I mistyped, I knows it's shift and not ctrl. Also, I use XCV for clipboard, but I know of the shift+del combo and I know people who use it. I love highlight to the end of line, move to end of line, etc. Couldn't get by without them.
How do you switch your cursor from insert to overwrite mode? How do you delete characters on the right hand side of the cursor? How would you easily delete a line via keyboard (CTRL+DELETE).
What about ctrl+delete (cut)
what about ctrl+insert (paste)
What about CTRL+ALT+DELETE?
Did you actually think about how others use the keys before you so cavalierly decided to banish a key? And why pick on insert delete when there is so much more low hanging fruit? Why not pick on F9-F12? Scroll lock?! Or the duplicated forward slashes or pipe key? Who uses tilde or grave!? And I guess we couldn't get rid of one set or the other of the windows keys?
Personally, I cannot dispense with a single key for me or my clients. If I'm on a support call the last thing I want to hear is "I don't have a delete key" –
“Oh they can right click on the task bar!”
No! They cannot, there is no taskbar!. You might as well upload a virus that prevents you from accessing the windows task manager. Please let's think about the children, they'll be supporting windows XP until they die, let’s give them a easy way to log on to the machine.
I hope all these forward thinking kids think about the repercussions of their actions before we end up with a crappy cell phone keyboard hooked up to a Cray 32.
You've made a great case for copyright, not patent. With copyright, you cannot copy the algorithm outright, and others can implement your 'idea' in another way, maybe with a different language and different hardware, and it lasts a lot longer than a patent. To claim patent on software is crazy because there are so many different ways to do that. In your example of hardware patent it sounds to me like the only way to zip a zipper with gloves on is with a larger zipper that could fit in a gloved hand - there is no other way unless you use a leash attached to the zipper - which isn't just a zipper anymore. If I made a zipper like the one described it's very easy to see it's an exact replica of your idea.
The software on the other hand is totally different. There is most likely a software framework for dealing with binary images, it has methods that can detect the difference in channels and draw outlines around it. A good example of a framework like this is AForge.. It does not have a 'facial recognition' method, but is clearly built to allow people to easily implement such a system. To say "I have implemented a system using a bunch of tools someone else made in this combination so now that combination is mine and you can't replicate it." is like saying "I wrote a book using this literary technique so nobody can use this technique unless they pay me for it." The frameworks are made to do facial recognition. Implementing the framework should call for a copyright at most so people cannot copy your code line for line.
If you implement your 'facial recognition' on a chip without software frameworks then you've qualified for a hardware patent. But the idea that a computer can recognize a face has been around for as long as the word computer. Same for every other software idea, not an original idea in the bunch! After Star Trek and Minority Report – not to mention all the less popular sci-fi literature, you’re not going to find any software ideas that someone hasn’t already thought of. If you can do it than you get a copyright to your version of doing it - not the right to exclusively use the idea.
Relative to one another:
Making software: Trivial at higher levels – very cheap.
Making hardware: Very challenging – very expensive.
P.S.: I asked that if you critique my fabricated examples to provide the actual ones in question not two random ones you felt proved your point. And is this a defense of Apple? That is not clear.
Apple decided to move into mobile phones and required hardware to do so. Lacking any actual know how on making phones, like many companies they borrowed the hardware from other companies - Motorola. Motorola is used to licensing out their hardware patents. Motorola makes money on just about every phone sale through their hardware licensing. So Apple asked Motorola to license their technology, but not like everyone else. Apple asked Motorola to trade software patents for hardware patents. Motorola told them to piss into the wind. The only way they were getting Motorola patens, Motorola said, was to trade for other hardware patents or pay a licensing fee like everyone else. Apple took choice C - to use the hardware patents even without license so they could make their iPhone - which would not exist without the Motorola technology.
The issue here boils down to this question: Are software patents in general worth the same as hardware patents. And of course the answer to anyone who knows anything about the subject is a resounding no. Hardware patents take billions of dollars to develop and millions of man hours in testing physical objects in a physical world. A software patent is an often unimplemented idea most often without a single line of code - vapor. Software patents often sound like this: "A system where a user can use a icon based interface to lookup information about his/her pet in real time with an image and a video of the pet in the same interface as the typing interface where the pet can see the user type". No - really - they are that dumb and ambiguous.
So Motorola makes an antenna design that will work within solid concrete tunnels without requiring frequency modulation or signal attenuation at the cost of billions of dollars and millions of man hours, testing – certification – more testing, IC engineering, fabrication and design, so much time and effort that to even list what needs to be done would be exhausting - and Apple thinks a fair trade would be the patent that consists of the words: "A system where the user can click and drag through a list of music and select which songs to buy with a button that allows a user to listen to a preview of the song." - Seriously?
Software patents should never exist. Apple should lose their ass for stealing Motorola technology even after Motorola said they could not use it. If you don’t like the terms of the deal –that means no deal! Not I just use their hardware patents anyway. Who the fuck acts like that? Is Apple a 5 year old? Then after stealing Motorola’s hardware they have the audacity to claim patent infringement? Justice would be well served if Motorola got a big chunk of every iPhone or other Apple device using their hardware without permission. A punitive amount too, not a happy negotiated amount. If the normal is %1 they should pay %10. If it’s %10 they should pay %50. Theft should not at the end of the day, be profitable for stealing technology!
You cannot take without paying for it. You cannot trade software patents for hardware patents. You cannot make up your own rules if you don't want to play nice with your hardware vendor
yes, the patent descriptions in my examples are fabricated, but they are still indicative of hardware patent vs. software patent. Don’t complain unless you also include the actual patents in question I’m just trying to illustrate the difference between software and hardware patents.
Girls also wear makeup. Both of these choices seem illogical to me. Meaning they didn't follow strong deductive reasoning to reach their decisions, they went with their feelings. Where strong deductive logic is purely quantitative week emotional induction does not rely on any sort of quantitative analysis, but rather snap judgments. Remorse for ill decisions made then turns into defense of the indefensible ("Why'd you buy that?" - "IT'S JUST BETTER - SHUT UP!"). Of course without exception any quantitative argument about the iPhone vs. Android(any) eventually digresses into which platform is more open because both seem to be equally capable, and of course Android wins every time. The only way you get an iPhone over the Android is if you avoid any sort of logical deduction in the first place: i.e.: you're a girl.
I'm all for recalling the crooks but how? So many people would vote back into office the same asshats that put us in this situation in the first place. I think the real solution is to impose term limits and do away with appointed bureaucrats. Charlie Rangel was reelected. I really have no hope for the gerrymandered district he comes from.
You must admit that state actors must have at least a modicum of secrecy when communicating. I’m all for sunshine laws that allow us to see former secrets, but communication about current events will, like I said, only drive people away from using diplomacy at all. There is no inherent loss of freedom because we don’t know what H. Clinton said to the Ambassador from Ecuador. If on the other hand the policy on Ecuador was kept a secret from the people of this country I would agree with you. That however is not the subject of this debate.
"This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,"
You quote concerns secrets that might be used against the people of the church/country e.g.: “I get to do what I want to do because of this secret I cannot show you.” And to the extent that sort of behavior exists, and exist it does, it should be thoroughly examined and we should always error on the side of disclosure. But the wholesale release of private communiqué for no apparent reason is just irresponsible and stupid.
Actually, you added the words "Conservatives" and "Progressives"
No fucking shit. I said that in my post. That you didn't catch that I said I added those really speaks volumes of your intelligence. And here’s your fact check: I’m correct. Obama was talking about his political opponents, which he calls enemies, the conservatives.
Just helping out the lazy people who won't fact check your post
Just what the fuck is your game here where you try and imply I’m lying when so clearly I am not? And where is your “fact check” that contradicts what I’m saying? Clicking my link or reading anything on the internet about this would prove it, so obviously you have not. You are a hack and a charlatan, and you post anonymously because you are also a coward.
The fact you cannot discuss my very valid problems with your arguments for reparations is typical, and I might point out that your attitude in general leads to violence. I would really like to know why I should be made to pay for wrongs that I had nothing to do with. Just ignoring me is the hallmark of someone who does not have an argument.
I live in southern California where gambling is illegal, unless you live on an Indian reservation. This is a gigantic boon to Indians and they make tens of millions of dollars thru their special treatment though the law. Can you explain to me how this fits with "All men are created equal". Why is it that the government has said in so many situations that "All men are created equal unless you are in this group then we need to prop you up by stealing money from other people.". Why the hell do you think you or anyone else gets to decide how much of my hard earned money goes to repay someone who has never been wronged in their life? Explain why if I was born with certain color skin in one part of California I can open a Casino, while with another color skin I cannot. I just don't think they inherently deserve money I have earned because of the color of their skin. If you can show me how the government has harmed an individual you may have an argument, but people who have never suffered deserve no reparation.
You must be joking. Ever hear of a Indian reservation? They have their own laws and are exempt from taxes. That's a pretty big fucking reparation for just being born. I didn't do anything to harm them, my grandparents didn't do anything to harm them, they were off in Europe somewhere, yet I have to pay for them? And the Indians, unless you are pure bread Indian, well some part of you harmed the other part of you! So why do you deserve anything? In fact, your bloodline is more likely the source of your own troubles (initial settlers) than that of my bloodline that is only 3 generations removed from Europe. So maybe you should be paying reparations to yourself. The government does not "have" money. The government, in case you didn't realize this, is broke. So any money that goes to pay "reparations" to people who’s grandparents never suffered any ill let alone them must come from taxing the population as a whole, and guess what buddy, I didn't do a damn thing to deserve that and the people getting the money/land/whatever didn't deserve a damn thing to get what they are getting.
And as far as what we have taken from the Indians? They were nomadic cannibalistic tribes that would routinely wipe each other out in the most horrific and savage ways. They had no roads, they had no cities, they had yet to invent the wheel. Europeans brought to them great pain and suffering but we didn't bring anything new but weapons and diseases. War and conquests have always been a way of life for the Indians as it was for every people.
Some reason starting in 1776 there was a law created (or was it crated sometime in the 1960s and is retroactive?) that the losers of wars, only in North America mind you, must be repaid for their loss in perpetuity. I’m curious where I can find this law, I don’t recall voting for it. Oh what’s that you say? Someone was mean to an Indian? Pff, who needs a law, let’s just give each Indian a hi-rise condo and an F-22. Or maybe an F-35, VSTOL and all, easier to get around you see. Why is the magic number 40 acres. While the government is giving out money why not just give everyone a fucking fighter jet. I mean, they can just print more money right?
If it wasn't the U.S. that took North America it would most certainly be in Spanish hands. You didn't think the Indians were going to keep it did you? If you want to have roads you have to build wheels and if you want to have cities you have to build roads. If you're not building cities you're in the stone age and your culture and hegemony are only interesting to anthropologists and historians.
I am so inundated with fucking pity for all the people our country has wronged in the past I’m starting to wonder if there is anyone we haven’t harmed and who we don’t owe reparations to! That you think that we haven’t acknowledged it as a country is just silly. Everyone in this country knows every reasonably knowable bad thing this country has ever done. Slavery, yes, indians, nuke, yes. Does everyone know about the Tuskegee experiments? No. But not because the government is keeping it a secret, but because they just don’t care. Is you shoving the same 100 year old grievances down everyone’s throat tiresome? Yes. We faced it. Especially the Indians. Again and again. It’s so overdone it’s cliché now.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he was talking about terrorist as "terrorist" is commonly defined. I.e.: not U.S. citizens in some conspiratorial manner defined by enemies of the U.S..
“We're gonna punish our enemies[Conservatives] and we're gonna reward our friends[Progressives] who stand with us on the issues that are important to us.” -Obama
I added the square brackets so lazy people would not need to read the context of the link.
If this goes through, whatever you do, please don't preach to the rest of the world about freedom.
What exactly does freedom have to do with releasing state secrets? It's never good to reveal the content of diplomatic communications, especially without any specific reason for doing so. Releasing the private communications means less diplomacy, and without making you think too hard, please tell me what happens when diplomacy fails!
So great job, we've now discovered though the release of these documents... well nothing really that we didn't already assume. We spy on our enemies at the U.N.? Well I should hope so! China is pissed at DPRK? Big surprise! Iran is fucking evil, who knew! And the cost? We have soured diplomacy as we know it and can use it less to prevent bloodshed! I don't care how much less we can use it, the fact stands that diplomacy as an enterprise to prevent bloodshed has been damaged and for what? So wiki leaks can have their name in the paper? Where is the crime that was being exposed by leaking these documents?
So all you Monday morning quarterbacks who are trumpeting the release of these documents, don't forget that now we will move to war that much faster because diplomacy has been dealt a blow by your so-called "right to see state secrets".
I own guns that shoot the 7.62x39 (M1A) and the 7.62x39 (SKS) so I assure you I know the difference in the bullet size. I also own an AR-15 that shoots 5.56. I know from personal experience that the SKS will shoot much further than the AR-15, out to 600m accurately and out to 800m at an area. The AR-15 will not shoot that far. And of course the MA1 outclasses both. Only when my brother brings his M107 do I have to take second place in the range contest. My point is a guy shooting with a 7.62x39 while not accurate is actually making it to his target while the guy with the 5.56 doesn't even have a chance. As far as your comparisons in kinetic energy, that last 300 J must really make a difference. If given a choice I would take 7.62x51 or 7.62x39 any day over 5.56. All I had to do was watch this video:
Watching the 5.56 impact on the cinderblock without effect while the 7.62x39 goes clean though is all the evidence I need to make an effective decision.
You always want to line your troops up so they are exposed to defilade fire so the fire is more likely to miss due to inaccuracies in range vs. the angle of attack. i.e.: it's easy to see which direction to point the gun, but it is difficult to tell how far to shoot it. When you line your troops up you want to take advantage of this inherent difficulty in launching missiles.
This new weapon can tell how far away the enemy is by virtue of the solider telling it via the built in range finder and eliminates the advantage gained from being exposed to defilade vs. enfilade fire. Defilade comes from the French "défiler":to scroll while Enfilade comes from "enfiler":to skewer. Ergo the name "Counter Defilade".
Early generals found out quickly they didn't like solider-ka-bobs of their own men, but were keen on creating solider-ka-bobs with the opposing army's men.
Larger caliber helps with that, but it's not a requirement. The caliber of AK-74 is smaller than that of M16, but the latter has looser tolerances, and is generally more reliable as a result
I think everyone here is talking about the ubiquitous AK-47 which shoots the 7.62mm round, a good deal larger than the 5.56mm M16 round. Both the AK-74 and M16 can hit targets accurately out to about 600m. The AK-47 and other guns that chamber the larger 7.62mm round, the M14, DMR or SVD for example, can hit targets accurately out to 800m and can shoot out to 1000m or more. The 7.62 round has almost twice the kinetic energy as the smaller 5.57 round. A lot of engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq take place between 400m and 1000m where 5.56mm rounds just don't reach their target, so being accurate just doesn't matter as much as being able to put rounds far enough to reach the target.
It's accurate enough at most realistic ranges of engagement... 200-300m.
5.56mm and similar rounds are being sought after less and less due to their lack of range. Bigger does not mean less accurate, it just means further distances and more kinetic energy impacting the target.
Of course any long range discussion cannot truly take place without the mention of the.338 Lapua Magnum. Taking out targets at almost two miles away is just mind boggling.
No, I mean, by lying. In fact the EU's Advertising Standards Authority banned IPhone ads because Apple was lying.
They are infamous for their lies about PC vs. MAC that is before abandoning their hardware platform. Oh, don't confuse a Desktop PC with a workstation PC! I personally didn't know the distinction before Apple pointed it out!
And let us never forget the now immortalized Reality Distortion Field Which is basically lying personified.
At the bottom of the wiki article it says See Also:
Apple Inc.
Propaganda
Steve Jobs
Suggestibility
Somebody Else's Problem
And I think that more than anything really drives home my point. Apple really loves people, like you, that will put their own reputation on the line to defend the indefensible. In fact their continued success depends on normally logically thinking people promoting their products for irrational reasons.
And when grandma wants to play a flash game on her Ipad I suppose you'll have another argument about how being "easy to use" means not having to play the games she wants to play? When Apple says "Easy to use" Apple is talking about you.
If I have to hear another non-geek friend tell me about 'new' Apple technology that has existed on Windows Mobile platform for the better half of the last decade I'm going to puke. Everything about Apple is a gigantic rip off.
1. Apple design is better.
That's like your opinion man. I personally like the design of Motorola products more. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Functionality on the other hand is something we quantify.
2. Apple just works better.
No. They don't. And more often than not they won't work at all while the 'other' brand has no problem doing 'that'. And it doesn't have anything to do with technological limitations, it is always political (Apple doesn't like that) or capitalist (Apple wants your money). I think people often get confused between the words "better" and "easier". Just because your grandma can figure it out does not make it better. If we were to judge technology based on what is easier I think we all can agree the first dial pad phone was the best because they were much easier to operate. In reality ( a place Apple fears to tread) people don't want their devices fettered by Steve Jobs argument with Adobe or Apple's intense desire for your money. How long until pushing the power button is tied to your pocket book? Which Apple fan would complain(or not see it coming)? More likeyly they would spout off about what a great added value it is to have to pay to turn your device on.
3. Apple has the apps!
I cannot recall a vendor that has put up as many roadblocks to creating applications as Apple has. They make you buy their SDK. They make you buy a license to publish software on their device. Then they can at a whim and without any declared reason reject your application. Nothing is more like "big brother" than Apple. Please watch Apple's famous 1984 ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8 . Now listen carefully to the speaker in the video. He is saying, almost verbatim, what Apple really does! "[inaudible] A garden of pure ideology [inaudible] secure from the pests of a very unpredictable [inaudible] “ This is really the punch line to what Apple has become in the last 15 years. A mockery? No! The antithesis of its former self.
Nobody does "I'm a big company so you can go fuck yourself" like Apple does.
Nobody does "I can get you to pay me for "it" so why should I just give it to you for free?" like Apple does.
Nobody does "If you try and backwards engineer our products we will crush you." like Apple does.
Nobody does "Re-release old technology as if it has never existed." like Apple does.
Nobody does "After years of bashing your hardware platform (x86) I'll switch to it without getting any egg on my face." like Apple does.
Nobody does "We'll buy a windows handler for BSD much like KDE, and have the audacity to call it OSx." Like Apple. It's just Free BSD! Geesh!
Nobody does "We'll trade you our worthless software patents that took us $7.00 and a box of Skittles to develop for your hardware patents that took dozens of years and billions of dollars to develop and when you say "no" to the deal we'll use your patents anyway and then cry foul when we get sued for it." like Apple. And really - who does that?
Nobody does "We'll sue you if you try and make clones of our computers." - while they make cheap PC clones!
Now that takes some real intellectual dishonesty. I mean, your entire hardware and software platform was stolen (because you claim they are yours) from everyone else. You can't claim the hardware, that's Intel's. You can't claim the software, that's BSDs/AT&Ts! What exactly are people copying from you when they make a "Apple"? The fucking logo? Your windows handler? Everyone else gives their windows handler away for free! Oh ya, you're Apple, I forgot the "Why should I give y
On February 5, 1937, he sent a special message to Congress proposing legislation granting the President new powers to add additional judges to all federal courts whenever there were sitting judges age 70 or older who refused to retire. The practical effect of this proposal was that the President would get to appoint six new Justices to the Supreme Court (and 44 judges to lower federal courts), thus instantly tipping the political balance on the Court dramatically in his favor.
[Emphasis added]
So only through the use of unconstitutional laws does social security exist in the first place. So no, we did not “vote” to have it, the government broke the law to implement it, and since then the government has ripped off the fund for tens of trillions of dollars. That's more than twice as many miles to Alpha Centari, the nearest star!or roughly 4x times GDP. So we didn't "vote" this program in, it was rammed illegally down the throats of the people just like the latest unconstitutional health care legislation. You see, according to the constitution (still the supreme law of the land) the government cannot force you to buy something and they cannot place a tax on your wages, only after the 16th amendment did income tax become constitutional, but I fail to see the amendment that legalized social security and its other unfunded cousins, and that is exactly why the constitutionality of the program is questioned.
The SS benefit will not go to zero unless there is no next generation of workers. If that ever happened, a 401k balance wouldn't help you either.
Umm, do you not know what a 401K plan is? It is an individual account that has nothing to do with anyone except for the single employee paying into the account. Your employer matches the contribution and it is tax free. There is no need for a "next generation of workers" to allow you to collect from your 401K. That you think that 401K relies on the “next generation of workers” really tells me a lot about your knowledge of this subject. Can you at least admit your wrong on this one?
So maybe we will end up letting inflation do the job for us, due to lack of political will.
So the increasingly efficient social security will need to devalue the dollar to make ends meet? You say time and again it's not the fault of social security but the politicians who get elected. Guess what? THEY ARE RUNNING IT! And that is part of social security. It really sounds like the argument "communism is great, it just has never been implemented correctly". We are talking about the actual social security system, the way it is implemented now, not the idealized social security system that does not exist, but the one that has trillions of dollars in debt.
As for the postal service, I thought we were talking about efficiency, not you
It would be "inefficiency" if the government had collected enough taxes to pay the benefits, but wasted it on sales commissions or management overhead or something, but that's not the case.
By your own definition social security is inefficient. The government has collected enough to pay benefits but has wasted it on "sales commissions or management overhead or something". And that IS the case. Please prove to me that this is not the case. I have provided you with multiple links to prove the government has ripped of the social security trust fund for tens of trillions of dollars and by your own definition this is "inefficiency". Please admit your are wrong or backup your assertion with some facts (links).
You may have heard this assertion so often that you'll be surprised to learn that there really IS a Social Security trust fund that collects our payroll taxes and invests the surplus. It's called the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds. What isn't in the trust fund is a big hoard of cash. Three-quarters of the money that's collected in Social Security taxes goes right out the door again in the form of benefits to Social Security recipients. The surplus that isn't needed to pay benefits is loaned to the federal government to pay for other programs.
In return for this loan, the trust fund gets IOUs in the form of special-issue, interest-paying Treasury bonds. ...
The problem, of course, is that the government now owes the trust fund so much money -- and relies on its surplus so heavily -- that real problems will be created when it comes time to cash in those IOUs.
An actual example of inefficiency in Social Security is fraud
The vast majority of the social security trust fund was spent NOT on social security benefits but on other non social security projects, anything, you name it, roads, defense, welfare, but not social security. Not because of "changing demographics" or anything else, but becuase of fraud. The government continues to 'borrow' from the trust fund even today! They have no plans on paying any of it back and just this year they have started to pay out more than they are taking in. Why don't you explain to me how that is an example of efficiency.
So if you think fraud is a demonstration of inefficiency than this is the most inefficient program the government runs as it has the most fraud (misused funds) of any other programs or agency or anything really, what else is measured in the tens of trillions? It is the world’s largest Ponzi scheme.
Remember the scene from Dumb and Dumber where they spent all the ransom money and filled the suitcase up with IOUs? That is EXACTLY what the government did with the social security fund.
You may have heard this assertion so often that you'll be surprised to learn that there really IS a Social Security trust fund that collects our payroll taxes and invests the surplus. It's called the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds.
What isn't in the trust fund is a big hoard of cash.
Three-quarters of the money that's collected in Social Security taxes goes right out the door again in the form of benefits to Social Security recipients. The surplus that isn't needed to pay benefits is loaned to the federal government to pay for other programs.
In return for this loan, the trust fund gets IOUs in the form of special-issue, interest-paying Treasury bonds. ...
The problem, of course, is that the government now owes the trust fund so much money -- and relies on its surplus so heavily -- that real problems will be created when it comes time to cash in those IOUs.
Why you would stand in defence of a program that is quickly failing by any measure is really baffeling. Can you show me anything to support your case that social secuity is not failing?
But even if there were no government program at all, the same problem would still manifest
I think this is a failure on your part to grasp my argument in the first comment. If social security was a private company (401K plan) the people running the plan would have been thrown in prison for embezzling money out of the employees retirement funds, so no, if there were no government program at all this would NOT happen because the perpetrators of this fraud would be brought to account, or more likely the private employers would obey the law because they fear the penalty, the government on the other hand has shown it fears no law, it has sovereign immunity after all.
That you were modded insightful despite your replies being just plain false speaks volumes of the partisans modding on this site. And did you just give up on the post office? Or was that not such a great example? I'm sure despite my use of pure facts, and links to backup my facts I'll be modded troll or I hate you or whatever. I really don't care.
How you can argue this is efficiency is totally beyond my comprehension. efficiency is doing more with less, these agencies practice the opposite of efficiency.
Just to give you some scope on those big numbers:
1 million seconds 12 days
1 billion seconds 32 years
1 trillion seconds 31,688 years
Social security is the wost! If social security was a 401K plan (which is what it is supposed to be) the people who spent the money would be doing time in a federal prison.
The only legitimate role of government is to provide for the common protection of the citizens. Not this monolithic self promoting bureaucracy we see today. The line between the democrat party and the federal government is so blurred that it is impossible to see where one ends and the other begins. Agencies like the EPA actively promote political parties, candidates and issues -- ON YOUR DIME!
But you know who said it best:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-C.S. Lewis
Slashdot Mirror
I mistyped, I knows it's shift and not ctrl. Also, I use XCV for clipboard, but I know of the shift+del combo and I know people who use it. I love highlight to the end of line, move to end of line, etc. Couldn't get by without them.
What about ctrl+delete (cut)
what about ctrl+insert (paste)
What about CTRL+ALT+DELETE?
Did you actually think about how others use the keys before you so cavalierly decided to banish a key? And why pick on insert delete when there is so much more low hanging fruit? Why not pick on F9-F12? Scroll lock?! Or the duplicated forward slashes or pipe key? Who uses tilde or grave!? And I guess we couldn't get rid of one set or the other of the windows keys?
Personally, I cannot dispense with a single key for me or my clients. If I'm on a support call the last thing I want to hear is "I don't have a delete key" –
No! They cannot, there is no taskbar!.
You might as well upload a virus that prevents you from accessing the windows task manager. Please let's think about the children, they'll be supporting windows XP until they die, let’s give them a easy way to log on to the machine.
I hope all these forward thinking kids think about the repercussions of their actions before we end up with a crappy cell phone keyboard hooked up to a Cray 32.
You've made a great case for copyright, not patent. With copyright, you cannot copy the algorithm outright, and others can implement your 'idea' in another way, maybe with a different language and different hardware, and it lasts a lot longer than a patent. To claim patent on software is crazy because there are so many different ways to do that. In your example of hardware patent it sounds to me like the only way to zip a zipper with gloves on is with a larger zipper that could fit in a gloved hand - there is no other way unless you use a leash attached to the zipper - which isn't just a zipper anymore. If I made a zipper like the one described it's very easy to see it's an exact replica of your idea.
:
The software on the other hand is totally different. There is most likely a software framework for dealing with binary images, it has methods that can detect the difference in channels and draw outlines around it. A good example of a framework like this is AForge.. It does not have a 'facial recognition' method, but is clearly built to allow people to easily implement such a system. To say "I have implemented a system using a bunch of tools someone else made in this combination so now that combination is mine and you can't replicate it." is like saying "I wrote a book using this literary technique so nobody can use this technique unless they pay me for it." The frameworks are made to do facial recognition. Implementing the framework should call for a copyright at most so people cannot copy your code line for line.
If you implement your 'facial recognition' on a chip without software frameworks then you've qualified for a hardware patent. But the idea that a computer can recognize a face has been around for as long as the word computer. Same for every other software idea, not an original idea in the bunch! After Star Trek and Minority Report – not to mention all the less popular sci-fi literature, you’re not going to find any software ideas that someone hasn’t already thought of. If you can do it than you get a copyright to your version of doing it - not the right to exclusively use the idea.
Relative to one another
Making software: Trivial at higher levels – very cheap.
Making hardware: Very challenging – very expensive.
P.S.: I asked that if you critique my fabricated examples to provide the actual ones in question not two random ones you felt proved your point. And is this a defense of Apple? That is not clear.
Apple decided to move into mobile phones and required hardware to do so. Lacking any actual know how on making phones, like many companies they borrowed the hardware from other companies - Motorola. Motorola is used to licensing out their hardware patents. Motorola makes money on just about every phone sale through their hardware licensing. So Apple asked Motorola to license their technology, but not like everyone else. Apple asked Motorola to trade software patents for hardware patents. Motorola told them to piss into the wind. The only way they were getting Motorola patens, Motorola said, was to trade for other hardware patents or pay a licensing fee like everyone else. Apple took choice C - to use the hardware patents even without license so they could make their iPhone - which would not exist without the Motorola technology.
The issue here boils down to this question: Are software patents in general worth the same as hardware patents. And of course the answer to anyone who knows anything about the subject is a resounding no. Hardware patents take billions of dollars to develop and millions of man hours in testing physical objects in a physical world. A software patent is an often unimplemented idea most often without a single line of code - vapor. Software patents often sound like this: "A system where a user can use a icon based interface to lookup information about his/her pet in real time with an image and a video of the pet in the same interface as the typing interface where the pet can see the user type". No - really - they are that dumb and ambiguous.
So Motorola makes an antenna design that will work within solid concrete tunnels without requiring frequency modulation or signal attenuation at the cost of billions of dollars and millions of man hours, testing – certification – more testing, IC engineering, fabrication and design, so much time and effort that to even list what needs to be done would be exhausting - and Apple thinks a fair trade would be the patent that consists of the words: "A system where the user can click and drag through a list of music and select which songs to buy with a button that allows a user to listen to a preview of the song." - Seriously?
Software patents should never exist. Apple should lose their ass for stealing Motorola technology even after Motorola said they could not use it. If you don’t like the terms of the deal –that means no deal! Not I just use their hardware patents anyway. Who the fuck acts like that? Is Apple a 5 year old? Then after stealing Motorola’s hardware they have the audacity to claim patent infringement? Justice would be well served if Motorola got a big chunk of every iPhone or other Apple device using their hardware without permission. A punitive amount too, not a happy negotiated amount. If the normal is %1 they should pay %10. If it’s %10 they should pay %50. Theft should not at the end of the day, be profitable for stealing technology!
You cannot take without paying for it.
You cannot trade software patents for hardware patents.
You cannot make up your own rules if you don't want to play nice with your hardware vendor
yes, the patent descriptions in my examples are fabricated, but they are still indicative of hardware patent vs. software patent. Don’t complain unless you also include the actual patents in question I’m just trying to illustrate the difference between software and hardware patents.
They refuse to share it with these publications. That is not some sort of guarantee they refuse to share it.
Girls also wear makeup. Both of these choices seem illogical to me. Meaning they didn't follow strong deductive reasoning to reach their decisions, they went with their feelings. Where strong deductive logic is purely quantitative week emotional induction does not rely on any sort of quantitative analysis, but rather snap judgments. Remorse for ill decisions made then turns into defense of the indefensible ("Why'd you buy that?" - "IT'S JUST BETTER - SHUT UP!"). Of course without exception any quantitative argument about the iPhone vs. Android(any) eventually digresses into which platform is more open because both seem to be equally capable, and of course Android wins every time. The only way you get an iPhone over the Android is if you avoid any sort of logical deduction in the first place: i.e.: you're a girl.
I think you mean CAPTCHA or ""Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart."
You must admit that state actors must have at least a modicum of secrecy when communicating. I’m all for sunshine laws that allow us to see former secrets, but communication about current events will, like I said, only drive people away from using diplomacy at all. There is no inherent loss of freedom because we don’t know what H. Clinton said to the Ambassador from Ecuador. If on the other hand the policy on Ecuador was kept a secret from the people of this country I would agree with you. That however is not the subject of this debate.
You quote concerns secrets that might be used against the people of the church/country e.g.: “I get to do what I want to do because of this secret I cannot show you.” And to the extent that sort of behavior exists, and exist it does, it should be thoroughly examined and we should always error on the side of disclosure. But the wholesale release of private communiqué for no apparent reason is just irresponsible and stupid.
No fucking shit. I said that in my post. That you didn't catch that I said I added those really speaks volumes of your intelligence. And here’s your fact check: I’m correct. Obama was talking about his political opponents, which he calls enemies, the conservatives.
Just what the fuck is your game here where you try and imply I’m lying when so clearly I am not? And where is your “fact check” that contradicts what I’m saying? Clicking my link or reading anything on the internet about this would prove it, so obviously you have not. You are a hack and a charlatan, and you post anonymously because you are also a coward.
The fact you cannot discuss my very valid problems with your arguments for reparations is typical, and I might point out that your attitude in general leads to violence. I would really like to know why I should be made to pay for wrongs that I had nothing to do with. Just ignoring me is the hallmark of someone who does not have an argument.
I live in southern California where gambling is illegal, unless you live on an Indian reservation. This is a gigantic boon to Indians and they make tens of millions of dollars thru their special treatment though the law. Can you explain to me how this fits with "All men are created equal". Why is it that the government has said in so many situations that "All men are created equal unless you are in this group then we need to prop you up by stealing money from other people.". Why the hell do you think you or anyone else gets to decide how much of my hard earned money goes to repay someone who has never been wronged in their life? Explain why if I was born with certain color skin in one part of California I can open a Casino, while with another color skin I cannot. I just don't think they inherently deserve money I have earned because of the color of their skin. If you can show me how the government has harmed an individual you may have an argument, but people who have never suffered deserve no reparation.
You must be joking. Ever hear of a Indian reservation? They have their own laws and are exempt from taxes. That's a pretty big fucking reparation for just being born. I didn't do anything to harm them, my grandparents didn't do anything to harm them, they were off in Europe somewhere, yet I have to pay for them? And the Indians, unless you are pure bread Indian, well some part of you harmed the other part of you! So why do you deserve anything? In fact, your bloodline is more likely the source of your own troubles (initial settlers) than that of my bloodline that is only 3 generations removed from Europe. So maybe you should be paying reparations to yourself. The government does not "have" money. The government, in case you didn't realize this, is broke. So any money that goes to pay "reparations" to people who’s grandparents never suffered any ill let alone them must come from taxing the population as a whole, and guess what buddy, I didn't do a damn thing to deserve that and the people getting the money/land/whatever didn't deserve a damn thing to get what they are getting.
And as far as what we have taken from the Indians? They were nomadic cannibalistic tribes that would routinely wipe each other out in the most horrific and savage ways. They had no roads, they had no cities, they had yet to invent the wheel. Europeans brought to them great pain and suffering but we didn't bring anything new but weapons and diseases. War and conquests have always been a way of life for the Indians as it was for every people.
Some reason starting in 1776 there was a law created (or was it crated sometime in the 1960s and is retroactive?) that the losers of wars, only in North America mind you, must be repaid for their loss in perpetuity. I’m curious where I can find this law, I don’t recall voting for it. Oh what’s that you say? Someone was mean to an Indian? Pff, who needs a law, let’s just give each Indian a hi-rise condo and an F-22. Or maybe an F-35, VSTOL and all, easier to get around you see. Why is the magic number 40 acres. While the government is giving out money why not just give everyone a fucking fighter jet. I mean, they can just print more money right?
If it wasn't the U.S. that took North America it would most certainly be in Spanish hands. You didn't think the Indians were going to keep it did you? If you want to have roads you have to build wheels and if you want to have cities you have to build roads. If you're not building cities you're in the stone age and your culture and hegemony are only interesting to anthropologists and historians.
I am so inundated with fucking pity for all the people our country has wronged in the past I’m starting to wonder if there is anyone we haven’t harmed and who we don’t owe reparations to! That you think that we haven’t acknowledged it as a country is just silly. Everyone in this country knows every reasonably knowable bad thing this country has ever done. Slavery, yes, indians, nuke, yes. Does everyone know about the Tuskegee experiments? No. But not because the government is keeping it a secret, but because they just don’t care. Is you shoving the same 100 year old grievances down everyone’s throat tiresome? Yes. We faced it. Especially the Indians. Again and again. It’s so overdone it’s cliché now.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he was talking about terrorist as "terrorist" is commonly defined. I.e.: not U.S. citizens in some conspiratorial manner defined by enemies of the U.S..
Maybe he was talking about Iran who 'smuggled arms' to Hezbollah on ambulances so they can randomly attack civilians in Palestine (no? Ask any remaining Fatah) and Israel. You know the nice guys who "made numerous statements calling for the destruction of Israel". . A real partner in peace. More likely than not he was talking about these types of guys, not people pissing off the RIAA as is the commonly held belief.
Our new president does not allow for your litigious mind to try and infer hidden meanings in his words.. He makes clear who his enemies are so there can be no “redefining” of the words. The man did say he would bring transparency to government.
I added the square brackets so lazy people would not need to read the context of the link.
What exactly does freedom have to do with releasing state secrets? It's never good to reveal the content of diplomatic communications, especially without any specific reason for doing so. Releasing the private communications means less diplomacy, and without making you think too hard, please tell me what happens when diplomacy fails!
So great job, we've now discovered though the release of these documents... well nothing really that we didn't already assume. We spy on our enemies at the U.N.? Well I should hope so! China is pissed at DPRK? Big surprise! Iran is fucking evil, who knew! And the cost? We have soured diplomacy as we know it and can use it less to prevent bloodshed! I don't care how much less we can use it, the fact stands that diplomacy as an enterprise to prevent bloodshed has been damaged and for what? So wiki leaks can have their name in the paper? Where is the crime that was being exposed by leaking these documents?
So all you Monday morning quarterbacks who are trumpeting the release of these documents, don't forget that now we will move to war that much faster because diplomacy has been dealt a blow by your so-called "right to see state secrets".
I own guns that shoot the 7.62x39 (M1A) and the 7.62x39 (SKS) so I assure you I know the difference in the bullet size. I also own an AR-15 that shoots 5.56. I know from personal experience that the SKS will shoot much further than the AR-15, out to 600m accurately and out to 800m at an area. The AR-15 will not shoot that far. And of course the MA1 outclasses both. Only when my brother brings his M107 do I have to take second place in the range contest. My point is a guy shooting with a 7.62x39 while not accurate is actually making it to his target while the guy with the 5.56 doesn't even have a chance. As far as your comparisons in kinetic energy, that last 300 J must really make a difference. If given a choice I would take 7.62x51 or 7.62x39 any day over 5.56. All I had to do was watch this video:
Concealment does not equal cover
Watching the 5.56 impact on the cinderblock without effect while the 7.62x39 goes clean though is all the evidence I need to make an effective decision.
5.56mm and similar rounds are being sought after less and less due to their lack of range.
Checkout : Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan (7.62mm DMR)
And: SCHOOL OF ADVANCED MILITARY STUDIES: Increasing small arms lethality in Afghanistan: Taking back the Infantry Half-Kilometer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfilade_and_defilade
Defilade is the opposite of enfilade.
You always want to line your troops up so they are exposed to defilade fire so the fire is more likely to miss due to inaccuracies in range vs. the angle of attack. i.e.: it's easy to see which direction to point the gun, but it is difficult to tell how far to shoot it. When you line your troops up you want to take advantage of this inherent difficulty in launching missiles.
This new weapon can tell how far away the enemy is by virtue of the solider telling it via the built in range finder and eliminates the advantage gained from being exposed to defilade vs. enfilade fire. Defilade comes from the French "défiler":to scroll while Enfilade comes from "enfiler":to skewer. Ergo the name "Counter Defilade".
Early generals found out quickly they didn't like solider-ka-bobs of their own men, but were keen on creating solider-ka-bobs with the opposing army's men.
I think everyone here is talking about the ubiquitous AK-47 which shoots the 7.62mm round, a good deal larger than the 5.56mm M16 round. Both the AK-74 and M16 can hit targets accurately out to about 600m. The AK-47 and other guns that chamber the larger 7.62mm round, the M14, DMR or SVD for example, can hit targets accurately out to 800m and can shoot out to 1000m or more. The 7.62 round has almost twice the kinetic energy as the smaller 5.57 round. A lot of engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq take place between 400m and 1000m where 5.56mm rounds just don't reach their target, so being accurate just doesn't matter as much as being able to put rounds far enough to reach the target.
5.56mm and similar rounds are being sought after less and less due to their lack of range. Bigger does not mean less accurate, it just means further distances and more kinetic energy impacting the target.
.338 Lapua Magnum. Taking out targets at almost two miles away is just mind boggling.
Checkout : Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan (7.62mm DMR)
And:
SCHOOL OF ADVANCED MILITARY STUDIES: Increasing small arms lethality in Afghanistan: Taking back the Infantry Half-Kilometer
Of course any long range discussion cannot truly take place without the mention of the
And just yesterday I was modded troll for saying Apple is lying, underhanded and only after your money.
NOW THE FOOT IS ON THE OTHER SHOE EH COMRAD!11!!
No, I mean, by lying. In fact the EU's Advertising Standards Authority banned IPhone ads because Apple was lying. They are infamous for their lies about PC vs. MAC that is before abandoning their hardware platform. Oh, don't confuse a Desktop PC with a workstation PC! I personally didn't know the distinction before Apple pointed it out!
And let us never forget the now immortalized Reality Distortion Field Which is basically lying personified.
At the bottom of the wiki article it says
See Also:
Apple Inc.
Propaganda
Steve Jobs
Suggestibility
Somebody Else's Problem
And I think that more than anything really drives home my point. Apple really loves people, like you, that will put their own reputation on the line to defend the indefensible. In fact their continued success depends on normally logically thinking people promoting their products for irrational reasons.
And when grandma wants to play a flash game on her Ipad I suppose you'll have another argument about how being "easy to use" means not having to play the games she wants to play? When Apple says "Easy to use" Apple is talking about you.
That's like your opinion man. I personally like the design of Motorola products more. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Functionality on the other hand is something we quantify.
No. They don't. And more often than not they won't work at all while the 'other' brand has no problem doing 'that'. And it doesn't have anything to do with technological limitations, it is always political (Apple doesn't like that) or capitalist (Apple wants your money). I think people often get confused between the words "better" and "easier". Just because your grandma can figure it out does not make it better. If we were to judge technology based on what is easier I think we all can agree the first dial pad phone was the best because they were much easier to operate. In reality ( a place Apple fears to tread) people don't want their devices fettered by Steve Jobs argument with Adobe or Apple's intense desire for your money. How long until pushing the power button is tied to your pocket book? Which Apple fan would complain(or not see it coming)? More likeyly they would spout off about what a great added value it is to have to pay to turn your device on.
I cannot recall a vendor that has put up as many roadblocks to creating applications as Apple has. They make you buy their SDK. They make you buy a license to publish software on their device. Then they can at a whim and without any declared reason reject your application. Nothing is more like "big brother" than Apple. Please watch Apple's famous 1984 ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8 . Now listen carefully to the speaker in the video. He is saying, almost verbatim, what Apple really does! "[inaudible] A garden of pure ideology [inaudible] secure from the pests of a very unpredictable [inaudible] “ This is really the punch line to what Apple has become in the last 15 years. A mockery? No! The antithesis of its former self.
Nobody does "I'm a big company so you can go fuck yourself" like Apple does.
Nobody does "I can get you to pay me for "it" so why should I just give it to you for free?" like Apple does.
Nobody does "If you try and backwards engineer our products we will crush you." like Apple does.
Nobody does "Re-release old technology as if it has never existed." like Apple does.
Nobody does "After years of bashing your hardware platform (x86) I'll switch to it without getting any egg on my face." like Apple does.
Nobody does "We'll buy a windows handler for BSD much like KDE, and have the audacity to call it OSx." Like Apple. It's just Free BSD! Geesh!
Nobody does "We'll trade you our worthless software patents that took us $7.00 and a box of Skittles to develop for your hardware patents that took dozens of years and billions of dollars to develop and when you say "no" to the deal we'll use your patents anyway and then cry foul when we get sued for it." like Apple. And really - who does that?
Nobody does "We'll sue you if you try and make clones of our computers." - while they make cheap PC clones!
Now that takes some real intellectual dishonesty. I mean, your entire hardware and software platform was stolen (because you claim they are yours) from everyone else. You can't claim the hardware, that's Intel's. You can't claim the software, that's BSDs/AT&Ts! What exactly are people copying from you when they make a "Apple"? The fucking logo? Your windows handler? Everyone else gives their windows handler away for free! Oh ya, you're Apple, I forgot the "Why should I give y
Sir, social security is unconstitutional and by that measure there was no 'openness' about it. It was and still is against the law (the constitution? Remember that? The supreme law of the land?)When FDR first tried to pass the new deal the supreme court decided it was unconstitutional. Only after FDR filled the supreme court with his cronies did it pass.
[Emphasis added]
So only through the use of unconstitutional laws does social security exist in the first place. So no, we did not “vote” to have it, the government broke the law to implement it, and since then the government has ripped off the fund for tens of trillions of dollars. That's more than twice as many miles to Alpha Centari, the nearest star! or roughly 4x times GDP. So we didn't "vote" this program in, it was rammed illegally down the throats of the people just like the latest unconstitutional health care legislation. You see, according to the constitution (still the supreme law of the land) the government cannot force you to buy something and they cannot place a tax on your wages, only after the 16th amendment did income tax become constitutional, but I fail to see the amendment that legalized social security and its other unfunded cousins, and that is exactly why the constitutionality of the program is questioned.
Umm, do you not know what a 401K plan is? It is an individual account that has nothing to do with anyone except for the single employee paying into the account. Your employer matches the contribution and it is tax free. There is no need for a "next generation of workers" to allow you to collect from your 401K. That you think that 401K relies on the “next generation of workers” really tells me a lot about your knowledge of this subject. Can you at least admit your wrong on this one?
So the increasingly efficient social security will need to devalue the dollar to make ends meet? You say time and again it's not the fault of social security but the politicians who get elected. Guess what? THEY ARE RUNNING IT! And that is part of social security. It really sounds like the argument "communism is great, it just has never been implemented correctly". We are talking about the actual social security system, the way it is implemented now, not the idealized social security system that does not exist, but the one that has trillions of dollars in debt.
As for the postal service, I thought we were talking about efficiency, not you
By your own definition social security is inefficient. The government has collected enough to pay benefits but has wasted it on "sales commissions or management overhead or something". And that IS the case. Please prove to me that this is not the case. I have provided you with multiple links to prove the government has ripped of the social security trust fund for tens of trillions of dollars and by your own definition this is "inefficiency". Please admit your are wrong or backup your assertion with some facts (links).
From: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/RetirementandWills/CreateaPlan/5mythsAboutSocialSecurity.aspx
The vast majority of the social security trust fund was spent NOT on social security benefits but on other non social security projects, anything, you name it, roads, defense, welfare, but not social security. Not because of "changing demographics" or anything else, but becuase of fraud. The government continues to 'borrow' from the trust fund even today! They have no plans on paying any of it back and just this year they have started to pay out more than they are taking in. Why don't you explain to me how that is an example of efficiency.
So if you think fraud is a demonstration of inefficiency than this is the most inefficient program the government runs as it has the most fraud (misused funds) of any other programs or agency or anything really, what else is measured in the tens of trillions? It is the world’s largest Ponzi scheme.
Remember the scene from Dumb and Dumber where they spent all the ransom money and filled the suitcase up with IOUs? That is EXACTLY what the government did with the social security fund.
From: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/RetirementandWills/CreateaPlan/5mythsAboutSocialSecurity.aspx
Why you would stand in defence of a program that is quickly failing by any measure is really baffeling. Can you show me anything to support your case that social secuity is not failing?
I think this is a failure on your part to grasp my argument in the first comment. If social security was a private company (401K plan) the people running the plan would have been thrown in prison for embezzling money out of the employees retirement funds, so no, if there were no government program at all this would NOT happen because the perpetrators of this fraud would be brought to account, or more likely the private employers would obey the law because they fear the penalty, the government on the other hand has shown it fears no law, it has sovereign immunity after all.
That you were modded insightful despite your replies being just plain false speaks volumes of the partisans modding on this site. And did you just give up on the post office? Or was that not such a great example? I'm sure despite my use of pure facts, and links to backup my facts I'll be modded troll or I hate you or whatever. I really don't care.
Post Office posts $8.5 billion loss for last year One can barley afford more efficiency than that!
And we can just compare these guys to FedEx or UPS both whom have posted a profit! GET REAL!
Social Security and Medicare Projections: 2009. $107 TRILLION in UNFUNDED liabilities! 10 times the size of the outstanding national debt
How you can argue this is efficiency is totally beyond my comprehension. efficiency is doing more with less, these agencies practice the opposite of efficiency.
Just to give you some scope on those big numbers:
1 million seconds 12 days
1 billion seconds 32 years
1 trillion seconds 31,688 years
Social security is the wost! If social security was a 401K plan (which is what it is supposed to be) the people who spent the money would be doing time in a federal prison.
The only legitimate role of government is to provide for the common protection of the citizens. Not this monolithic self promoting bureaucracy we see today. The line between the democrat party and the federal government is so blurred that it is impossible to see where one ends and the other begins. Agencies like the EPA actively promote political parties, candidates and issues -- ON YOUR DIME!
But you know who said it best:
Name one.