopped in half and their majesty castrated and prone before the regulators, complainers and whiners of modern society.

I remember when our mall closed, there were some people who seemed happy about it. They said things like “it serves them right” or they complained that the stores “weren’t all that special anyway.” They saw the shell left behind after the erosion of their glory by the nippers and the chippers who took one small piece after another away from them. It’s no wonder they didn’t seem special anymore.

No, not many people remember the day the escalator closed down. Most people didn’t think it was a big deal. Most people still don’t. But I remember. And I remember it being quite a big deal. I was too young to know why then, but looking back now – yes, I know why it was a big deal now.

Latitude® Change List history:

Description:

Latitude® is the Enterprise-Grade Project and Task Management Software System utilizing a task-based simple AI implementation for increasing system efficiency through Process-Interaction and Self-Evaluation (PISE). Latitude® is a flexible and powerful system management solution empowering best practices for information technology services through “Task Enablement” using the PISE™ interactive algorithm. Latitude® task management software enables software tasks to be more organized, productive, and effective through intuitive automated tracking, prioritization, and self-evaluation to increase overall system efficiency and effectiveness by 75% to 200%.

Monautocracy® – pre-alpha early limited release v0.0.13
Task management methodology assigned through a central routing authority. Tasks are assigned priority and resources based on a pre-determined list of arbitrary constraints handled by the central routing mechanism. Individual tasks are given limited determination in regards to allocation of available system resources assigned to them via a stub loader activated by ‘envoy’ sub processes of the central routing authority. Rudimentary self-improvement algorithms are assigned to all system and task functions based on the centrally assigned priority and available resources.

Bug tracker ticket #193.
Summary: Regardless of the arbitrary constraints, the AI based decision making of the central authority seems to be mis-allocating system resources in favor of the efficiency of the central mechanism itself. The self-improvement mechanisms make this problem worse in that the ‘self-evaluation’ methodologies ultimately favor the central router which continues to assign itself more system resources in that it is inevitably self-designated as the ‘most important’ function in the system.  What ‘self-improvement’ was noticeable seemed to focus on improving the ability of the central authority to horde those resources rather than improve the overall system performance. Individual tasks are then assigned less and less system resources from the diminishing quantity that remains. As a result, the self-evaluation mechanisms of those individual tasks suffer as a consequence resulting in less individual task performance and virtually no individual task self-improvement.

Oligarcus® pre-alpha early limited release v0.1.03-c
Alterations were made in the task management scenario to instead assign task priorities from a pool of authoritative ‘delegate’ sub-routines, each with an individual arbitrary list of priorities and parameters in specific categories. No significant changes to the self-improvement algorithm was implemented at this time at the individual task level as this functionality was assumed to suffer primarily from inordinate distribution of system resources in the previous alpha release.

Bug tracker ticket #271.
Summary: Again, regardless of the arbitrary constraints assigned to each ‘delegate’, the AI based decision making is still skewing over time to favor the delegate processes. In some instances, even despite of the over-allocation to these components, the ‘competition’ between the delegate applications for these resources further lowers overall system performance through repeated inter-process challenges that one developer dubbed ‘filabusting’.  The self-improvement mechanisms again seem to lie primarily at the administrative level and again focus more on improving their ability to ‘horde’ resources to the benefit of the individual ‘delegate’ apps. This in turn degrades overall performance. And again, the end result for the individual tasks was not dissimilar to that of the prior alpha release.

Democra® alpha limited release v0.2.185
Problems with misallocation of resources in  pre-alpha releases is now being addressed by increased prioritization at the task level. Individual tasks now include an evaluation algorithm and each contribute individual input toward the ultimate assignment of overall system usage. The central mechanism is now serving solely in an administrative capacity to evaluate and apply the combined prioritization.
+ New Feature: the individual task evaluation algorithm will now be categorized under the name PISE™ for Process-Interaction & Self-Evaluation at the individual task level.

Bug tracker ticket #1393
Summary: When assigned limited scope tasks, the system seemed to perform reasonably well. But upon assigning more complex, multi-function task scenarios, the individual prioritization of system-wide task priority does not take into account enough parameters as to the importance of those tasks actually needing system resources for priority functions. The result is that even critical system functions are sacrificed to the collective ‘whims’ when the individual task evaluations are combined and evaluated.  Individual task self-improvement, nearly non-existent in prior releases, does show promise and shows considerable improvement in overall system function when not confronted with the aforementioned critical task allocation issues. But the elimination of vital tasks from resource allocation ultimately results in complete system failure when vital system processes are no longer able to execute.

Republi-Bureacra® beta release v 0.3.3-b
Delegate mechanisms re-introduced to handle a more defined prioritization of individual task evaluation results. Added functionality to the delegate prioritization methodologies to auto-generate task ‘agencies’ to manage the distribution of system resources based on final priority schemas implemented following a system wide task-evaluation data census. Inter-management guidelines are now set in place to allow delegate processes to self-monitor one another in addition to task population as a whole in order to assure that no one delegate processes consumes unreasonable quantities of system resources.

Bug tracker ticket #2743
Summary: Overall prioritization performance is greatly improved… initially. The self-improvement process is working excellently at both the individual task level and the delegation/task-management level. However, over subsequent generations of self-improvement, the delegate code evolution seems to be prioritizing the generation of more and larger agency stub applications to handle allocation and distribution of resources until eventually  almost all system resources are consumed by both the agencies and the individual tasks when trying to comply with the plethora of parameters and restrictions put in place by the various agency stubs.

Communas® v0.4 beta release patch v0.4.12-4
Delegate sub-routines now maintain tasks policies through a policing authority similar to the Democra® alpha release. Task evaluation on the individual level is again pooled, but the individual algorithms modified with prioritization schemes favoring an arbitrary list weighted to focus primarily upon improving overall system performance and maintaining the pre-determined task priorities. Delegate ‘policing’ was also modified and strengthened to maintain and enforce these pre-determined priority scenarios.

Bug tracker ticket #3288
Summary: Decreased performance witnessed from the start. Self-improvement mechanisms of individual processes seems to be directly effected (stalled) by the prioritization of  pre-ordained system-favored outcomes. While there was little or no individual task improvement, the delegate process self-improvement continues to favor maintaining the arbitrary list of rules. This ultimately produced a result not unlike those seen in the Oligarcus pre-alpha version. Overall, resources are seriously mis-allocated and despite trying various arbitrary priority scenarios, there always seems to be a severe shortage of system resources upon allocating them to the task population.

MonoCorp® beta evaluation release v0.5.13
The focus of task evaluation was again returned to the individual task level, but the means of rating other tasks’ priorities is now based on direct interaction between the individual processes themselves. (tasks that have no interaction with other tasks make no evaluations on these tasks) Tasks compete for and exchange system resources based on the value they provide to the system as a whole as evaluated through their interaction with other tasks within the system. System allocation of CPU usage is maintained through ‘CPU credits’ allocated based on total available resources.
+ New Feature: DeFedCit™ allocation  -  As part of the new CPU credit scenario, we have enabled the delegate level sub-routines to make predictions (called ‘Next Evaluation Supply’ or NES requirements) of future requirements as determined by pre-defined guidelines.  By focusing on Key-NES predictions, this should properly allocate system resources over time as well as in the immediate moment.  To help facilitate this, tasks with predictable future priorities may now exchange some of their allocated resources for the purpose of gaining increased priority in future allocations from the delegating authority process(es).
Tasks can now also solicit other peer and non-peer tasks with CPU credit surpluses based on their own evaluated priority and performance. These credits may then be requested later by the ‘loaning’ tasks if needed and the amount will be scaled appropriately based on the gross CPU balance of the task that solicited them comparative to gross CPU balance at the time of the initial exchange.

Bug tracker ticket #6374
Summary: Overall initial performance greatly improved. Cross evaluation of task importance is highly effective in that those tasks most vital to system performance gain the best evaluations from those peer tasks they assist and ultimately end up with the appropriate level of available resources. However, the ability of tasks to exchange resources on the delegate level for future favorable allocations seems to be backfiring.  Those tasks receiving the most system credits based on their peer-evaluated exchanges are ultimately able to purchase the most future-priority from their respective delegate regulators until they end up controlling entire sections of system task prioritization.  This mis-allocation can even spill over to effect other similar task categories. Ultimately a small handful of favorably peer-evaluated tasks end up controlling the vast majority of system CPU credit distribution through a process of ever-increasing delegate priority ‘grafting’. Furthermore, the ‘prediction’ scheme at the delegate level seems to generate an ever-increasing amount of ‘future credits’ by fiat. Over multiple cycles this ends up leaving lower-evaluated processes waiting in long queues even to gain access to those system resources they have sufficient CPU credits to utilize.

Mixedeco® v0.7.7 pre-release
The focus of task evaluation strategy so effective in the prior release was maintained at the individual task level through peer rating. The CPU credit system was strengthened but most of the interaction at the delegate process level was removed and allocation is now based entirely upon currently available resources ONLY. (individual processes are now required to making their own predictions on future required resources and are left to plan accordingly for their predicted needs) The ability to ‘pre-purchase’ favorable priority was removed and delegate processes altered to primarily regulate the exchange of CPU credits among the individual processes to assure fair distribution of resources based on pre-determined (regulatory) guidelines.
+ New Feature: Introduction of InnoVA™ to the self-improvement AI. InnoVA™, which was partially implemented in patch 0.6.483, allows individual tasks to recognize new system task requirements not necessarily directly related to their own existing task functions and not yet implemented within the system. Those newly spawned InnoVA™ tasks deemed favorable through peer evaluation can then be incorporated as a new system function running autonomous from the direct management of the task who’s AI initiated it. Occasionally, multiple InnoVA™ processes may be spawned to address identical system needs, but peer-evaluation should increase the evolution of the self-evaluation process so the most efficient methods gain priority over time.
+ Alteration: After considerable review we have removed the pre-allocation capability of the DeFedCit™ enhancement but have left the peer-to-peer allocation of CPU credit surpluses intact as it increased performance in the prior release by allowing for inter-process sharing of otherwise dormant resource allocation credits. Additional parameters have been added to the individual tasks’ AI equations to assist in the proper ‘individual negotiation of value’ (IN-V) of surplus CPU credits. This feature will be renamed to IN-Vest™ prior to the final market release.

Bug tracker ticket #11481
Submitted by beta-tester Jeff Thompson (jthom@*******.biz)
Great package! I think you guys almost have this licked. I was able to improve my system performance by 50-75%!!!  One suggestion though based on my own tinkering. After running the Mixedeco package through a few generations of self-improvement cycles I began to notice some tasks gaining increased priority. It wasn’t incredibly out of proportion, but it was enough to grab my attention. Upon further examination I realized that the vast majority of these processes were the results of the InnoVA task creation. There were a smattering of others also that, when combined with the InnoVA tasks gave me a theory.
The similarity between all of the increased priority tasks was that they were universally unaffected by the restrictions I pre-outlined within the arbitrary rules at the delegatory level. Based on this assumption I re-initialized the system with only the bare minimum of regulatory guidelines necessary to direct the prioritization and self-improvement methods toward the goals I desired. It took some tweaking, but after just a few cycles I am easily seeing 200-300% improvements compared to the initial 50-75%!!!
My suggestion to anyone using the management suite would be to keep your regulations to as few as possible!! The self-improvement and self-evaluation schemes seem to be far more capable of generating desirable results with less inhibitors in place. Keep up the good work!

Latitude® v1.01 final release
Based on beta-tester recommendations, the regulatory layer’s impact was greatly reduced for the final release. Most additional patches at this time involve improvements in the user interface and only minor tweaks to the existing mechanisms.  Latitude® is scheduled for release early next spring complete with PISE™ and IN-Vest™ technologies!

New York – As house and senate partisans continue to dispute a solution for the US debt limit crisis, President Obama seems to have other plans.

Obama speaks at UN

President Obama spoke at the United Nations headquarters in New York this week to a special combined summit of UN committee leaders.  The administration has been working with the assistance of Greece’s President Karalos Papoulias and Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero to back a new ‘International Reinvestment Resolution’. (IRR)

The special UN meeting included representatives from the International Fund for Agricultural Development, UN Industrial Development Organization and key members of the International Monetary Fund.  IRR is designed to encourage the World Bank and other international savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of the international community, including low- and moderate-risk nations.

At a press conference following the Obama appearance in NY, an administrative spokesperson seemed to suggest that the resolution ‘is just one alternative’ that the Whitehouse is exploring in the event that Moody’s follows through with any measures to lower the US triple-A credit status.

Of the resolution, one of the IMF representatives stated that it would reduce discriminatory credit practices against deficit-challenged nations, a practice known as international redlining.

The Do-Gooder

Posted: June 17, 2011 by TheWild Webster in Based on a true story, Dystopian Fiction, Fiction

Mrs. Ashburogh seemed harmless enough.  Sure, she was the neighborhood busy body but she seemed to mean well. The gesture to facilitate this visit was a batch of cookies she had just made, but Sarah suspected that it was just as much of an excuse for her to come snooping around.

Her visits were innocent enough, but Grace Ashburogh was the type to wear her religion on her sleeve.  She was the sort that would often end her sentences with ‘in Jesus’s name’ or ‘praise the lord.’  Although she was not religious herself, Sarah considered herself tolerant of others and would just smile in response.

Today Mrs. Ashburogh had brought her daughter Elizabeth over to play with Sarah’s daughter Maggie.  Being a single mom was tough enough on Sarah Miller, so she wasn’t unappreciative of having concerned neighbors who were willing to help, even if that help came with the occasional preaching and snooping.

Her suspicions of the snooping part were quickly reassured too, as Grace quickly turned the conversation from common pleasantries to begin regaling her of the latest gossip from the neighborhood.  Sarah wasn’t interested in gossip either, but she was interested in keeping the peace so that too she tolerated with smiles and nods.

Somewhere amid the third entry to the ‘you should have heard what this person said‘ and an  upcoming ‘and you wouldn’t believe what so-and-so was doing‘, young Elizabeth came over to tug on her mother’s skirt.

“Mommy,” she said pointing back toward her playmate.  “Mags says there are monsters living under her bed!  I told her there was no such thing as monsters.  Tell her there’s no such thing!”

“No, Maggie dear.  There is not such thing as monsters,” said Mrs. Ashburogh more focused on the interruption of her story than what her daughter had actually been talking about. But before she could recall where she had left off so she could continue her scuttlebutt, Maggie had something to say about it.

“There are so monsters!  And they eat bad little girls!  Don’t they mommy?”  Maggie looked at her mother rather insistently.

“No Maggie, I told you there were no monsters.  Stop scaring poor Elizabeth,” said Sarah somewhat embarrassed by her daughter’s recitation.  Grace Ashburogh just stood quietly soaking it all in, glancing first at the young girl and then again at her mother.

After a short pause, she asked “Sarah, you didn’t actually tell  your daughter that there were monsters under her bed did you?”

“No no no!” said the young mother emphatically.  “She came to me one morning rather convinced that there was though.  I thought she had dropped the matter, but she kept bringing it up all day.”

“Well then where would such a young thing get such an idea?” the elder marm asked somewhat accusingly.

“Oh, she kept insisting that there were monsters and wouldn’t let it go.  I finally said to her in jest that ‘if there was a monster under her bed, it would probably eat little girls that asked too many questions and didn’t listen to their mothers!‘  She must have put more stock in it than I thought.”

“Oh MY!” said Grace Ashburogh in shock.  “You can’t say such things  to your child!  That is outright cruel!”  Her composure changed considerably and after a few more topical remarks on the subject, she seized the opportunity as cause to make her exit from the house, calling her daughter Elizabeth and to say it was time to go.

Despite some reassurances that she hadn’t said it to be cruel and that Grace nor Elizabeth had to leave, the neighbor woman seemed quite content at departing, even offering the excuse that she needed to go anyway. She somewhat disingenuously offered re-assurances that, although it had initially disturbed her, the ‘monster’ issue was not the cause of her desire to leave.

Sarah wasn’t reassured.  Nor was she disappointed in her assumptions on the matter.  No sooner did the elder woman arrive  at her own home and she was off to yet another neighbor’s home.  No doubt for more snooping and to spread the word of what a horrible mother Sarah was, scaring her own child with stories of monsters that ate bad little girls!

Still, Sarah made a point to sit her daughter down again to re-emphasize that her comments about the ‘monster’ were in jest and that there was no monster under her bed, no such thing as monsters and on how it was not nice to scare other children with stories of monsters.

-

It was the following morning when the knock came at the door.  Sarah answered it to find a woman in business clothes holding a clip board with a police officer standing behind her. Sarah also couldn’t help but notice that Grace and some of the other neighbor women were out in front of their homes talking just down the street.

“Ms. Miller?  My name is Mrs. Jones from Child Protective Services and this is Officer Jamison.  May we come in?”

Sarah didn’t know what to say, but was already getting suspicious as to the cause of their visit.  The subject of the ‘monster’ came up quickly and the manner in which it was told to her daughter.

“So you think this is funny to joke with your child about monsters that will eat her if she doesn’t obey you?” was an example of the types of questions she was receiving.  And despite her attempts to clarify the situation, it did not seem Sarah could make any headway with the woman.  “We take reports of abuse very seriously Ms. Miller.  Including psychological abuse,” was the typical comment she got in response to her attempts to diffuse the situation.

Grace Ashburogh was not surprised when the police officer could be seen helping the government woman escort the screaming young Maggie from the Miller home.

“I WANT MY MOMMY!  I WANT MY MOMMY!” could be heard all the way up and down the street — even if the women hadn’t gathered specifically to witness the events as they were unfolding.

“Poor child – it’s such a downright shame,” said Mrs. Rathberg from down on the corner.  “and you say she actually told her daughter that the monster would eat her if she didn’t behave?”

“Indeed, can you imagine that?” responded Grace.

“Downright barbaric,” added Mrs. Wilford from across the street.  “I hope God has a special place in Hell for people like ‘that’,” she added turning up her nose in disgust.

Young Elizabeth had been playing nearby and overheard this last remark.  “Is that true mommy?  Will God send Mrs. Miller to Hell for scaring Maggie?”

“Yes, Elizabeth,” said Mrs. Ashburogh.  “God sends bad people to Hell!”

After pondering the thought a moment, Elizabeth inquired further, “Will I go to Hell mommy?”

“Well of course not dear,” said her mother.  “Not if you’re good and do as the Bible says!”