To be fair there are a ton of people involved in the music industry that make the creation of albums possible. While your idea of torrenting and sending money directly to the artists it does not pay the salaries of the guys that helped make the album happen.
True. Whoops. But that's how studios explain the way-too-high prices. From my knowledge of the tools that are used in production of music nowadays, I'm reasonably sure that there's something wrong, and that artists could produce most of their songs on their own, if they just tried. Biggest problem is properly isolated, etc, studio. Otherwise, it's musician's creation, not of that dude who operated the equipment, and I'm certain who deserves more.
Sounds like Senate and Congress, as well as state institutions, have some things to cover through laws, eh?:)
It's quite simple, limit the tuition they can charge through the law, thus making sure they're primarily spending their funds on students, and only afterwards on new facilities. There will definitely be resistance, but some reforms need to be done. Education needs to be easily accessible to as many people as possible, and any nation that doesn't understand this... well, I don't feel a particular need to finish that sentence.
Don't worry, dean is probably the one that made the deal with Microsoft. If he didn't, he did, but he's keeping it secret. Because that's what it's all about. And sadly, I'm not being paranoid here, because I've observed with my own eyes why deans obsessed with.Net should perhaps not become deans, or be influential at all.
So the only solution is to destroy that little convenience he shall have by getting access onto their network, by having to do all his work in a VM?
What about development? Let's theorize that the poster is a programmer. Should he, in spare time, do all the compiling in a VM, for the convenience of being able to do svn/cvs/git commit?
Academia in the whole world has gone nuts. I understand blocking access to content, but invading the privacy of my laptop is too much. I'd rather not use their crappy network at all. They'd have to give me a laptop to force me; I wouldn't install their spyware onto my private property.
Worst of all is that, in US, you guys are even paying full tuition, without any (or with little) state sponsorship for the academia. It's incredible that you guys are not fed up with it. Over here in Croatia, students have been protesting and blocking normal functioning of university departments for three weeks - because our Minister of Education is trying to push paying for education even for our "best and brightest". And US students are dozing off happily and enjoying this kind of shit... and PAYING for it. What the fuck.
The fundamental principle of copyright is that author gets to decide what happens with his work. Other choice is that s/he does not produce it at all. For example, I'm a game developer. I'm working on content that society demands ("casual" games) only because I'm getting paid. I'd much rather be doing a space sim, and possibly for free. I'm also contributing to some FLOSS software; again, I expect people to comply with my rules (GPL, that is, contribute back if you have some use from my work).
Copyright in my country is called "Author's Rights" which describes how things should be. It shouldn't be Sony owning copyright for [insert-random-name].
Please observe that in case of music media[1] business, "non-commercial", home users are the key market. So if they copy those same media, they're undermining the concept of sale to home users. And to be honest, I like the boxes. At least on the retail games; not so much on the music media.
As I said, I'm no saint: I am currently listening to music I didn't pay for. But I feel that what I did is wrong, and it's surprising to see people casually deciding it's valid to break terms of license (no matter how silly the license it). It's not. I'm doing something wrong right now. But I also don't have the kind of money that is being asked from me for this music, so my other option is to delete this music and work in silence, or with junk music from radio. And that's somewhat spooky.
Copying may not be stealing, but it's certainly disrespectful and hurts the authors (especially if they're smaller authors). And I'm ashamed I've been doing it.
[1] That is, physical CDs, online MP3 sales and such stuff, as opposed to licensing hotels for playing music
but for the life of me, I do not see why I need to bend over and take it from behind when I shop for records.
I'm not a saint, but I don't fool myself: smaller[1] artists need every penny. There are those who are bathing in money, and there are those who could really use some of the money.
Yes, DRM is wrong, and yes, CDs are way too expensive. It still doesn't mean torrenting is universally justifiable, especially if you like some artist and the artist isn't a bastard from hell. Copyright laws in most countries are silly, but they are laws. We simply need to better organize our lobbying to make copyright law reasonable, instead of saying it should be abolished and instead of saying "Fripp won't get a single cent from me because Sony[2] is taking $24.94." Cent by cent, y'know, and Fripp can make a living.
Just an idea that crossed my mind right now: perhaps we should do torrenting and send money directly to artists, even though they don't request it. They'd be far happier that way, don't you think?
[1] By smaller I mean any non-MTV, or national equivalent in particular country.
Except "free software" is RMS's original name. He just refused to accept a new name. Although otherwise, your point stands -- it's perhaps harmful that the flames are continuously flamed.
Well, Linux is a brand (only the fatally jealous calls is GNU/Linux:) )
I'm not fatally jealous, I'm not involved with GNU, and even think that FSF is a bit too radical sometimes (not that we don't need that, too). However, saying it's Linux is disrespectful. Even saying it's GNU/Linux doesn't include all who wrote software for various distros, but it's much much closer. Much software and almost all current distros would break if you removed GNU components; start with bash, and go on with gcc, and go on with automake. And no, I don't consider bash replaceable, and gcc is a quite complex piece of software to get replaced (especially g++).
So is it nowadays called jealousy to give credit where credit is due? I don't insist others call it that way. But I don't have anything to be jealous of (see first sentence).
You're right. You don't need a server grade machine to run it. You probably don't need RAID to use ZFS either.
But I'm a "home" user. Why would I use a platform which has smaller hardware support when I'm already having problems with Linux? That is, why would I use Solaris if I'm already having issues with some hardware under Linux? My wireless card on my laptop is working... mostly. How would it perform under Solaris?
What about all the software -- I enjoy Debian and precompiled software. Even installation of packages under Debian takes too long for me; I can't imagine compiling all software not included in Solaris. Not to mention most of it isn't regularly tested under Solaris.
Tell me again, why would I, as a home user, use a platform INTENDED for enterprise, and usually server, environments?
I'm having no problem with people complaining while expecting system to survive power failure without adverse effects. I expect that as well.
I'm having a big problem with people complaining while expecting system to survive day-to-day torture through forced shutdown. No system should be expected to survive misuse.
If you burst a hole in shuttle's cockpit, don't be surprised that there's air leaking. But still safeguard against accidental bursting (i.e. don't use cardboard for making shuttle's hull). Ext4 fixes are expected to protect people suffering accidental power loss. But I wouldn't be surprised at any data loss coming out of habit to forcefully turn off the machine.
Whoops, looks like I claimed that, although it's not my opinion.
However, if Scientology survives and proves to be something more than a fad, and actually becomes peaceful, then it might become legitimate. You can't tell me John Paul II wasn't a holy man, no matter if you're an atheist or some other religion. Now, if you lived in 1100s and were a Muslim, you probably wouldn't be able to say much about those crazy sadistic Christians. However, some things stand the test of time.
I may be crazy, but not because of my religion. And I feel quite insulted when my religion is compared to Scientology. Compare my religion to tribal animal worshipping, but please don't compare it to Scientology. Or I'll unleash a horde of Psychlos and a horde of Xenu's thetan-torturers against you.
Have RAID? I don't. Have Solaris? I don't. Run your home machine on server hardware, in general? I don't.
And reiserfs also doesn't seem to have a real equivalent to fsck/chkdsk. Still not a reason to forcefully shut down. After all, your FS in general may recover, but are you sure that one of those programs you're running right now won't break its database backend and leave it inconsistent?
Better be safe than sorry, when it comes to data. Would you forcefully shut down a server providing your business $2,000 in sales every 10 minutes and risk corruption of anything? Didn't think so. You would probably recover, but why go into the trouble?
Please don't compare all religions with scientology. Scientology is an insult to christians, muslims, buddhists, hindus -- everyone whose religion is more than measly 50 years old, and whose religion has already went through the "H0ly kruz4des!!1" period. Scientology looks like a bad, but dangerous, brainwashing joke. Thank you.
Agreed. But this is because they, effectively, are becoming the government. In which case a big and strong government would again fight for wrong causes and be as useless as a small scared one.
In any case, we don't need a large government: we need a powerful one, with a good set of laws modernized for today's conditions and protecting small people instead of big corporations. And with good laws appropriate for smaller government, which won't waste time and money on silly procedures, I'm sure you can get better effectiveness than bigger government with same or worse laws. Just to be clear; by government, I mean all state institutions, public services, etc.
Inefficient and corrupt due to size of its bureaucracy. And what else is government but bureaucracy? Sometimes efficient bureaucracy and regulation, sometimes inefficient bureaucracy and regulation, but still bureaucracy.
NPM looks quite interesting, thanks for pointing it out. We do have public-owned market-oriented companies. I'm not completely convinced that is a completely correct way to handle strategically important national resources and infrastructure. But you're right about my country having proper OPM: It doesn't. However, "they're all the same" mantra is especially correct here. Even the purest politicians turn out corrupt, or unable to fight the inefficiency and corruption. They are scared little creatures fearing the private sector, and fearing to show strength, fearing the European Union might send an angry letter and delay our entrance into the Big Brotherhood.
Fear is the greatest enemy, especially for a small country.
Supporters of free market (those most vocal about reducing government powers) maintain that free market would adjust itself accordingly.
Who grows food? Well, the Pizza Mafia of course, otherwise how would they bake pizzas? They simply employ Bangladesh immigrants. Roads are maintained by competing corporations (clearly stated in the book). Market isn't really fragmented; there are, for example, Mafia franchises all over as well as Mr. Lee's Hong Kong (or whatever it's called).
About electricity: tell me, how does Somalia keep its telecommunications infrastructure "best in Africa", despite the anarchy and lack of central government?
I'm surprised that people think I believe SC to be reality. That is not so. I just believe that much of our fiction is not so far from reality. Even Monty Python. And their Vikings.
It's surprising how different our perspectives considering our opinions are not all that different.
Foreign powers constantly slap Croatia's fingers about having too large social and populist measures such as free health care. And I keep thinking how, in many US movies and series we see on our TV, people are constantly having problems with not being able to afford proper health care. This is one point where USA may need greater government involvement.
What your people have to be careful about, though, is not to let the government explode in size. Perhaps you just need to refocus your spending and reassign your personnel instead of making the government larger? Because, as the government becomes larger, you'll face greater government corruption than now. People will get used that their friend's uncle can help them get that document in three days instead of a month (remember, the government is slower by then).
Is it common to wait a month in USA for the ID card to be made? Do you think a larger apparatus would solve that?
From my perspective of a foreigner, USA needs some state/federal-owned companies, and not larger government. Worst move of Croatian government during deregulation of communication sector was sale of our telecom to Deutsche Telecom (a.k.a. T-Com). Guess who now claims to own the entire national telephone cable infrastructure? No, it's not the state. It's pure monopoly now. Our national telecom is one company that needed to stay in state hands, so that the government can control the prices to some extent. Not enough to make it non-profitable, but enough to avoid arrogant MS-type moves that T-Com constantly makes.
Just to make it clear once again: I agree that state needs to invest money primarily into health care, education, etc. Croatian government (or local authorities) do so. Just be very careful about making government big and strong and powerful. You might not be able to reduce once it starts growing back without drawing protests of dissatisfied to-be-former employees of bureaucracy.
Agreed. But, too big government is bad. Again, I'm referring you to my own country, Croatia.
Where court cases commonly last 3 years, and extreme cases for over 20 years.
Where people and companies wait for 1-3 years for construction permits -- even when the companies would bring large profit and extra employment to local community.
Where people sometimes get off the hook with the law simply by waiting for the case to become too old according to the law. (For example, avoid getting sued for few years for not paying bills, and you can't get sued at all.)
Broj zaposlenih u drzavnim i javnim sluzbama, dakle onih koji primaju placu iz proracuna, iznosi oko 250.000. Od toga u javnim sluzbama, kao sto su obrazovanje i zdravstvo, radi 180.000 ljudi, dok drzavna uprava broji 65.000 zaposlenika.
Translation:
Number of people employed in state and public services, meaning those who get paid from state treasury, is about 250.000. Out of that in public services, such as education and health care, works about 180.000 people, while the state administration contains 65.000 employees.
Most important number here is 65.000, in a country with a population of 4.2 million and with about 400.000 employed people (perhaps I'm even optimistic with that last number).
Now, let's again talk about big governments -- can they really be efficient? Does the size of state apparatus really say something about the strength of the government itself? Is the far-reaching hand government really that important, so much more than the freedoms we might gain if it controlled a bit less?
We definitely don't need absolute lack of government like in Snow Crash. We also don't need absolutely big government.
USA probably needs a small reduction in government powers, and greater responsibility of its leaders towards the public. It'll still stay a "big" government capable of protecting the public. Croatia however needs a large reduction of government apparatus, still remaining a powerful government on its sovereign territory capable of handling corporate problems.
What we don't need it the government to act towards its people like a "big" government.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair there are a ton of people involved in the music industry that make the creation of albums possible. While your idea of torrenting and sending money directly to the artists it does not pay the salaries of the guys that helped make the album happen.
True. Whoops. But that's how studios explain the way-too-high prices. From my knowledge of the tools that are used in production of music nowadays, I'm reasonably sure that there's something wrong, and that artists could produce most of their songs on their own, if they just tried. Biggest problem is properly isolated, etc, studio. Otherwise, it's musician's creation, not of that dude who operated the equipment, and I'm certain who deserves more.
I'm more concerned that you guys are also paying to be mistreated :/
Sounds like Senate and Congress, as well as state institutions, have some things to cover through laws, eh? :)
It's quite simple, limit the tuition they can charge through the law, thus making sure they're primarily spending their funds on students, and only afterwards on new facilities. There will definitely be resistance, but some reforms need to be done. Education needs to be easily accessible to as many people as possible, and any nation that doesn't understand this... well, I don't feel a particular need to finish that sentence.
Don't worry, dean is probably the one that made the deal with Microsoft. If he didn't, he did, but he's keeping it secret. Because that's what it's all about. And sadly, I'm not being paranoid here, because I've observed with my own eyes why deans obsessed with .Net should perhaps not become deans, or be influential at all.
"Hahahahaha, idiot! We give you free MSDNAA licenses for Windows, why don't you use that?!" At least that's the general sad attitude at my Faculty[1].
[1] In my country, subunit of university, and not a name for Faculty's staff.
So the only solution is to destroy that little convenience he shall have by getting access onto their network, by having to do all his work in a VM?
What about development? Let's theorize that the poster is a programmer. Should he, in spare time, do all the compiling in a VM, for the convenience of being able to do svn/cvs/git commit?
Academia in the whole world has gone nuts. I understand blocking access to content, but invading the privacy of my laptop is too much. I'd rather not use their crappy network at all. They'd have to give me a laptop to force me; I wouldn't install their spyware onto my private property.
Worst of all is that, in US, you guys are even paying full tuition, without any (or with little) state sponsorship for the academia. It's incredible that you guys are not fed up with it. Over here in Croatia, students have been protesting and blocking normal functioning of university departments for three weeks - because our Minister of Education is trying to push paying for education even for our "best and brightest". And US students are dozing off happily and enjoying this kind of shit ... and PAYING for it. What the fuck.
And if that doesn't work?
And what about "Client Security Engine"?
The fundamental principle of copyright is that author gets to decide what happens with his work. Other choice is that s/he does not produce it at all. For example, I'm a game developer. I'm working on content that society demands ("casual" games) only because I'm getting paid. I'd much rather be doing a space sim, and possibly for free. I'm also contributing to some FLOSS software; again, I expect people to comply with my rules (GPL, that is, contribute back if you have some use from my work).
Copyright in my country is called "Author's Rights" which describes how things should be. It shouldn't be Sony owning copyright for [insert-random-name].
Please observe that in case of music media[1] business, "non-commercial", home users are the key market. So if they copy those same media, they're undermining the concept of sale to home users. And to be honest, I like the boxes. At least on the retail games; not so much on the music media.
As I said, I'm no saint: I am currently listening to music I didn't pay for. But I feel that what I did is wrong, and it's surprising to see people casually deciding it's valid to break terms of license (no matter how silly the license it). It's not. I'm doing something wrong right now. But I also don't have the kind of money that is being asked from me for this music, so my other option is to delete this music and work in silence, or with junk music from radio. And that's somewhat spooky.
Copying may not be stealing, but it's certainly disrespectful and hurts the authors (especially if they're smaller authors). And I'm ashamed I've been doing it.
[1] That is, physical CDs, online MP3 sales and such stuff, as opposed to licensing hotels for playing music
but for the life of me, I do not see why I need to bend over and take it from behind when I shop for records.
I'm not a saint, but I don't fool myself: smaller[1] artists need every penny. There are those who are bathing in money, and there are those who could really use some of the money.
Yes, DRM is wrong, and yes, CDs are way too expensive. It still doesn't mean torrenting is universally justifiable, especially if you like some artist and the artist isn't a bastard from hell. Copyright laws in most countries are silly, but they are laws. We simply need to better organize our lobbying to make copyright law reasonable, instead of saying it should be abolished and instead of saying "Fripp won't get a single cent from me because Sony[2] is taking $24.94." Cent by cent, y'know, and Fripp can make a living.
Just an idea that crossed my mind right now: perhaps we should do torrenting and send money directly to artists, even though they don't request it. They'd be far happier that way, don't you think?
[1] By smaller I mean any non-MTV, or national equivalent in particular country.
[2] Or whoever.
"+1 Gross but Insightful" is more like it
Well, I call it Debian GNU/Linux... :)
Except "free software" is RMS's original name. He just refused to accept a new name. Although otherwise, your point stands -- it's perhaps harmful that the flames are continuously flamed.
You mean something like GNU (although it's not a trademark and isn't policed)?
Well, Linux is a brand (only the fatally jealous calls is GNU/Linux :) )
I'm not fatally jealous, I'm not involved with GNU, and even think that FSF is a bit too radical sometimes (not that we don't need that, too). However, saying it's Linux is disrespectful. Even saying it's GNU/Linux doesn't include all who wrote software for various distros, but it's much much closer. Much software and almost all current distros would break if you removed GNU components; start with bash, and go on with gcc, and go on with automake. And no, I don't consider bash replaceable, and gcc is a quite complex piece of software to get replaced (especially g++).
So is it nowadays called jealousy to give credit where credit is due? I don't insist others call it that way. But I don't have anything to be jealous of (see first sentence).
You're right. You don't need a server grade machine to run it. You probably don't need RAID to use ZFS either.
But I'm a "home" user. Why would I use a platform which has smaller hardware support when I'm already having problems with Linux? That is, why would I use Solaris if I'm already having issues with some hardware under Linux? My wireless card on my laptop is working ... mostly. How would it perform under Solaris?
What about all the software -- I enjoy Debian and precompiled software. Even installation of packages under Debian takes too long for me; I can't imagine compiling all software not included in Solaris. Not to mention most of it isn't regularly tested under Solaris.
Tell me again, why would I, as a home user, use a platform INTENDED for enterprise, and usually server, environments?
I'm having no problem with people complaining while expecting system to survive power failure without adverse effects. I expect that as well.
I'm having a big problem with people complaining while expecting system to survive day-to-day torture through forced shutdown. No system should be expected to survive misuse.
If you burst a hole in shuttle's cockpit, don't be surprised that there's air leaking. But still safeguard against accidental bursting (i.e. don't use cardboard for making shuttle's hull). Ext4 fixes are expected to protect people suffering accidental power loss. But I wouldn't be surprised at any data loss coming out of habit to forcefully turn off the machine.
Whoops, looks like I claimed that, although it's not my opinion.
However, if Scientology survives and proves to be something more than a fad, and actually becomes peaceful, then it might become legitimate. You can't tell me John Paul II wasn't a holy man, no matter if you're an atheist or some other religion. Now, if you lived in 1100s and were a Muslim, you probably wouldn't be able to say much about those crazy sadistic Christians. However, some things stand the test of time.
I may be crazy, but not because of my religion. And I feel quite insulted when my religion is compared to Scientology. Compare my religion to tribal animal worshipping, but please don't compare it to Scientology. Or I'll unleash a horde of Psychlos and a horde of Xenu's thetan-torturers against you.
Have RAID? I don't. Have Solaris? I don't. Run your home machine on server hardware, in general? I don't.
And reiserfs also doesn't seem to have a real equivalent to fsck/chkdsk. Still not a reason to forcefully shut down. After all, your FS in general may recover, but are you sure that one of those programs you're running right now won't break its database backend and leave it inconsistent?
Better be safe than sorry, when it comes to data. Would you forcefully shut down a server providing your business $2,000 in sales every 10 minutes and risk corruption of anything? Didn't think so. You would probably recover, but why go into the trouble?
Please don't compare all religions with scientology. Scientology is an insult to christians, muslims, buddhists, hindus -- everyone whose religion is more than measly 50 years old, and whose religion has already went through the "H0ly kruz4des!!1" period. Scientology looks like a bad, but dangerous, brainwashing joke. Thank you.
Agreed. But this is because they, effectively, are becoming the government. In which case a big and strong government would again fight for wrong causes and be as useless as a small scared one.
In any case, we don't need a large government: we need a powerful one, with a good set of laws modernized for today's conditions and protecting small people instead of big corporations. And with good laws appropriate for smaller government, which won't waste time and money on silly procedures, I'm sure you can get better effectiveness than bigger government with same or worse laws. Just to be clear; by government, I mean all state institutions, public services, etc.
Inefficient and corrupt due to size of its bureaucracy. And what else is government but bureaucracy? Sometimes efficient bureaucracy and regulation, sometimes inefficient bureaucracy and regulation, but still bureaucracy.
NPM looks quite interesting, thanks for pointing it out. We do have public-owned market-oriented companies. I'm not completely convinced that is a completely correct way to handle strategically important national resources and infrastructure. But you're right about my country having proper OPM: It doesn't. However, "they're all the same" mantra is especially correct here. Even the purest politicians turn out corrupt, or unable to fight the inefficiency and corruption. They are scared little creatures fearing the private sector, and fearing to show strength, fearing the European Union might send an angry letter and delay our entrance into the Big Brotherhood.
Fear is the greatest enemy, especially for a small country.
Supporters of free market (those most vocal about reducing government powers) maintain that free market would adjust itself accordingly.
Who grows food? Well, the Pizza Mafia of course, otherwise how would they bake pizzas? They simply employ Bangladesh immigrants. Roads are maintained by competing corporations (clearly stated in the book). Market isn't really fragmented; there are, for example, Mafia franchises all over as well as Mr. Lee's Hong Kong (or whatever it's called).
About electricity: tell me, how does Somalia keep its telecommunications infrastructure "best in Africa", despite the anarchy and lack of central government?
I'm surprised that people think I believe SC to be reality. That is not so. I just believe that much of our fiction is not so far from reality. Even Monty Python. And their Vikings.
:)
It's surprising how different our perspectives considering our opinions are not all that different.
Foreign powers constantly slap Croatia's fingers about having too large social and populist measures such as free health care. And I keep thinking how, in many US movies and series we see on our TV, people are constantly having problems with not being able to afford proper health care. This is one point where USA may need greater government involvement.
What your people have to be careful about, though, is not to let the government explode in size. Perhaps you just need to refocus your spending and reassign your personnel instead of making the government larger? Because, as the government becomes larger, you'll face greater government corruption than now. People will get used that their friend's uncle can help them get that document in three days instead of a month (remember, the government is slower by then).
Is it common to wait a month in USA for the ID card to be made? Do you think a larger apparatus would solve that?
From my perspective of a foreigner, USA needs some state/federal-owned companies, and not larger government. Worst move of Croatian government during deregulation of communication sector was sale of our telecom to Deutsche Telecom (a.k.a. T-Com). Guess who now claims to own the entire national telephone cable infrastructure? No, it's not the state. It's pure monopoly now. Our national telecom is one company that needed to stay in state hands, so that the government can control the prices to some extent. Not enough to make it non-profitable, but enough to avoid arrogant MS-type moves that T-Com constantly makes.
Just to make it clear once again: I agree that state needs to invest money primarily into health care, education, etc. Croatian government (or local authorities) do so. Just be very careful about making government big and strong and powerful. You might not be able to reduce once it starts growing back without drawing protests of dissatisfied to-be-former employees of bureaucracy.
Agreed. But, too big government is bad. Again, I'm referring you to my own country, Croatia.
Where court cases commonly last 3 years, and extreme cases for over 20 years.
Where people and companies wait for 1-3 years for construction permits -- even when the companies would bring large profit and extra employment to local community.
Where people sometimes get off the hook with the law simply by waiting for the case to become too old according to the law. (For example, avoid getting sued for few years for not paying bills, and you can't get sued at all.)
Here's a quote in Croatian (source):
Translation:
Most important number here is 65.000, in a country with a population of 4.2 million and with about 400.000 employed people (perhaps I'm even optimistic with that last number).
Now, let's again talk about big governments -- can they really be efficient? Does the size of state apparatus really say something about the strength of the government itself? Is the far-reaching hand government really that important, so much more than the freedoms we might gain if it controlled a bit less?
We definitely don't need absolute lack of government like in Snow Crash. We also don't need absolutely big government.
USA probably needs a small reduction in government powers, and greater responsibility of its leaders towards the public. It'll still stay a "big" government capable of protecting the public. Croatia however needs a large reduction of government apparatus, still remaining a powerful government on its sovereign territory capable of handling corporate problems.
What we don't need it the government to act towards its people like a "big" government.