|
|
Home | Switchboard | Unix Administration | Red Hat | TCP/IP Networks | Neoliberalism | Toxic Managers |
| (slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix | |||||||
The purpose of superdelegates, according to DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is to suppress grassroots candidates in favor of the establishment choice
One in 10 DNC superdelegates were registered lobbyists. ( Washington Examiner)
Nearly one in 10 superdelegates who voted in the Democratic presidential primaries were registered lobbyists, according to a new report, adding some support to Bernie Sanders's claim that "the system is rigged."
At least 63 of 712 superdelegates were registered at some point as lobbyists on the state or federal level, according to an analysis conducted this year by the nonpartisan, nonprofit Sunlight Foundation.
These individuals represented interests that span across big banks, healthcare insurers, the telecommunications industry and unions, including Goldman Sachs and Planned Parenthood.
The list includes former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who is currently registered for the healthcare insurance company Aetna, former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, a registered lobbyist with the Gephardt Group and former DNC General Chairman and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who was registered for Ballard Spahr LLP as recently as 2012.
Sunlight also found an additional 32 individuals it classified as "shadow lobbyists," which it says are superdelegates who "aren't officially registered as lobbyists, but are heavily involved in the influence industry."
This group includes the likes of former Vermont Gov. and DNC Chairman Howard Dean, who is a "senior adviser" for Dentons, a law firm.
While the rules surrounding superdelegates for the next presidential primary will see some changes — with Democrats agreeing to significantly reduce the number of superdelegates not bound by primary voters — critics of superdelegate system have complained that it put the establishment in a position to throw the 2016 Democratic nomination into Hillary Clinton's lap.
More than 600 superdelegates backed the former secretary of state, and in some cases handed her more delegates than Sanders in states where he won a majority of the primary vote. A total of 2,383 delegates were needed to clinch the nomination.
Much of Sanders' 14-month progressive campaign to become the Democratic Party's nominee was spent railing against a political system in which the wealthy and special interests determine the result of the election.
"In the year 2016, with a political campaign finance system that is corrupt and increasingly controlled by billionaires and special interests, I fear very much that, in fact, government of the people, by the people, and for the people is beginning to perish in the United States of America," Sanders said.
The findings of the Sunlight Foundation also show that despite a common refrain from Democrats that Republicans are controlled by lobbyists and special interests, such as the National Rifle Association, when it comes to delegates who are unaccountable to voters, the opposite is true. While the Republican Party does have its own version of superdelegates, they must vote for the candidate that their state's party members picked.
To view the Sunlight Foundation's entire list of lobbyist superdelegates, click here.
Superdelegate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In American politics, a "superdelegate" is a delegate to the Democratic National Convention that is seated automatically and chooses for whom they want to vote. These Democratic Party superdelegates include distinguished party leaders and elected officials, including all Democratic members of the House and Senate and sitting Democratic governors. Other superdelegates are chosen during the primary season. Democratic superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination.
This contrasts with convention "pledged" delegates that are selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party's presidential nomination. Because they are free to support anyone they want, superdelegates could potentially swing the results to nominate a presidential candidate that did not receive the majority of votes during the primaries.
At least in name, superdelegates are not involved in the Republican Party nomination process. There are delegates to the Republican National Convention that are seated automatically, but they are limited to three per state, consisting of the state chairsperson and two district-level committee members. Republican Party superdelegates are obliged to vote for their state's popular vote winner under the rules of the party branch to which they belong.[1]
Although the term superdelegate was originally coined and created to describe a type of Democratic delegate, the term has become widely used to describe these delegates in both parties,[2] even though it is not an official term used by either party.
... ... ...For Democrats, superdelegates fall into two categories:
- delegates seated based on other positions they hold, who are formally described (in Rule 9.A) as "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates"[3] (unpledged PLEO delegates); and
- additional unpledged delegates selected by each state party (in a fixed predetermined number), who are formally described (in Rule 9.B) as "unpledged add-on delegates" and who need not hold any party or elected position before their selection as delegates.[3]
For Republicans, there are delegates in each state, consisting of the state chairman and two RNC committee members. However, according to the RNC communications director Sean Spicer, convention rules obligate those RNC members to vote according to the result of primary elections held in their states.
... ... ...Democratic Party rules distinguish pledged and unpledged delegates. Pledged delegates are selected based on their announced preferences in the contest for the presidential nomination. In the party primary elections and caucuses in each U.S. state, voters express their preference among the contenders for the party's nomination for President of the United States. Pledged delegates supporting each candidate are chosen in approximate ratio to their candidate’s share of the vote. They fall into three categories: district-level pledged delegates (usually by congressional districts);[4] at-large pledged delegates; and pledged PLEO (Party Leaders and Elected Officials) delegates.
In a minority of the states, delegates are legally required to support the candidate to whom they are pledged.[5] In addition to the states' requirements, the party rules state (Rule 12.J): "Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them."[3]
By contrast, the unpledged PLEO delegates (Rule 9.A) are seated without regard to their presidential preferences, solely by virtue of being current or former elected officeholders and party officials. Many of them have chosen to announce endorsements, but they are not bound in any way. They may support any candidate they wish, including one who has dropped out of the presidential race.[6] The other superdelegates, the unpledged add-on delegates (Rule 9.B), who need not be PLEOs, are selected by the state parties after some of the pledged delegates are chosen,[3] but they resemble the unpledged PLEO delegates in being free to vote as they wish.
... ... ...At the 2008 Democratic National Convention, superdelegates cast approximately 823.5 votes, with fractions arising because superdelegates from Michigan, Florida, and Democrats Abroad are entitled to half a vote each. Of the superdelegates' votes, 745 are from unpledged PLEO delegates and 78.5 are from unpledged add-on delegates, although the exact number in each category is subject to events.
|
|
Switchboard | ||||
| Latest | |||||
| Past week | |||||
| Past month | |||||
 |
 |
 |
Hillary Clinton’s main advantage with regards to winning the nomination is not public preference to her as a candidate, but instead, due to unelected superdelegates whose purpose, according to DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is to suppress grassroots candidates in favor of the establishment choice. And it looks like they will have their way: as a result of the superdelegates voting almost unanimously for Hillary Clinton, often in clear defiance of the popular will of their states, the math does indeed look bleak for Bernie Sanders to win the Democratic nomination.
The constant presentation of these numbers (superdelegate votes almost always included in media analyses of the race) reinforces the notion that Clinton is the more electable candidate, and pushes many into her camp as the best choice against the Republicans; this further expands her lead and reifies the perceived electability disparity, ad nauseam. Hence the narrative that Bernie Sanders is the ideological candidate who inspires, and Hillary the pragmatist who can win. In reality, Bernie is both. However, barring a major grassroots revolt, Hillary Clinton will seize the nomination. And she will lose to Donald Trump.
|
|
|
OpEdNews
The AP headline read: Super delegates Help Clinton Expand Her Lead Despite NH Loss. It was and is a complete fabrication. Another way of putting it would be fraud.
Initiated by Clinton and the DNC and unfortunately aided and abetted by two ignorant AP reporters (and others like CNN) who didn't know ( or maybe didn't care) that they were being snookered and simply swallowed what was thrown at them. It would help if people who actually think they are reporters would check DNC rules regarding the use of super delegates. Especially since there has only been one time in the history of the Democratic party that super delegates ever cast a vote and that was 32 years ago in 1984. And even then it was to affirm the candidate who won the most pledged delegates in the primaries.
Because as of this moment, all those super delegates claimed by Clinton don't actually exist in terms of real votes. The only delegates that count right now and in all probability ever will count are pledged delegates won during the primaries, not super delegates.
CNN has also been doing it's share of inept reporting by perpetuating the fiction around Clinton's bogus superdelegate count .
Super delegates do not count towards anyone's delegate total because they don't actually exist and will never be cast unless an extraordinary set of circumstances arises at the convention circumstances that so far has only happened once before in the history of the Democratic Party. So in all likelihood super delegate votes will never be cast, something CNN is both too inept to know and too lazy to find out about.
Super delegate declarations are also non-committal so any declarations made now count for nothing and carry no force of action even if super delegates were ever asked to cast a vote which is unlikely and has never happened. Clinton and the DNC know this.
But it's clear that the Democratic party establishment is willing to create the fiction and false impression that Clinton has a big delegate lead. She doesn't. Ignorant, incompetent journalists who have more in common with parrots than Woodward and Bernstein just happily repeat the fraud they are fed.
Hillary Clinton has no actual super delegate votes. Because based on Democratic Party rules and procedures super delegate votes don't count until the are cast at the convention, not before, and won't ever be cast unless they are asked to break a hopelessly deadlocked convention.
They do not automatically vote as John King erroneously claimed on CNN and have never voted since 1984. In 2008 with much talk about superdelegates switching from Clinton to Obama then back to Clinton and with neither candidate even close to the 2/3 majority needed, even then superdelegates didn't vote. So the real story which CNN and other news organizations miss, is why is Clinton and the DNC claiming super delegate votes now as part of her delegate total when it's a sham, super delegates have no vote now, probably never will and the declarations are non-committal?
It's as much of a fraud as looking at a house you might buy, keep it under consideration, decide to keep looking but include the house in your financial statement as an asset even though you don't own it. Or writing a check post dated four months from now, unsigned and on a bank account that's not even open and claiming it as an asset.
It's not only fraud, it reeks of campaign dirty tricks in collusion with the Obama run DNC as part of Clinton's backroom deal with Obama, trying to give the illusion of Clinton leading by a substantial margin when she isn't. And it raises an interesting question: is Hillary Clinton and the DNC thinking about trying to steal the nomination?
This nonsense about super delegates is sheer political dishonesty with the Clinton campaign along with the help of the DNC who, as even David Gergen pointed out is in the tank for Clinton, trying to make it look like she's way ahead when she isn't.
The story as reported by two AP reporters, Hope Yen and Stephen Ohlemacher (yes, let's name names) had the opening line, "so much for Bernie Sanders big win in New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton has picked up endorsements from 87 super delegates to the Democratic Conventions dwarfing Sanders gain in New Hampshire" .
Its total fiction since Sanders pledged delegates are real and the "endorsements" count for nothing in terms of actual votes so Clinton and the DNC establishment successfully played the two AP reporters for stooges. As well as John King and others at CNN.
Clinton saying she picked up 87 super delegates after New Hampshire has the same affect and same weight and real influence on the nomination as if she had picked up 87 empty beer cans. Well, no, that's not true because the beer cans would be worth more if they had a 5c deposit.
So here are the facts and the truth about super delegates based on Democratic Party rules and procedures that you won't get from Clinton or the DNC, and it seems from the news media, at least not now:
Super delegates have only cast a vote once in the history of the Democratic party, 32 years ago in 1984 when Walter Mondale beat Gary Hart by less than 500 delegates won in the primaries but didn't have the 2/3 needed for the nomination. But even then they didn't play a role in the nominating process for president. They cast their votes for Mondale who had 1,606 pledged delegates won in the primaries to Hart's 1164 which only affirmed the results of the primaries and allowed Mondale to get to the 2/3 threshold as required by DNC rules.. They have never cast a vote since. And as of now have no certain role. Pledged delegates do . So any declarations are bogus.
Super delegates would not cast a vote unless an extraordinary set of circumstances arises at the convention, not before, a set of circumstances which only occurred in 1984,the only time super delegates voted since they were created. Which is what makes any non-binding declarations now bogus. And Clinton and the DNC know that too.
Those circumstances are as they occured in 1984, that neither candidate finishes the primary season with the two thirds majority of pledged delegates needed for the nomination that are won in the primaries - if they did the nominating process is over without superdelegates casting a single vote - the delegate count is so close as to make them virtually tied, AND the convention is hopelessly deadlocked with neither candidate or party officials able to persuade delegates on the other side to switch after the first ballot.
Super delegates could be used to break a hopeless deadlock when neither candidate is able to get the two-thirds delegate count needed. Without those circumstances they wouldn't vote and wouldn't dare vote in a way that would reverse the votes of pledged delegates.
When Obama finished the 2008 primary season with a paltry 65 delegate lead over Clinton and it looked like the nomination could go either way if superdelegates voted , Nancy Pelosi said super delegates were obligated to vote for the candidate who won the most delegates if they were to vote at all.
So where does Clinton get off claiming over 440 super delegates when whether they will vote at all is yet to be determined, their "endorsements" are non-committal,worthless as votes, and in all probability super delegates will never vote at all?
Delegates won in primaries, called "pledged delegates", are actually committed to vote for the candidate they are sent to the convention to vote for as a result of vote counts in the primaries. Without getting too esoteric, it's actually delegates that are elected during primaries, either Clinton or Sanders delegates who are then sent by voters to the convention to vote for the candidate they were elected to vote for on the first ballot. They are the only delegates that actually count now. And are real. And the delegates that traditionally, and to date have decided the nomination.
So until and unless those extraordinary set of circumstances occur which only ocurred once, in 1984, super delegates will not vote, don't count now and for all intents and purposes dont even exist. When the first roll call vote is called there will be no super delegates voting. All of which shows the depths of dishonesty and deception Clinton is willing to go. And with her the Obama run DNC who look like they are trying to do what they can to rig the process and create false impressions.
If Bernie Sanders finished with 2000 pledged delegates won during the primaries and needed another three hundred to get the two-thirds majority with Clinton say, 1,000 delegates behind, there would be some horse trading to get the remaining 300 delegates needed from Clinton perhaps making a deal on picking a vice presidential running mate. But its inconceivable super delegates even those declaring for her now ( which again, don't count) would cast votes for Clinton to give her the nomination.Super delegates casting their votes for the second place finisher never happened even in 1984. It would bring the Democratic party to its knees if they tried to crown a queen instead of nominate a president.and Sanders voters would never vote for Clinton no matter what histrionics DNC officials pulled over Supreme Court nominations etc etc.
Super delegates would only vote to break an otherwise hopeless deadlock and to give a clear winner the votes required by rules to officially get the nomination. They are a last resort and most importantly as mentioned earlier, super delegates have only once in the history of the Democratic party ever cast a single vote and that was 32 years ago And if a hopeless deadlock never occurs super delegates will have no role. To count them now is pure fraud.
So why is Hillary Clinton putting out the fiction that she is ahead on delegates even though she isn't because of super delegates? Because she is being underhanded and so is the DNC run by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Obama's hand picked chair of the DNC who are trying to build a phony aura of expectation and inevitability and the illusion that she will be the nominee and then if she doesn't have the actual votes from the primary battles try and steal the nomination by using super delegates with Obama and Wasserman-Schultz driving the getaway car.
The New York Times acting like the long arm of the law put their arm on Clinton in a recent editorial making it clear that super delegates can have no role in the outcome of the nomination which needs to be decided by whoever wins the most delegates in the primaries.
But there is another reason the Clinton campaign is putting out these super delegate numbers as if they count now when they don't. Its the kind of outrageous political tactics we've seen from Republicans -- a tactic to suppress the Sanders vote.
There is little doubt that the Clinton campaign with the help of the DNC, by putting out these fictitious super delegate numbers are trying to create some false idea that Clinton has such a huge lead her nomination is inevitable. The hope is this will dampen the spirit and enthusiasm of Sanders voters (enthusiasm Clinton cant match) and hopefully hold down their turnout in the hopes of making them think Clinton's nomination is inevitable because of super delegates and there is nothing they can do to affect the outcome. Which of course is not true . Its more of a Republican style dirty trick, the kind they have tried in the past in the hopes of holding down the African American vote in certain communities. The principle is the same.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC needs to be called out for this kind of dishonest manipulation when she is actually tied with Sanders 51-51 in pledged delegates, the only delegates that matter.
This idea that super delegates have declared anything for her carries no authority, no weight, no certainty. Nothing a super delegate says now is binding. They could change their minds a hundred times between now and the convention, and no one would know so how can they be counted now?
And if Clinton is putting out these phony super delegate numbers to try and grease the skids for an attempt at stealing the nomination at the convention, it might be a good idea for Sanders voters to remind her and everyone else of one other thing: In 2008 when it looked like Obama might lose the nomination to Clinton because of a super delegate vote, Donna Brazille, an Obama supporter and former chair of the DNC said publicly that if super delegates decided the nomination she would quit the Democratic party.
If Donna Brazile can quit the Democratic party if super delegates decided the nomination so can Sanders voters. And they can make it clear that they will. Which means if Clinton and the DNC tries to steal the nomination from Sanders using super delegates if he has the majority of pledged delegates they can count on Sanders voters staying home.
Clinton putting out the word that she has 469 delegates which include over 400 super delegates that she can't ethically or even by DNC rules count is almost a veiled threat as if to say, "okay I got buried by the voters in New Hampshire and it was razor thin in Iowa and Nevada but so what? I have a trick up my sleeve."
If Clinton, Obama and the DNC think they are greasing the skids now so Clinton can pull a fast one at the convention later, they better not try. If they do anything to try and rig the nomination, Sanders voters can just vow never to support it, just like Donna Brazile threatened which will bring the Democratic party down like a house of cards and do Clinton no good in the general election.
Let Sanders and his supporters put Clinton and the DNC on notice that if they do anything to rig the nomination, if the nomination does not go to the candidate who won the most votes and most delegates in the primaries as Nancy Pelosi in 2008 said it must, then the Democrats will have to face the music and take another drubbing like they did in 2010 and 2014 essentially over Obama's unscrupulous sell out of the health care public option to the insurance companies.
Make it clear that if Clinton can't win honestly she is not going to win at all.
And if Sanders voters stay home in the face of a corrupt process it will wipe out Democratic down ticket candidates also, and if that's what it takes to throw open the windows, let in the fresh air and purge the Democratic party of those corrupting the system, so be it. No amount of whining or scare tactics by Democratic big wigs about what will happen if Clinton loses and begging Sanders supporters to go along with the corruption will ever work.
Its called making your own bed and lying in it. With the double meaning of the word "lying" very clear.
ADDENDUM:
This article has been updated to include the 1984 Democratic convention which is the only time super delegates have ever voted and then voted for Walter Mondale who won the most pledged delegates during the primaries, 1606-1164 confirming that pledged delegates won during primaries is the standard for nominating a presidential candidate. And does not change the fact that super delegate votes do not count unless cast at the convention and non-binding declarations that Clinton included in her totals are completely bogus.
Wendy Wasserman-Schultz has also been corrected to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
NOTE: CNN is still showing super delegate totals for Clinton included with her pledged delegate totals that don't actually exist and may never exist and for now and until the convention and they are cast, if ever, are pure fiction. John King is one of the worst offenders but so is Wolf Blitzer. The Sanders campaign needs to hold them and other media outlets accountable.
|
|
|
MyLessThanPrimeBeef,King: Superdelegates a corrupt tool designed to elect party establishment candidates like Hillary Clinton
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
In no uncertain terms, this election — particularly the Democratic primary — is completely rigged.
This weekend, while watching election coverage on Super Saturday — and again before and after the Democratic debate Sunday — I lost count of the number of times pundits and experts said Hillary Clinton has a nearly insurmountable lead against Bernie Sanders.
Except, she doesn’t — or at least she shouldn’t. Sanders has won three of the last four contests. Overall, Clinton has won a total 12 states and Sanders has won eight. That means we have 30 states to go.
In the 19 states that have voted so far, Clinton won 671 delegates. In those same 19 states, Sanders won a total of 498 delegates.
Literally, Clinton has received 95.3% of the superdelegates and these individual voters have nothing to do with the actual will of the people in their states.
It’s fundamentally ridiculous and goes against the most basic principles of a democratic election in which one person receives one vote.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-superdelegates-corrupt-tool-party-establishments-article-1.2555210kneel?
Vatch,A super delegate, for example, the governor of a state, he or she was elected in a general election. How does his/her vote total compared with the votes cast in a primary? Could an argument be made that he/she is representing more party members?
The voters in such a state need to tell their super delegate governor or senator that they expect the super delegate to support the choice of the people in the primary. Few super delegates will want to do this, so it is very important that a large number of voters contact them. We need to hold their feet to the fire! I’ve already contacted my super delegates, and I hope others will do the same.
JohnMinMN,Seems like a case where the unpledged superdelegates represent the 1% and the pledged delegates represent the 99%
In my first attempt ever at writing a letter to the editor, I tried to address this topic. To my surprise, the StartTribune published it the day before the MN caucuses. It’s the third one down:
http://www.startribune.com/readers-write-feb-29-minnesota-caucuses/370332821/
Not being much of a writer, I could not have completed this task without a big assist from the material provided by Yves, Lamb, and commentariot. Thanks a bunch!
Here’s another view.
Interesting.
MSNBC has me totally avoiding them. They keep showing the super delegate lead combined with her actual delegates, misleading viewers to think her lead is insurmountable when it isn’t.
And then there’s a reporter, “Joy” I believe, who said did you hear Bernie saying that his first encounter with the difference between the races was in the 90’s! Totally ignoring his background and intentionally misleading viewers. Disgusting.
Super-delegates have to vote with the will of the people, if they don’t democracy is dead. That’s always been my understanding of it..
Go Bernie !
I can’t stand the TV main-stream media’s attempts at brainwashing. There are very few sites on US affairs with the quality of coverage and critique I find here at NC, at least for me.
Lambert Strether Post author,
Re: Superdelegates. You’ll love Howard Dean’s tweet.
Howard Dean’s tweet…Super delegates don’t “represent people”….is this a citizen united tie in?..hmmm…..we’re so screwed….can you see him jumping up and down when he tweeted it?
I’ve never had a gag reflex problem until i started watching howard on morning joe….note: he’s not that super.
There’s no point in worrying about superdelegates unless/until Sanders actually wins pledged delegates.
It’s hard to imagine they would actually break with the vote in that case.
I disagree because they have given Hillary an aura of inevitability which would serve to depress challenger. Super delegates should be trashed for participating in such a vile system befitting the GOP.
I suppose the MSM reporting Superdelegates as if they’re set is pretty bad (note in 2008 the nytimes only reported pledged delegates).
Readers, whenever I put on my yellow waders and post on Clinton it takes longer than I expect
Yes we feel for you. Wading through a fetid, sewage laden swamp is laborious and unpleasant. You are forgiven :-)
Google matched content |
...
Society
Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers : Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy
Quotes
War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes : Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce : Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes
Bulletin:
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
History:
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds : Larry Wall : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS : Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development : Scripting Languages : Perl history : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history
Classic books:
The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month : How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor
The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D
Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
|
|
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site |
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.
Last modified: July, 31, 2016
