This assumes that the private sector has a vested interest in helping the citizens. In practice it does not. The private sector is very often the enemy of the citizens. Once they've got a monopoly or trust in place then they'll cheat and steal more than most governments will. Even without the monopolies they do their best to extract as much as possible out of people's wallets.
In reality you can't vote with your wallets if you're poor, or even if middle class. The only way the citizens have managed historically to rein in the power of the private sector is by electing governments to do this. Sure, it's not a perfect system but there has been no other system in history that has done it better.
What we've got now is not a system of reduced regulation or of high regulation. What we have is a mixed up system where the big economic interests are given a free pass to be abusive, or the ability to write their own regulations. Everyone else though has to follow the regulations and rules. The internet infrastructure within the US should follow the same guidelines and principles that are in place for telephones and broadcast media (the internet of last century).
As little as possible to these morons means even local politics should do nothing. But it won't work in this case, because telecom is not a local issue, it's not even a state issue. You can't tell Comcast what to do when you're in a little town.
And don't forget, these hardcore politicians with their "states rights!" mantra were the same ones who manages to get several state governments to forbid their municipal governments from bypassing Comcast to have their own internet service. True hypocrites.
Micro kernel is not necessarily better. There was a period of time when everyone felt that way, but the fad wore off quickly when no one managed to actually create a micro kernel that ran rings around the competition. Yes, micro kernel is great for adaptability and debugging but in practice the actual consumers don't care about those features.
It's like software layers. You'll see some groups that are utterly adamant about keeping things strictly in layers, yet there are often very noticeable barriers between the layers that are inefficient both in run time and in developer productivity. For network stacks, I don't think anyone ever creates a pure layered architecture as envisioned by the OSI model.
Yes, if it weren't for the idea that I could change jobs if I needed to, I'd have been full of hopless dread at just about most places I've worked. The sad thing is, in some places the majority of technical debt is creating in the first year of the company's existence, during the hurry-up-already startup phase.
Yup. American politics, like any politics, is all about the game. It's a sporting contest and they're getting the fan base lined up to cheer for them and boo for the other side. Except that they're taking this much more seriously than sporting games. After all, I can get my office mate to actually admit "ok, I don't really hate the Cowboys", but you'll never get a Republican or Democrat member of congress to admit that they other side might be composed of actual decent people.
The sports game is getting so heated up that they feel they *must* pick sides on every issue. There is nothing to agree upon, they'd probably disagree on the color of the money if it came to a vote. Common ground is in the forbidden zone. So Net Neutrality becomes yet another issue about Us versus Them.
There's also the ultra-libertarian view (which really isn't very libertarian) that the government should literally do nothing. Any regulation by them is seen as bad regulation. Damn the consumers, they think if we let something like this stand then sooner or later the government will decide to ban child labor as well.
Seriously, we have a lot of members of congress who think that their one and only duty is to oppose all government action of any kind (though a subset of them approve of military action as an exception). Then mix in the true market believers as well, who think that the free market can solve all problems as long as the government stays away from it.
Depending upon the entrapment, it can become a valid defense according to the courts. The key point is whether the defendant would have committed the crime without the lure. For example, an innocuous car parked amongst other cars that then gets stole isn't entrapment; but a car parked with all windows rolled down and keys left in the ignition on a deserted street while the cops monitor it is counted as entrapment.
So he's past redemption, so clearly the law enforcement can do whatever they hell the want, disregarding the law themselves? Remember the FBI already had him on the radar because others called in about this homeless guy, the FBI interviewed him, then the left him alone.
Maybe they should have gotten a warrant and put him under surveillance. Maybe that guy could have found some real terrorists (who'd probably shun him as being too mental).
They probably only put the sting on him because it looked like an easy +1 score, versus doing the hard leg work needed to actually keep people safe. This is just one of a long sequence of FBI entrapments on people who did not have the means or capability to cause mayhem. The FBI has not managed to break up even one terrorist plot, instead they have manufactured their own plots.
Just because some government goons throw around words like "terrorist" is no reason to let them do whatever they want. Or is it ok to give up our civil rights and give law enforcement whatever powers they want with no limits, just because someone shouts "terrorist" or "communist"?
"Dude, I got this bomb I ordered from in the mail just like you told me to, but then I noticed it was just a fake. Your contact was trying to cheat us. I decided to take the initiative and get a real bomb instead. Hope you guys with the fake beards don't mind. Now where are those drugs you promised me?"
Entrapment is unlawful. Just because an agent slaps the label "terrorist" on someone does not nullify the laws that must be followed by law enforcement officers.
I'm sick of the FBI trying to convince us that they caught a terrorist, when all they really did was con someone into going along with their plan. These are most likely people who never would have attempted any of these actions if they had not been encouraged to do so. Often they FBI keeps working on the potential suspect for months, not accepting "no" for an answer until finally the potential suspect caves in.
In other words, the job for these FBI agents seems to be to recruit someone as a terrorist. I'd feel better about them if they actually caught real terrorists instead of creating them. They're doing nothing more than increasing statistics in order to get bigger budgets and more approval from the naive public. So let's hold them accountable to one criminal count for entrapment and another criminal count for defrauding the government, and maybe some court ordered psychological evaluation.
Zero tolerance. It means administrators no longer have to think. It's like an algorithm: IF (cross the lin) THEN expell and prosecute END. The alternative in the past was to investigate and use discretion. Unfortunately that lead to unfair consequences; those labeled as potentional troublemakers got into much more trouble than the "good" students for the same offense; and minorities and poorer studetns were much more likely to be labeled as troublemakers. Wrong doings you did in kindergarten are still on your secret record in high school. Administrators were getting huge amount of flak for this and so many have decided on the zero tolerance policies.
I'm not defending zero tolerance here, but this does seem to a major cause behind the zero tolerance trend.
Computer Science is not programming and vice versa. My worry is that they'll be stupid and try to teach programming as the one and only topic (and programming in a currently fashionable language, or worse, treating a markup language as a type of programming). Better to teach actual computer concepts and computer science concepts. Though I think that high school is too soon for many of these topics I think. But plenty of room to learn the basics how computers work; an overview of boolean logic, hardware, low level operations, networking protocols, etc. Something other than Python or Java at least.
It sounds boring. But then, I've been watching some videos of a guy playing Fallout 3 game, including most of the boring bits (sorting inventory and reselling). It's sort of mindless viewing and just when I'm so bored I'm ready to shut it off, he goes and does something stupid. Then my interest perks up. So now I watch it see what the guy is going to screw up again. As in parts of me thinking "it's on the table stupid, it's right there in your view, pick it up already! Aaarrrghg!"
So watching someone live code might be the same thing. "Oh god the bug is right there in plain sight so why is he putting in more printfs to try and find it, if only I could reach his keyboard over the internet it'd be fixed in seconds!"
You can also have your neighborhood drama club also do enactments, or your high school can do it. If you don't like the modern version with explosions and car chases you can still read the original.
The game makers are all about today's games. They hate last year's game because there's no profit in it. Ten year old games are right now. The game industry seems more worried about reselling or regifting games than with actual piracy. Thus the rise of ubiquitous DRM which has never slowed down any pirates but which punishes consumers who legally purchase the games. Always-online games may be the more onerous of these types of DRM, but all DRM is fundamentally designed to restrict the consumer's rights.
It calls into question the common notion that the older complaints were merely isolated incidents.
For example, if we focus the microscope and see lots more pathogens than we did before, most scientists will not conclude that this was merely a statistical spike that occured at that moment, but rather the logical conclusion is that the pathogens were there all along. Occam's razor.
So that's her perogative. A male CEO acts like an asshole and people stand up for him, calling him a strong leader. A female CEO who acts like an asshole is called a bitch. Double standard. If you don't believe me, then what's the word for a male equivalent of a bitch, and don't give a word that implies something female or feminine. Even if you come up with one, I bet you had to think about it.
A male CEO destroys the company with bad policies, it gets a little buzz. A female CEO destroys the company with bad policies, slashdot goes berzerk about liberals and reverse discrimination.
Slashdot Mirror
This assumes that the private sector has a vested interest in helping the citizens. In practice it does not. The private sector is very often the enemy of the citizens. Once they've got a monopoly or trust in place then they'll cheat and steal more than most governments will. Even without the monopolies they do their best to extract as much as possible out of people's wallets.
In reality you can't vote with your wallets if you're poor, or even if middle class. The only way the citizens have managed historically to rein in the power of the private sector is by electing governments to do this. Sure, it's not a perfect system but there has been no other system in history that has done it better.
What we've got now is not a system of reduced regulation or of high regulation. What we have is a mixed up system where the big economic interests are given a free pass to be abusive, or the ability to write their own regulations. Everyone else though has to follow the regulations and rules. The internet infrastructure within the US should follow the same guidelines and principles that are in place for telephones and broadcast media (the internet of last century).
As little as possible to these morons means even local politics should do nothing. But it won't work in this case, because telecom is not a local issue, it's not even a state issue. You can't tell Comcast what to do when you're in a little town.
And don't forget, these hardcore politicians with their "states rights!" mantra were the same ones who manages to get several state governments to forbid their municipal governments from bypassing Comcast to have their own internet service. True hypocrites.
And that's good enough for a lot of people.
Micro kernel is not necessarily better. There was a period of time when everyone felt that way, but the fad wore off quickly when no one managed to actually create a micro kernel that ran rings around the competition. Yes, micro kernel is great for adaptability and debugging but in practice the actual consumers don't care about those features.
It's like software layers. You'll see some groups that are utterly adamant about keeping things strictly in layers, yet there are often very noticeable barriers between the layers that are inefficient both in run time and in developer productivity. For network stacks, I don't think anyone ever creates a pure layered architecture as envisioned by the OSI model.
Yes, if it weren't for the idea that I could change jobs if I needed to, I'd have been full of hopless dread at just about most places I've worked. The sad thing is, in some places the majority of technical debt is creating in the first year of the company's existence, during the hurry-up-already startup phase.
Yup. American politics, like any politics, is all about the game. It's a sporting contest and they're getting the fan base lined up to cheer for them and boo for the other side. Except that they're taking this much more seriously than sporting games. After all, I can get my office mate to actually admit "ok, I don't really hate the Cowboys", but you'll never get a Republican or Democrat member of congress to admit that they other side might be composed of actual decent people.
The sports game is getting so heated up that they feel they *must* pick sides on every issue. There is nothing to agree upon, they'd probably disagree on the color of the money if it came to a vote. Common ground is in the forbidden zone. So Net Neutrality becomes yet another issue about Us versus Them.
There's also the ultra-libertarian view (which really isn't very libertarian) that the government should literally do nothing. Any regulation by them is seen as bad regulation. Damn the consumers, they think if we let something like this stand then sooner or later the government will decide to ban child labor as well.
Seriously, we have a lot of members of congress who think that their one and only duty is to oppose all government action of any kind (though a subset of them approve of military action as an exception). Then mix in the true market believers as well, who think that the free market can solve all problems as long as the government stays away from it.
How can the IDE settings be the standard if everyone uses a different IDE or editor?
Depending upon the entrapment, it can become a valid defense according to the courts. The key point is whether the defendant would have committed the crime without the lure. For example, an innocuous car parked amongst other cars that then gets stole isn't entrapment; but a car parked with all windows rolled down and keys left in the ignition on a deserted street while the cops monitor it is counted as entrapment.
So he's past redemption, so clearly the law enforcement can do whatever they hell the want, disregarding the law themselves? Remember the FBI already had him on the radar because others called in about this homeless guy, the FBI interviewed him, then the left him alone.
Maybe they should have gotten a warrant and put him under surveillance. Maybe that guy could have found some real terrorists (who'd probably shun him as being too mental).
They probably only put the sting on him because it looked like an easy +1 score, versus doing the hard leg work needed to actually keep people safe. This is just one of a long sequence of FBI entrapments on people who did not have the means or capability to cause mayhem. The FBI has not managed to break up even one terrorist plot, instead they have manufactured their own plots.
Just because some government goons throw around words like "terrorist" is no reason to let them do whatever they want. Or is it ok to give up our civil rights and give law enforcement whatever powers they want with no limits, just because someone shouts "terrorist" or "communist"?
These agents are like the twenty year old narcs at high school who pretend to be students.
"Dude, I got this bomb I ordered from in the mail just like you told me to, but then I noticed it was just a fake. Your contact was trying to cheat us. I decided to take the initiative and get a real bomb instead. Hope you guys with the fake beards don't mind. Now where are those drugs you promised me?"
Entrapment is unlawful. Just because an agent slaps the label "terrorist" on someone does not nullify the laws that must be followed by law enforcement officers.
I'm sick of the FBI trying to convince us that they caught a terrorist, when all they really did was con someone into going along with their plan. These are most likely people who never would have attempted any of these actions if they had not been encouraged to do so. Often they FBI keeps working on the potential suspect for months, not accepting "no" for an answer until finally the potential suspect caves in.
In other words, the job for these FBI agents seems to be to recruit someone as a terrorist. I'd feel better about them if they actually caught real terrorists instead of creating them. They're doing nothing more than increasing statistics in order to get bigger budgets and more approval from the naive public. So let's hold them accountable to one criminal count for entrapment and another criminal count for defrauding the government, and maybe some court ordered psychological evaluation.
Or just block all of google with the screen "your country is screwed up, kthkbai".
Zero tolerance. It means administrators no longer have to think. It's like an algorithm: IF (cross the lin) THEN expell and prosecute END.
The alternative in the past was to investigate and use discretion. Unfortunately that lead to unfair consequences; those labeled as potentional troublemakers got into much more trouble than the "good" students for the same offense; and minorities and poorer studetns were much more likely to be labeled as troublemakers. Wrong doings you did in kindergarten are still on your secret record in high school. Administrators were getting huge amount of flak for this and so many have decided on the zero tolerance policies.
I'm not defending zero tolerance here, but this does seem to a major cause behind the zero tolerance trend.
Computer Science is not programming and vice versa. My worry is that they'll be stupid and try to teach programming as the one and only topic (and programming in a currently fashionable language, or worse, treating a markup language as a type of programming). Better to teach actual computer concepts and computer science concepts. Though I think that high school is too soon for many of these topics I think. But plenty of room to learn the basics how computers work; an overview of boolean logic, hardware, low level operations, networking protocols, etc. Something other than Python or Java at least.
It sounds boring. But then, I've been watching some videos of a guy playing Fallout 3 game, including most of the boring bits (sorting inventory and reselling). It's sort of mindless viewing and just when I'm so bored I'm ready to shut it off, he goes and does something stupid. Then my interest perks up. So now I watch it see what the guy is going to screw up again. As in parts of me thinking "it's on the table stupid, it's right there in your view, pick it up already! Aaarrrghg!"
So watching someone live code might be the same thing. "Oh god the bug is right there in plain sight so why is he putting in more printfs to try and find it, if only I could reach his keyboard over the internet it'd be fixed in seconds!"
Have they been an employee for more than one day? If so they may already be considering other employment opportunities.
You can also have your neighborhood drama club also do enactments, or your high school can do it. If you don't like the modern version with explosions and car chases you can still read the original.
The game makers are all about today's games. They hate last year's game because there's no profit in it. Ten year old games are right now. The game industry seems more worried about reselling or regifting games than with actual piracy. Thus the rise of ubiquitous DRM which has never slowed down any pirates but which punishes consumers who legally purchase the games. Always-online games may be the more onerous of these types of DRM, but all DRM is fundamentally designed to restrict the consumer's rights.
Does that have an Auxillary Association?
It calls into question the common notion that the older complaints were merely isolated incidents.
For example, if we focus the microscope and see lots more pathogens than we did before, most scientists will not conclude that this was merely a statistical spike that occured at that moment, but rather the logical conclusion is that the pathogens were there all along. Occam's razor.
This is sort of true. However I'm seeing a lot of youtube ads lately, but on my TV. Now if I can convince Roku to add an ad blocker...
So that's her perogative. A male CEO acts like an asshole and people stand up for him, calling him a strong leader. A female CEO who acts like an asshole is called a bitch. Double standard. If you don't believe me, then what's the word for a male equivalent of a bitch, and don't give a word that implies something female or feminine. Even if you come up with one, I bet you had to think about it.
A male CEO destroys the company with bad policies, it gets a little buzz. A female CEO destroys the company with bad policies, slashdot goes berzerk about liberals and reverse discrimination.