"I am no judge of poetry – the only poem I ever wrote was produced when I was body and soul in the gilded harness of Dame Laudanum – but I think Mr Kavanagh is on the right track here. Perhaps the Irish Times, timeless champion of our peasantry, will oblige us with a series in this strain covering such rural complexities as inflamed goat-udders, warble-pocked shorthorn, contagious abortion, non-ovoid oviducts and nervous disorders among the gentlemen who pay the rent"
I'd add a note to say some more or whisper Latin at the door
but I have promises to keep and Myles to go before I sleep...
Let's say for a second the King (or Crown, it makes no odds) owns your swans, but you'd rather he not own them. What'd be your recourse?
Presumably the King (or Crown, it makes no odds) once owned all the swans in Ireland too. Then one day didn't. Now those swans are free swans living in an actual, honest to God, Republic. Technically the ones in the North are still his but their ownership status is disputed. The swans that fly back and forth I'm not sure what to do about, post Brexit arrangements being shoddy at best.
All this talk of ownership seems to confuse power with right, right with tradition, tradition with law, law with power.
Don't be silly. The republic would inherit whatever the crown owned and either keep it for themselves or gift them to their cronies. Or do you think they'd just chop them up into a couple million pieces and serve them to everyone?
No, your recourse would be to just do whatever you want with the swans, and risk being sued by the crown in the form of a criminal prosecution.
Not a gun really. The person holding a gun is a soldier, who is serving the power. Power comes from fear/game theory/people desire to fit in and survive etc.
I think the correct solution is to first try a bloodless course if possible and resort to more violent means only if absolutely necessary. The monarch could decide to give royal assent (not necessarily because from the goodness of his heart but because the mere threat of repercussions would sway his judgement in favour of your cause)
A great metaphor, unless it’s used inappropriately, which is like 99% of the time. And Kotter is the excuse for a ton of change-by-imposition too. As someone interested in change, I kinda wish that the 1990’s hadn’t happened. There is a lot that’s good and exciting in the organisation development space, but that metaphor and Kotter’s model are not representative of it.
Basically a new thing has been introduced into the world and the world has tried to fit it into an existing paradigm and when it doesn't fit, well let's invent a new paradigm that looks like the old one but better...
The problem isn't how the business solves software. It's how software dissolves the business.
Every decade or so I wonder what's up with that effort.
Doug Lenat left Stanford and moved to Texas to focus on Cyc... and I always wonder when he'll return triumphantly to Silicon Valley with a "100% complete" knowledge base in hand :)
