Except for, you know, that the whole 10.x.x.x thing is a stupid, brain-damaged way to go about doing things in the first place. In fact, if you read the RFC you reference it as much as says that. The only real justification it gives is the preservation of the global address space, since it's clearly way too small. Just fix the real problem instead of applying a contorted broken patch to solve it.
IPv6 address space has been very carefully partitioned out. The address space currently used for public addresses is only 1/8th of the total address space (still utterly mind-boggingly gigantic). There is currently also at least 1/4 of the total address space 'reserved for future use'.
So, yes, right now IPv6 addresses are sparse and might end up being used up fairly quickly, though I bet with the current addressing scheme that every pixel on every monitor could get its own IPv6 address and things would still work out fine.
But, even if the current addressing scheme's sparseness proves its undoing, there's another whole 1/4 of the space to try again with a different scheme. Adjusting routers to accept something other than 2000::/3 as publicly routable is not nearly as big a change as getting them to do IPv6 in the first place. I think we're good for the foreseeable future.
I do think that if we expand beyond the solar system and end up with an FTL communication scheme that IPv6 will prove to be too small.
I agreed with someone else who pointed this out, and I even point at the Wikipedia article. I think its 7 points are still overly restrictive, but my definition is clearly not restrictive enough.
There is mention in that article about a definition that includes not much more than the ability to evolve as being supported by some, which allows viruses and prions to be clearly labeled as being alive.
Little known fact : that's actually how right hand gloves are made. Turns out that using a fourth spatial dimension is cheaper than machinery to build both types of gloves.
You know, I was wondering about that.
I thought for awhile that maybe what they did was take the left hand glove at some point in the future and flip it into antimatter. And this would be safe because, you know, it was in the future and it was already known when the gloves would join together in the past and so it was safe to send an antimatter glove back because causality dictated that it would never react explosively with its environment.
But I guess flipping them through a fourth spatial dimension is easier and less error prone.
Crystals self replicate on the atomic scale so I think your definition requires some work.
This is true. I believe there is a more formal definition out there involving the ability to evolve. But defining exactly what that means can be a bit tricky.
I disagree, enumerating and testing assumptions is at the core of their job description. They don't have any examples of "life as we don't know it" so they cannot make ANY TESTABLE ASSUMPTIONS about it, if scientists cannot test it then it's NOT science. This probably explains why your dragon's egg link is classified as fiction.
...
It's a shame you felt you had to take a poke at scientists since you are obviously an intelligent life form and the rest of your post contains some interesting speculation.
I disagree. For example, I think looking for chirality is a much more general, and a stronger test than looking for water. I think what you want to look for is evidence of complex self-ordered systems.
I do agree that looking for life that's like the life we already have first hand examples of is the easiest thing to do, and probably what we should be concentrating our efforts on. I just dislike the intellectual laziness inherent in statements that declare things like "Life requires water.". It constrains people's thinking in ways that make it less likely that people will come up with interesting and novel ways to look for life because it embeds preconceptions in their notion of what they're looking for.
Of course, much of what I perceive as intellectual laziness could just be the result of bad and/or imprecise science reporting.
I do not mean to put down science as a whole. I think it is our absolutely best and most useful tool for learning about the world around us. I do think though that there is an unfortunate tendency to repeat dogma as science (i.e. they are not the 'laws of physics', they are simply the best mathematical model we've yet discovered for what we've observed so far), and I don't like that because I think it impedes scientific progress. Constrained and focused observational efforts are wise, constrained thinking is not.
First, for those who are wondering "What the heck is chirality?". So, you have left handed gloves and right handed gloves, and you can't transform one into the other without doing something like flipping it through a fourth spatial dimension (strangely, flipping it through the time dimension will result in an opposite handed glove traveling backwards in time that's made of antimatter) or turning it inside out. Proteins, also being three dimensional objects, are the same way. And there is a convention for deciding whether a given molecule is right or left handed. Chemical processes tend to produce equal numbers of left and right handed versions. Biological processes on earth tend to produce almost exclusively right handed molecules.
I didn't know this before reading the article, but it makes sense... the chirality of a molecule apparently affects the polarity of the light that is reflected from it or transmitted through it.
Now, to talk about what I think of the article...
Scientists make too many assumptions. Life requires self-replication... that's it. It doesn't require water and it doesn't require chirality. It doesn't require a whole host of things that scientists tend to assume it requires simply because it's a characteristic we've observed about life on earth.
But, I will agree that if they can detect the predominance of one particular chirality then that's a strong indicator of some life-like process at work.
That absence of chirality is no indicator that there isn't life. It just won't resemble the life we have here on earth.
It may be possible to prove that self-replication within a given system (like chemistry, for example) is very hard without certain conditions. I'm willing to believe, for example, that non-carbon based life that primarily functions chemically is highly unlikely because carbon is such a fantastically versatile atom chemically speaking.
Of course, there might be life based on nuclear processes or, even farther fetched, life based on gravitational processes. As support for the second, galaxies have a very complex lifecycle in which supernovas and black holes play key roles. They eat the thin gas left over from the big bang, and metabolize it into new stars with supernovas and black holes. I'm not sure where self-replication fits into that picture so galaxies may just be metabolism absent a mechanism for self-replication (i.e. engines) and hence not really alive.
Life based on nuclear processes or gravity is certainly not going to exhibit any chirality signature, nor require water or even carbon.
But, as I said, I will agree that a chirality signature is strong evidence for chemistry based life. I just don't think its absence is strong evidence against life.
I saw it, and I was so impressed that I went out and got the comic. I actually think the comic isn't as good. The whole 'alien from another dimension' thing in the comic is completely ridiculous and the method used to achieve the same goal in the movie was much, much better. I think John's character is better developed and more believable in the movie than in the comic book, though that's a bit unfair.
The only thing I thought was better about the comic book was the "Curse of the Black Freighter" sub-story and how the way that story was told tied you in to how average people saw things. The only hint of that in the movie was the psychologist and the demonstration quelling scene.
And to the topic at hand, I'm really sad that studios see things this way. The more quickly studios can be disintermediated the better. The Watchmen was a fantastic movie, and not all fantastic stories are best sellers.
Interesting. Where would a kid have learned the phrase "faggot"? For that matter, there are plenty of grade-schoolers (or younger or older) who hold hands. At that age, the gender differences between kids, left to their own devices, pretty much boil down to "boys can write their name in the snow in pee, and girls can't." Until puberty or later pre-pubsecence, the rest of any "gender preferences" in terms of toys/games/recreation seem to be the result of cultural expectations enforced implicitly or explicitly by the surrounding adults (example: the women wear dresses, therefore the girls want to wear dresses), rather than anything hard-wired.
Unfortunately for your argument at the young age of 6 I found girls fascinating and didn't like boys at all. I had no clue what I wanted to do with a girl until I was 8 or 9 or so. But, I still vastly preferred them.
I disagree that spare parts are a bad idea. I have some old ATA based systems and it's starting to be hard to find hard-drives for them. It's also hard to find AGP graphics cards nowadays too.
The way the different components in computers connect to one another has been on an accelerating curve of change for awhile. I wouldn't give 5 years for my ability to find replacement parts for my current computers. I even bought some extra hard-drives to swap out in my RAID arrays.
For one, you learned something valuable about that piece of software. You learned that it's really poorly written. And that's a bad piece of software to be hitching your wagon to.
With a commercial app, you may have wasted a whole lot of time and invested a whole lot in making the software work instead of learning right off that it was so poorly written that the vendor wouldn't be able to properly maintain it for you.
Secondly, you relied on that piece of software to not have hidden trojans in it. You would likely have been able to rely on the same thing for that particular kind of commercial application. But as a commercial application gets bigger and more popular the level of investment required to put in a hidden trojan and reward for doing so become ever higher.
In my opinion, most really popular commercial software has a wide variety of different kinds of trojans in it for implementing anything from DRM to user behavior tracking. Open Source has strong disincentives for doing that, and a really popular Open Source application is much less likely to have that kind of stuff in it.
The current evidence says you're wrong. Despite the fact that the arrow of time seems like a very strange thing from the standpoint of much of modern physics, all evidence points to its real existence. And the evidence of quantum mechanics provides a strong indication that the future and possibly even the past are not deterministic.
Whether or not you can get free-will out of non-determinism is an interesting philosophical question, but I don't think it has any scientific meaning. I'm perfectly happy to grant some element of free-will to particles behaving in a non-deterministic way.
Filesystems that cannot handle thousands of tiny files efficiently are completely broken. I think the Linux filesystem people have been complete idiots for years for not considering this use case to be worth it. Too many big iron database vendors whispering in their ears apparently.
I want to be able to use the filesystem to appropriately name and reference my data. I do not want to have to rely on some completely different set of tools to actually see what data I have stored on my filesystem. If that's the case, I'll just use LVM for my 'filesystem' and use something vaguely decent to actually hold my data and use those tools instead of the Unix filesystem tools.
Now, those applications that are broken because they are written incorrectly should be re-written so they are correct and coincidentally god-awful slow on ext4. Then maybe the designers of ext4 will get a clue and actually write a filesystem instead of a glorified version of LVM with fancy hierarchical namespace for partitions instead of the the flat one LVM has.
*laugh* Yes, such a low security flaw rate is highly suspicious, and worse yet doesn't create enough work for admins! Bind is much, much better in this regard.
I do not believe that a trunk and an encrypted file are equivalent analogies in this case. In my opinion, if you have to apply force in any form to a person to try to make them tell you what you want to know, you're violating the 5th amendment.
That's only sort of a solution. There are many data structures aside from lists and trees. Even if you always use lists when you wish to have a variable number of pointers, it's still not clear to me that you can do it. Trees, for example, have a left pointer and right pointer that have different meanings. So you would have to have two lists, one for all the 'left' pointers (there really only ever being 0 and 1) and one for all the 'right' pointers.
I suppose that works. Then a list of pointers containing 0 elements becomes your 'null' pointer. You could make that work for statically typed languages with generics. And it could be made efficient by have special built-in types for lists with very small numbers of elements that stored their elements 'inline' so you wouldn't be needlessly introducing an extra level of indirection.
Oh, you have a special 'null instance' of any data type. That's just dumb. As someone else pointed out, it's just as easy to forget to check for it as it is to forget to check for null. And then your program ends up in some strange unpredictable behavior instead of generating a nice obvious segmentation fault when the reference is de-referenced.
My problem is that null references are typically used to signal the ends of lists or the place where the tree ends.
I could see using a variant type for this. Instead of pointing to null, the next to the last list element would point to a value that had the type 'last list element' and no pointer inside it. And there would be four varieties of tree node, leaf, left filled, right filled and both filled.
Can you think of any better ways than that to handle the lack of a null reference when building data structures? That solution seems sort of ridiculously complex on non-OO languages, and a pain even for OO languages.
Yes, sort of. Most of Minnesota is full of good straight-laced conservative liberals who would be absolutely mortified to discover they were racists, even though many of them are. And Duluth is small and has a lot of links to the rural communities surrounding it, so it's got this kind of odd mix of "We're liberal and open-minded, really! *BIG GRIN*" and "We're provincial hicks." going.
Economically, Duluth was suffering mightily from the decline of the steel industry in Minnesota. Now it seems to have stabilized and is growing very slowly. It does not have anywhere near the vibrancy and energy of San Francisco going though.
Aesthetically, Duluth is kind of the ruralish town that became a city. Lots of open spaces and forest still left. There are a few interesting buildings there, but nothing to compare to the variety or aesthetic quality of San Francisco.
Regionally, Duluth is Minnesota's most important port city. Duluth, through the Great Lakes, has access to the ocean. It's the easternmost place you can get without going through the Panama Canal if you start in Europe. So, in some ways it has a lot of resemblance to San Francisco in this regard.
I don't like git very much. I like Mercurial a lot better. You can argue that they stem from the same issue, but I think things like Mercurial, git, bzr or Monotone were coming regardless.
I think Linus happens to be wrong. I think the whole bitkeeper fiasco has amply demonstrated that Linus is not a trustable authority on software licensing and its political implications.
Please be specific. How does the GPL not satisfy the OSI standard for non-discrimination. If you're going to throw around a random inflammatory accusation as an anonymous coward you should at least back it up with facts or reasoning.
That is why the 'bailouts' should've come with the stipulation that the top 3 layers of management either go 2 years without any form of compensation whatsoever or that they be fired and replaced with people who were never involved in any of the banks or financial houses that failed.
Those people have tons of money that they made by hurting everybody else. Perhaps they never did anything technically illegal, but if their organization is so important that it can't be allowed to fail, then it should hurt them personally in a very big way.
Slashdot Mirror
Except for, you know, that the whole 10.x.x.x thing is a stupid, brain-damaged way to go about doing things in the first place. In fact, if you read the RFC you reference it as much as says that. The only real justification it gives is the preservation of the global address space, since it's clearly way too small. Just fix the real problem instead of applying a contorted broken patch to solve it.
IPv6 address space has been very carefully partitioned out. The address space currently used for public addresses is only 1/8th of the total address space (still utterly mind-boggingly gigantic). There is currently also at least 1/4 of the total address space 'reserved for future use'.
So, yes, right now IPv6 addresses are sparse and might end up being used up fairly quickly, though I bet with the current addressing scheme that every pixel on every monitor could get its own IPv6 address and things would still work out fine.
But, even if the current addressing scheme's sparseness proves its undoing, there's another whole 1/4 of the space to try again with a different scheme. Adjusting routers to accept something other than 2000::/3 as publicly routable is not nearly as big a change as getting them to do IPv6 in the first place. I think we're good for the foreseeable future.
I do think that if we expand beyond the solar system and end up with an FTL communication scheme that IPv6 will prove to be too small.
What's to stop the carrier from then making sure the phone no longer has access to any app store that doesn't give the carrier a cut?
This kind of thing should be strongly discouraged as it greatly encourages discriminatory behavior by the carriers.
I agreed with someone else who pointed this out, and I even point at the Wikipedia article. I think its 7 points are still overly restrictive, but my definition is clearly not restrictive enough.
There is mention in that article about a definition that includes not much more than the ability to evolve as being supported by some, which allows viruses and prions to be clearly labeled as being alive.
Little known fact : that's actually how right hand gloves are made. Turns out that using a fourth spatial dimension is cheaper than machinery to build both types of gloves.
You know, I was wondering about that.
I thought for awhile that maybe what they did was take the left hand glove at some point in the future and flip it into antimatter. And this would be safe because, you know, it was in the future and it was already known when the gloves would join together in the past and so it was safe to send an antimatter glove back because causality dictated that it would never react explosively with its environment.
But I guess flipping them through a fourth spatial dimension is easier and less error prone.
Crystals self replicate on the atomic scale so I think your definition requires some work.
This is true. I believe there is a more formal definition out there involving the ability to evolve. But defining exactly what that means can be a bit tricky.
I disagree, enumerating and testing assumptions is at the core of their job description. They don't have any examples of "life as we don't know it" so they cannot make ANY TESTABLE ASSUMPTIONS about it, if scientists cannot test it then it's NOT science. This probably explains why your dragon's egg link is classified as fiction.
...
It's a shame you felt you had to take a poke at scientists since you are obviously an intelligent life form and the rest of your post contains some interesting speculation.
I disagree. For example, I think looking for chirality is a much more general, and a stronger test than looking for water. I think what you want to look for is evidence of complex self-ordered systems.
I do agree that looking for life that's like the life we already have first hand examples of is the easiest thing to do, and probably what we should be concentrating our efforts on. I just dislike the intellectual laziness inherent in statements that declare things like "Life requires water.". It constrains people's thinking in ways that make it less likely that people will come up with interesting and novel ways to look for life because it embeds preconceptions in their notion of what they're looking for.
Of course, much of what I perceive as intellectual laziness could just be the result of bad and/or imprecise science reporting.
I do not mean to put down science as a whole. I think it is our absolutely best and most useful tool for learning about the world around us. I do think though that there is an unfortunate tendency to repeat dogma as science (i.e. they are not the 'laws of physics', they are simply the best mathematical model we've yet discovered for what we've observed so far), and I don't like that because I think it impedes scientific progress. Constrained and focused observational efforts are wise, constrained thinking is not.
Further research shows that I'm wrong about the chirality of life on earth. Apparently left and right handed aren't used as such in biology. Amino acids, and hence proteins have L- chirality and sugars have D- chirality.
First, for those who are wondering "What the heck is chirality?". So, you have left handed gloves and right handed gloves, and you can't transform one into the other without doing something like flipping it through a fourth spatial dimension (strangely, flipping it through the time dimension will result in an opposite handed glove traveling backwards in time that's made of antimatter) or turning it inside out. Proteins, also being three dimensional objects, are the same way. And there is a convention for deciding whether a given molecule is right or left handed. Chemical processes tend to produce equal numbers of left and right handed versions. Biological processes on earth tend to produce almost exclusively right handed molecules.
I didn't know this before reading the article, but it makes sense... the chirality of a molecule apparently affects the polarity of the light that is reflected from it or transmitted through it.
Now, to talk about what I think of the article...
Scientists make too many assumptions. Life requires self-replication... that's it. It doesn't require water and it doesn't require chirality. It doesn't require a whole host of things that scientists tend to assume it requires simply because it's a characteristic we've observed about life on earth.
But, I will agree that if they can detect the predominance of one particular chirality then that's a strong indicator of some life-like process at work.
That absence of chirality is no indicator that there isn't life. It just won't resemble the life we have here on earth.
It may be possible to prove that self-replication within a given system (like chemistry, for example) is very hard without certain conditions. I'm willing to believe, for example, that non-carbon based life that primarily functions chemically is highly unlikely because carbon is such a fantastically versatile atom chemically speaking.
Of course, there might be life based on nuclear processes or, even farther fetched, life based on gravitational processes. As support for the second, galaxies have a very complex lifecycle in which supernovas and black holes play key roles. They eat the thin gas left over from the big bang, and metabolize it into new stars with supernovas and black holes. I'm not sure where self-replication fits into that picture so galaxies may just be metabolism absent a mechanism for self-replication (i.e. engines) and hence not really alive.
Life based on nuclear processes or gravity is certainly not going to exhibit any chirality signature, nor require water or even carbon.
But, as I said, I will agree that a chirality signature is strong evidence for chemistry based life. I just don't think its absence is strong evidence against life.
I saw it, and I was so impressed that I went out and got the comic. I actually think the comic isn't as good. The whole 'alien from another dimension' thing in the comic is completely ridiculous and the method used to achieve the same goal in the movie was much, much better. I think John's character is better developed and more believable in the movie than in the comic book, though that's a bit unfair.
The only thing I thought was better about the comic book was the "Curse of the Black Freighter" sub-story and how the way that story was told tied you in to how average people saw things. The only hint of that in the movie was the psychologist and the demonstration quelling scene.
And to the topic at hand, I'm really sad that studios see things this way. The more quickly studios can be disintermediated the better. The Watchmen was a fantastic movie, and not all fantastic stories are best sellers.
Interesting. Where would a kid have learned the phrase "faggot"? For that matter, there are plenty of grade-schoolers (or younger or older) who hold hands. At that age, the gender differences between kids, left to their own devices, pretty much boil down to "boys can write their name in the snow in pee, and girls can't." Until puberty or later pre-pubsecence, the rest of any "gender preferences" in terms of toys/games/recreation seem to be the result of cultural expectations enforced implicitly or explicitly by the surrounding adults (example: the women wear dresses, therefore the girls want to wear dresses), rather than anything hard-wired.
Unfortunately for your argument at the young age of 6 I found girls fascinating and didn't like boys at all. I had no clue what I wanted to do with a girl until I was 8 or 9 or so. But, I still vastly preferred them.
I disagree that spare parts are a bad idea. I have some old ATA based systems and it's starting to be hard to find hard-drives for them. It's also hard to find AGP graphics cards nowadays too.
The way the different components in computers connect to one another has been on an accelerating curve of change for awhile. I wouldn't give 5 years for my ability to find replacement parts for my current computers. I even bought some extra hard-drives to swap out in my RAID arrays.
For one, you learned something valuable about that piece of software. You learned that it's really poorly written. And that's a bad piece of software to be hitching your wagon to.
With a commercial app, you may have wasted a whole lot of time and invested a whole lot in making the software work instead of learning right off that it was so poorly written that the vendor wouldn't be able to properly maintain it for you.
Secondly, you relied on that piece of software to not have hidden trojans in it. You would likely have been able to rely on the same thing for that particular kind of commercial application. But as a commercial application gets bigger and more popular the level of investment required to put in a hidden trojan and reward for doing so become ever higher.
In my opinion, most really popular commercial software has a wide variety of different kinds of trojans in it for implementing anything from DRM to user behavior tracking. Open Source has strong disincentives for doing that, and a really popular Open Source application is much less likely to have that kind of stuff in it.
The current evidence says you're wrong. Despite the fact that the arrow of time seems like a very strange thing from the standpoint of much of modern physics, all evidence points to its real existence. And the evidence of quantum mechanics provides a strong indication that the future and possibly even the past are not deterministic.
Whether or not you can get free-will out of non-determinism is an interesting philosophical question, but I don't think it has any scientific meaning. I'm perfectly happy to grant some element of free-will to particles behaving in a non-deterministic way.
Filesystems that cannot handle thousands of tiny files efficiently are completely broken. I think the Linux filesystem people have been complete idiots for years for not considering this use case to be worth it. Too many big iron database vendors whispering in their ears apparently.
I want to be able to use the filesystem to appropriately name and reference my data. I do not want to have to rely on some completely different set of tools to actually see what data I have stored on my filesystem. If that's the case, I'll just use LVM for my 'filesystem' and use something vaguely decent to actually hold my data and use those tools instead of the Unix filesystem tools.
Now, those applications that are broken because they are written incorrectly should be re-written so they are correct and coincidentally god-awful slow on ext4. Then maybe the designers of ext4 will get a clue and actually write a filesystem instead of a glorified version of LVM with fancy hierarchical namespace for partitions instead of the the flat one LVM has.
Finding a security flaw in anything Dan Bernstein writes is definitely worthy of being on the front page, even if almost everybody uses Bind instead.
*laugh* Yes, such a low security flaw rate is highly suspicious, and worse yet doesn't create enough work for admins! Bind is much, much better in this regard.
I do not believe that a trunk and an encrypted file are equivalent analogies in this case. In my opinion, if you have to apply force in any form to a person to try to make them tell you what you want to know, you're violating the 5th amendment.
That's only sort of a solution. There are many data structures aside from lists and trees. Even if you always use lists when you wish to have a variable number of pointers, it's still not clear to me that you can do it. Trees, for example, have a left pointer and right pointer that have different meanings. So you would have to have two lists, one for all the 'left' pointers (there really only ever being 0 and 1) and one for all the 'right' pointers.
I suppose that works. Then a list of pointers containing 0 elements becomes your 'null' pointer. You could make that work for statically typed languages with generics. And it could be made efficient by have special built-in types for lists with very small numbers of elements that stored their elements 'inline' so you wouldn't be needlessly introducing an extra level of indirection.
Oh, you have a special 'null instance' of any data type. That's just dumb. As someone else pointed out, it's just as easy to forget to check for it as it is to forget to check for null. And then your program ends up in some strange unpredictable behavior instead of generating a nice obvious segmentation fault when the reference is de-referenced.
My problem is that null references are typically used to signal the ends of lists or the place where the tree ends.
I could see using a variant type for this. Instead of pointing to null, the next to the last list element would point to a value that had the type 'last list element' and no pointer inside it. And there would be four varieties of tree node, leaf, left filled, right filled and both filled.
Can you think of any better ways than that to handle the lack of a null reference when building data structures? That solution seems sort of ridiculously complex on non-OO languages, and a pain even for OO languages.
Yes, sort of. Most of Minnesota is full of good straight-laced conservative liberals who would be absolutely mortified to discover they were racists, even though many of them are. And Duluth is small and has a lot of links to the rural communities surrounding it, so it's got this kind of odd mix of "We're liberal and open-minded, really! *BIG GRIN*" and "We're provincial hicks." going.
Economically, Duluth was suffering mightily from the decline of the steel industry in Minnesota. Now it seems to have stabilized and is growing very slowly. It does not have anywhere near the vibrancy and energy of San Francisco going though.
Aesthetically, Duluth is kind of the ruralish town that became a city. Lots of open spaces and forest still left. There are a few interesting buildings there, but nothing to compare to the variety or aesthetic quality of San Francisco.
Regionally, Duluth is Minnesota's most important port city. Duluth, through the Great Lakes, has access to the ocean. It's the easternmost place you can get without going through the Panama Canal if you start in Europe. So, in some ways it has a lot of resemblance to San Francisco in this regard.
I don't like git very much. I like Mercurial a lot better. You can argue that they stem from the same issue, but I think things like Mercurial, git, bzr or Monotone were coming regardless.
I think Linus happens to be wrong. I think the whole bitkeeper fiasco has amply demonstrated that Linus is not a trustable authority on software licensing and its political implications.
Please be specific. How does the GPL not satisfy the OSI standard for non-discrimination. If you're going to throw around a random inflammatory accusation as an anonymous coward you should at least back it up with facts or reasoning.
That is why the 'bailouts' should've come with the stipulation that the top 3 layers of management either go 2 years without any form of compensation whatsoever or that they be fired and replaced with people who were never involved in any of the banks or financial houses that failed.
Those people have tons of money that they made by hurting everybody else. Perhaps they never did anything technically illegal, but if their organization is so important that it can't be allowed to fail, then it should hurt them personally in a very big way.