you can wake up one day and find out the company went bust and you don't get paid, or the [...] industry is slowing down, and theres no work period. And if you want to keep your job, when someone says work 60 hours this week and Ill pay you for 40, you say "yes sir". All that and you get paid half of what an IT manager [would have gotten before].
Because of course, this kind of thing NEVER happens to IT people.
All that, and they get to listen to people telling them what a cushy life they lead, too. I'm getting jealous of all those IT Managers now.
(I still don't get why so many people are so afraid of physical labor that they feel it is worse than anything else anyone could have to do? McDonalds(tm) employees probably put out far less "back-breaking physical labor" than, say, a construction foreman or auto mechanic. Is a construction foreman a worse job than the mind-numbing rote at a fast-food place as a result? Personally, I'd rather pound nails than flip burgers[1] any day, extra physical effort or not.)
[1] as a job, that is. Cooking for fun, by choice, is a different matter altogether.
...or in other words, being an IT Manager is a lot like being regular tech support, except when some rude ignorant freak decides to make your life hell, you can't say "here, let me have to talk to my manager"....
I often liken the entire range of tech support jobs to being a proctologist. Except with lower pay and less prestige.
Not to mention, is there a clean, easy-to-follow list of the interdependencies between the libraries? Seems every time I've tried to compile Gnome from source I end up going through several tries compiling each library because the individual, independent libraries don't tell you which order they need to be compiled or which other independent libraries they're dependent on, except one at a time during the./configure run. ("Could not find required libGnomeThingie". Find libGnomeThingie package. Download. Uncompress../configure. "Could not find required libGnomeSomethingElse". Find libGnomeSomethingElse. configure and compile and install. Go back to previous package. Compile and install. Go back to first package../configure. "Could not find required libGnomeYetAnotherThingie.".....repeat until bored.)
I originally expected to LIKE the independent development of each small library, figuring that it would make it easy to install just the portions I needed for individual applications I wanted, but in practice they're all so deeply interdependent that it doesn't seem to work that way...
(And, like the above poster, I'm serious too - I really WOULD like to find a listing or chart of the Gnome-related interdependencies so I'd know what I really needed to compile, and in what order...)
[...]Instead of dropping GNOME support, why not communicate with the GNOME community to resolve the issues? This is really a minor technial issue[...]
Problem is, Gnome has been a pain to build from source for as long as I can remember (back in the early 1.x days). It's a tangled mass of difficult-to-resolve interdependencies among separately-distributed libraries.
KDE doesn't seem to have any fewer libraries, but they appear to be developed and packaged in more coordinated groups (e.g. the "kdelibs" project) and is, by comparison, a breeze to figure out how to build and install (and/or package).
I can't imagine that, having been a problem this long, that this is "a minor technical issue", nor that the Gnome folks haven't heard of this issue before, so I don't think Patrick or anyone else is going to be able to induce a major, fundamental shift in the development methodology used for Gnome, which is really what it would take to "resolve the issue". I could MAYBE see getting the glib and gtk+ (and gdkpixbuf?) folks to coordinate their releases into a single package (which would be roughly equivalent to QT), but somehow if it hasn't been done already, I don't imagine the orbit, libgnome, libgnomeui, libgnomecanvas, and whatever other individual projects there are would feel comfortable trying to integrate their projects into a more tightly integrated single project (analogous to "kdelibs"). Given that the more freewheeling, independent development style is one of the things, I think, that makes Gnome what it is (the good as well as the bad), I don't know that this issue could be "resolved" without the result slowly ceasing to be Gnome any more...
Usually when the subject of the hassles involved in compiling Gnome come up, someone will say "but the distributions pre-compile it for you, so why does it matter?". I guess it's finally getting to the point where less heavily staffed distributions might be getting tired of spending the time dealing with it. I can certainly understand Patrick's desire to "outsource" maintenance of Gnome packages for Slackware to an outside project, under these circumstances.
Note that I doubt we're talking about a complete "wiping" of Gnome-related libraries entirely from Slackware, either. I imagine glib and gtk+ would remain, for example, since those two libraries are used in many places independent of Gnome. Presumably atk, pango, and a few others would similarly be preserved for the same reason.
They're also one of the most "closed" chip vendors, too, at least on the wireless side. They absolutely refuse to support anyone developing "third party" drivers for their chipsets (e.g. for Linux) although they are happy to use non-Windows systems with their chips proprietarily (e.g. the eminently hackable Linksys WRT54G uses Broadcomm chips and a Linux OS internally)...
I say to the hell of their choice with them, and can't say that I miss them from he WiMax list...
On the other hand, I do miss seeing "Globespan Virata", who apparently now own the Prism chipset designs. The Prism people have apparently been very helpful in making their chipset specs available to developers, and as a result they seem to be perhaps the most versatile chipsets to use with Linux.
This is probably not quite what you had in mind, but if you can come up with a display for it, perhaps you could build your own off of one of the gumstix computers.
Hmmmm...anyone know if there is anyone making external versions of synaptic's cPad unit? Might work as a combo display/input device for a gumstix unit.
Sure, a Sharp Zaurus is probably a better match for what you need (heck, I know *I* want one), but SOMEBODY has to suggest something else in this thread...
Certainly sounds like a big improvement over photovoltaic cells, and definitely a better use for an empty patch in the middle of the desert than, say, another shopping mall.
Anybody checked to see what, if any, effect on the local temperature and/or whether a setup like this has? Does it produce an effect analogous to the "urban heat island" effect that cities can have?
someone else can do what you did. And that, to me, means your "worth" isn't as much as you think it is. In other words, you're easily replaceable. You're not unique. You're not special.
Wait...are we still talking about "rich" white-collar types, or the oppressed unskilled laborers?...
I find this kind of elitist bull crap incredibly annoying. Just because someone is paid less or does manual labor does not grant them an "I make less money so I work harder" button. Many people work all of their lives to get to a place of prestige or wealth.
Yup. Granted that it seems the more "privileged" one's job is, the more opportunity to be a slacker may exist (it's much easier for a member of upper management to sit around doing nothing and getting paid for it than an assembly-line worker, whose lack of productivity is more immediately noticeable), that doesn't mean that "white collar" jobs can't be hard work just because they involve less manual labor. If I dig a ditch with a spoon instead of a shovel, does that mean I'm a "harder worker", or just an idiot?...
However, he then threw in:
"And we don't need Frankenfood either."
I realise that may well be the party's views but why do the Green party have to take such a stubborn, un-scientific approach to issues such as these?
How's this for a poll topic? "Word or Phrase that should rightly disqualify any political candidate for consideration if uttered or written in any serious context by the candidate?"
I'd be interested in knowing how much land gets used up in that scheme per unit of electrical power generated as compared with, e.g. nuclear fission, windmills, coal, etc. etc.
I have a suspicion that this technique would be a useful source of "bonus" electricity, or power for small, isolated areas, but that if we tried to make extensive use of it, we'd have to chop down a lot of forest and cover up a lot of potentially arable land to make room for enough of them to make a big difference...
Is black a color? Is white a color? How about yellow-brown? Or red-brown?
I have a tendency to feign offense when people call me "white", and demand that they more correctly refer to me as "pinkish-beige"...
(The typical implication with the term "white" - outside of a medical context where there may actually BE statistical differences between people from geographically different ancestry - is that the group being referred to is the one that includes the pillowcase-on-the-head KKK wierdos. I guess you can't get much of a tan wearing those funny costumes all the time...)
I think the confusion may be in whether the candidate is referring to "literacy" in the absolute sense (i.e. "how many people can read [at all]") versus what I presume Badnarik meant, which would be the quality or "amount" of literacy in the average reader (i.e. "how many people know the difference between "loose" and "lose"..." - or "reads at the '3rd grade level'" or whatnot).
In that case, I tend to agree - while the proportion of people in the U.S. who can read anything at all is quite possibly substantially higher than it was in 1904, the average amount of reading comprehension in the typical person who can read at all does seem to be pretty low these days.
Well, I'd say they could be okay in local offices, and possibly state offices (I know I've previously posted rants about how things that would be insane to attempt at a Federal level in the U.S. - e.g. Government-run health care - that might work on a smaller scale when run indepedently by individual States.).
What we really need at a federal level, in my opinion, is genuine diversity[1], not "the one true party" of any variety, nor of course the "two true parties" that we have now. Given that, it'd be nice to have enough Greens - AND Libertarians AND even one or two of the groups I'd consider to be extremist whackos - in the House and Senate to make their ideas heard and have some influence on the process.
Like all political ideologies I've seen, the Greens have their share of serious problems that'd make them a disaster if they won complete control of the country (in my opinion, for the Greens it's their head-in-the-sand FUD about new technologies that they happen to be scared of [controlled genetic modification of organisms, nuclear fission - and fusion? Or is fusion somehow magically safe to them while fission is not?] and the naive notion that you can fix the abuses of power that corporate legal entities are prone to by concentrating authority further into an even bigger corporate legal entity e.g. the US Federal Government...Obviously these opinions are debatable, but they're mine...), but I'd still like to see their faction, among others, have more official political influence in the workings of the US Federal government.
[1]- I mean REAL diversity, of opinions, experience, and attitudes. I find the tendency of political organizations to dumb the concept down to "different skin colors" (as if everyone with the same skin color thinks the same way!) offensively racist....
Nope, the patent appears to have been granted in 1977(!) so has definitely expired by now. On the other hand, to me, it proves the USPTO has been Nucking Futs for much longer than I had originally assumed, and recent problems with obvious software patents are an extension of a pre-existing problem rather than a new one...
I could easily live with 10-15% slower, IF Java didn't have the startup overhead.
This is the reason I keep wondering about whether or not this, that, or the other Java package can be compiled to native code with GCJ. If so, that should solve the overhead issues involved in calling up a JVM...
Well, I stand corrected - for some reason I thought the Federal Government would have been putting DOT in with all of the OTHER "interior" federal issues. Stupid me...
Considering the bizarre web of overlapping police agencies they've got, I should have known better...
Kinda worries me more to see more than one department having that kind of problem...
why not bring a suit against M$ for selling a defective product?
Because the license that you supposedly agree to by running the software says you won't. And that you agree that the software may not be suitable "for any particular purpose" or similar language.
You know, I would have sworn that use for Air Traffic Control was in the official list of "stuff you agree not to use Windows NT for" in the license for at least previous versions of Windows NT Server (3.51?). Did they remove that, or did the FAA ignore it?....
Is there some secret plot to make them look bad, or is the Department of the Interior riddled with incompetence? I certainly don't feel real secure about the safety of our airlines right now - and it's got nothing to do with "terrorists"...
(Not to say that terrorism isn't a real concern, but I'm somewhat less worried that their intentional plots will slip through observation by the authorities than "accidental" screwed up software being deployed by the FAA...)
There was a backup which we don't have details on. It failed to work as well.
I immediately assumed (maybe true, maybe not) that the problem was that the "backup" system was identical to the main one, and being identical, had exactly the same problem...and therefore ALSO died at the same time due to the problem.
Bear in mind that most of the focus of the Libertarian Party is at the FEDERAL level,specifically.
A great deal of Libertarian political philosophy revolves around the U.S. Constitution, and getting back to making sure that document is more rigorously followed. The U.S. Constitution states that (to paraphrase) if a power is not explicitly granted to the federal government, then that power belongs either to the states or to individuals.
Everyone panicking over the thought of, say, never being able to have "socialized medicine", or not having government-guaranteed welfare programs, etc. etc. are missing that point.
It is true that with enough Libertarians in the executive and legislative branches we'd have no chance that the United States would ever have socialized medicine. At the same time, though, California (for example) could have socialized medicine (and would probably be able to run a specifically-Californian socialized medicine program a heck of a lot more effectively than any such program attempted at a federal level where, as I mentioned in a thread in another discussion, they can't even manage a simple "make sure I have enough money to at least rent a comfortable cardboard box after I retire" program without screwing it up and driving it into debt. If I can't trust them to run even a bare-minimum government-mandated small portion of my retirement planning, I certainly wouldn't trust those bozos to decide when I needed, say, and organ transplant...
In any case, that's where Libertarianist ideals meet "conceivably realistic". Sure, selling off every single "public" asset to private entities could be grossly dangerous, but that's not really what would happen, I think, under a Libertarian federal government. What would really happen is that federally-owned government property would be sold to the individual states. The states would then decide what to keep "public" and what to sell to either smaller government entities (e.g. Counties, Municipalities, etc.) or to private entities. The real situation wouldn't be anywhere near as extreme as people paint it.
To be sure, there ARE people who have fairly radical Libertarian ideals and would want to apply the same concepts at the state level, but I think there are more of us than you might think who believe Libertarianism is near-perfect for the Federal government, while State governments can be more "socialist" if their citizens prefer that.
I think of it being a little like the relationship of the EU with its individual member nations...
There are times when I think the US would tend to be more "comfortable" and get along better with the rest of the world if we were actually 3-4 separate, smaller countries with economies, populations, and areas that might be more efficiently and less abusively governed, but out here in the real world, I doubt that's ever going to happen (and I'm not ENTIRELY convinced it would be a net good overall if it did), so I'll leave the naming of these hypothetical countries and the assignment of which states go to which one as a mental experiment for others...
Slashdot Mirror
Because of course, this kind of thing NEVER happens to IT people.
All that, and they get to listen to people telling them what a cushy life they lead, too. I'm getting jealous of all those IT Managers now.
(I still don't get why so many people are so afraid of physical labor that they feel it is worse than anything else anyone could have to do? McDonalds(tm) employees probably put out far less "back-breaking physical labor" than, say, a construction foreman or auto mechanic. Is a construction foreman a worse job than the mind-numbing rote at a fast-food place as a result? Personally, I'd rather pound nails than flip burgers[1] any day, extra physical effort or not.)
[1] as a job, that is. Cooking for fun, by choice, is a different matter altogether.
...or in other words, being an IT Manager is a lot like being regular tech support, except when some rude ignorant freak decides to make your life hell, you can't say "here, let me have to talk to my manager"....
I often liken the entire range of tech support jobs to being a proctologist. Except with lower pay and less prestige.
Not to mention, is there a clean, easy-to-follow list of the interdependencies between the libraries? Seems every time I've tried to compile Gnome from source I end up going through several tries compiling each library because the individual, independent libraries don't tell you which order they need to be compiled or which other independent libraries they're dependent on, except one at a time during the ./configure run. ("Could not find required libGnomeThingie". Find libGnomeThingie package. Download. Uncompress. ./configure. "Could not find required libGnomeSomethingElse". Find libGnomeSomethingElse. configure and compile and install. Go back to previous package. Compile and install. Go back to first package. ./configure. "Could not find required libGnomeYetAnotherThingie.".....repeat until bored.)
I originally expected to LIKE the independent development of each small library, figuring that it would make it easy to install just the portions I needed for individual applications I wanted, but in practice they're all so deeply interdependent that it doesn't seem to work that way...
(And, like the above poster, I'm serious too - I really WOULD like to find a listing or chart of the Gnome-related interdependencies so I'd know what I really needed to compile, and in what order...)
Problem is, Gnome has been a pain to build from source for as long as I can remember (back in the early 1.x days). It's a tangled mass of difficult-to-resolve interdependencies among separately-distributed libraries.
KDE doesn't seem to have any fewer libraries, but they appear to be developed and packaged in more coordinated groups (e.g. the "kdelibs" project) and is, by comparison, a breeze to figure out how to build and install (and/or package).
I can't imagine that, having been a problem this long, that this is "a minor technical issue", nor that the Gnome folks haven't heard of this issue before, so I don't think Patrick or anyone else is going to be able to induce a major, fundamental shift in the development methodology used for Gnome, which is really what it would take to "resolve the issue". I could MAYBE see getting the glib and gtk+ (and gdkpixbuf?) folks to coordinate their releases into a single package (which would be roughly equivalent to QT), but somehow if it hasn't been done already, I don't imagine the orbit, libgnome, libgnomeui, libgnomecanvas, and whatever other individual projects there are would feel comfortable trying to integrate their projects into a more tightly integrated single project (analogous to "kdelibs"). Given that the more freewheeling, independent development style is one of the things, I think, that makes Gnome what it is (the good as well as the bad), I don't know that this issue could be "resolved" without the result slowly ceasing to be Gnome any more...
Usually when the subject of the hassles involved in compiling Gnome come up, someone will say "but the distributions pre-compile it for you, so why does it matter?". I guess it's finally getting to the point where less heavily staffed distributions might be getting tired of spending the time dealing with it. I can certainly understand Patrick's desire to "outsource" maintenance of Gnome packages for Slackware to an outside project, under these circumstances.
Note that I doubt we're talking about a complete "wiping" of Gnome-related libraries entirely from Slackware, either. I imagine glib and gtk+ would remain, for example, since those two libraries are used in many places independent of Gnome. Presumably atk, pango, and a few others would similarly be preserved for the same reason.
They're also one of the most "closed" chip vendors, too, at least on the wireless side. They absolutely refuse to support anyone developing "third party" drivers for their chipsets (e.g. for Linux) although they are happy to use non-Windows systems with their chips proprietarily (e.g. the eminently hackable Linksys WRT54G uses Broadcomm chips and a Linux OS internally)...
I say to the hell of their choice with them, and can't say that I miss them from he WiMax list...
On the other hand, I do miss seeing "Globespan Virata", who apparently now own the Prism chipset designs. The Prism people have apparently been very helpful in making their chipset specs available to developers, and as a result they seem to be perhaps the most versatile chipsets to use with Linux.
This is probably not quite what you had in mind, but if you can come up with a display for it, perhaps you could build your own off of one of the gumstix computers.
Hmmmm...anyone know if there is anyone making external versions of synaptic's cPad unit? Might work as a combo display/input device for a gumstix unit.
Sure, a Sharp Zaurus is probably a better match for what you need (heck, I know *I* want one), but SOMEBODY has to suggest something else in this thread...
Certainly sounds like a big improvement over photovoltaic cells, and definitely a better use for an empty patch in the middle of the desert than, say, another shopping mall.
Anybody checked to see what, if any, effect on the local temperature and/or whether a setup like this has? Does it produce an effect analogous to the "urban heat island" effect that cities can have?
Yes, I DO like to ask strange questions...
Wait...are we still talking about "rich" white-collar types, or the oppressed unskilled laborers?...
Yup. Granted that it seems the more "privileged" one's job is, the more opportunity to be a slacker may exist (it's much easier for a member of upper management to sit around doing nothing and getting paid for it than an assembly-line worker, whose lack of productivity is more immediately noticeable), that doesn't mean that "white collar" jobs can't be hard work just because they involve less manual labor. If I dig a ditch with a spoon instead of a shovel, does that mean I'm a "harder worker", or just an idiot?...
See also point #2 of my .sig ...
"And we don't need Frankenfood either."
I realise that may well be the party's views but why do the Green party have to take such a stubborn, un-scientific approach to issues such as these?
How's this for a poll topic?
"Word or Phrase that should rightly disqualify any political candidate for consideration if uttered or written in any serious context by the candidate?"
Additional suggestions?....
I'd be interested in knowing how much land gets used up in that scheme per unit of electrical power generated as compared with, e.g. nuclear fission, windmills, coal, etc. etc.
I have a suspicion that this technique would be a useful source of "bonus" electricity, or power for small, isolated areas, but that if we tried to make extensive use of it, we'd have to chop down a lot of forest and cover up a lot of potentially arable land to make room for enough of them to make a big difference...
I have a tendency to feign offense when people call me "white", and demand that they more correctly refer to me as "pinkish-beige"...
(The typical implication with the term "white" - outside of a medical context where there may actually BE statistical differences between people from geographically different ancestry - is that the group being referred to is the one that includes the pillowcase-on-the-head KKK wierdos. I guess you can't get much of a tan wearing those funny costumes all the time...)
I think the confusion may be in whether the candidate is referring to "literacy" in the absolute sense (i.e. "how many people can read [at all]") versus what I presume Badnarik meant, which would be the quality or "amount" of literacy in the average reader (i.e. "how many people know the difference between "loose" and "lose"..." - or "reads at the '3rd grade level'" or whatnot).
In that case, I tend to agree - while the proportion of people in the U.S. who can read anything at all is quite possibly substantially higher than it was in 1904, the average amount of reading comprehension in the typical person who can read at all does seem to be pretty low these days.
Well, I'd say they could be okay in local offices, and possibly state offices (I know I've previously posted rants about how things that would be insane to attempt at a Federal level in the U.S. - e.g. Government-run health care - that might work on a smaller scale when run indepedently by individual States.).
What we really need at a federal level, in my opinion, is genuine diversity[1], not "the one true party" of any variety, nor of course the "two true parties" that we have now. Given that, it'd be nice to have enough Greens - AND Libertarians AND even one or two of the groups I'd consider to be extremist whackos - in the House and Senate to make their ideas heard and have some influence on the process.
Like all political ideologies I've seen, the Greens have their share of serious problems that'd make them a disaster if they won complete control of the country (in my opinion, for the Greens it's their head-in-the-sand FUD about new technologies that they happen to be scared of [controlled genetic modification of organisms, nuclear fission - and fusion? Or is fusion somehow magically safe to them while fission is not?] and the naive notion that you can fix the abuses of power that corporate legal entities are prone to by concentrating authority further into an even bigger corporate legal entity e.g. the US Federal Government...Obviously these opinions are debatable, but they're mine...), but I'd still like to see their faction, among others, have more official political influence in the workings of the US Federal government.
[1]- I mean REAL diversity, of opinions, experience, and attitudes. I find the tendency of political organizations to dumb the concept down to "different skin colors" (as if everyone with the same skin color thinks the same way!) offensively racist....
Sounds like the type of things the WorldForge projects have been intending to incorporate and handle.
Nope, the patent appears to have been granted in 1977(!) so has definitely expired by now. On the other hand, to me, it proves the USPTO has been Nucking Futs for much longer than I had originally assumed, and recent problems with obvious software patents are an extension of a pre-existing problem rather than a new one...
This is the reason I keep wondering about whether or not this, that, or the other Java package can be compiled to native code with GCJ. If so, that should solve the overhead issues involved in calling up a JVM...
For those of us who don't run Windows and/or would rather play with the data directly, is it available (and documented)?
That's true, but where do you think the pictures were taken from?...
Well, I stand corrected - for some reason I thought the Federal Government would have been putting DOT in with all of the OTHER "interior" federal issues. Stupid me...
Considering the bizarre web of overlapping police agencies they've got, I should have known better...
Kinda worries me more to see more than one department having that kind of problem...
" Federal Aviation Administration"
"Bringing Safety to America's Skies", they say...
Because the license that you supposedly agree to by running the software says you won't. And that you agree that the software may not be suitable "for any particular purpose" or similar language.
You know, I would have sworn that use for Air Traffic Control was in the official list of "stuff you agree not to use Windows NT for" in the license for at least previous versions of Windows NT Server (3.51?). Did they remove that, or did the FAA ignore it?....
The FAA is under the auspices of the US Department of the Interior, aren't they? You know, the same department that was ordered by a court to take ALL of their systems off line because they were apparently unable to secure them? TWICE? (No, wait, the latter link says THREE times, most recently March 2004...!)
Is there some secret plot to make them look bad, or is the Department of the Interior riddled with incompetence? I certainly don't feel real secure about the safety of our airlines right now - and it's got nothing to do with "terrorists"...
(Not to say that terrorism isn't a real concern, but I'm somewhat less worried that their intentional plots will slip through observation by the authorities than "accidental" screwed up software being deployed by the FAA...)
I immediately assumed (maybe true, maybe not) that the problem was that the "backup" system was identical to the main one, and being identical, had exactly the same problem...and therefore ALSO died at the same time due to the problem.
\Stupid.
Bear in mind that most of the focus of the Libertarian Party is at the FEDERAL level,specifically.
A great deal of Libertarian political philosophy revolves around the U.S. Constitution, and getting back to making sure that document is more rigorously followed. The U.S. Constitution states that (to paraphrase) if a power is not explicitly granted to the federal government, then that power belongs either to the states or to individuals.
Everyone panicking over the thought of, say, never being able to have "socialized medicine", or not having government-guaranteed welfare programs, etc. etc. are missing that point.
It is true that with enough Libertarians in the executive and legislative branches we'd have no chance that the United States would ever have socialized medicine. At the same time, though, California (for example) could have socialized medicine (and would probably be able to run a specifically-Californian socialized medicine program a heck of a lot more effectively than any such program attempted at a federal level where, as I mentioned in a thread in another discussion, they can't even manage a simple "make sure I have enough money to at least rent a comfortable cardboard box after I retire" program without screwing it up and driving it into debt. If I can't trust them to run even a bare-minimum government-mandated small portion of my retirement planning, I certainly wouldn't trust those bozos to decide when I needed, say, and organ transplant...
In any case, that's where Libertarianist ideals meet "conceivably realistic". Sure, selling off every single "public" asset to private entities could be grossly dangerous, but that's not really what would happen, I think, under a Libertarian federal government. What would really happen is that federally-owned government property would be sold to the individual states. The states would then decide what to keep "public" and what to sell to either smaller government entities (e.g. Counties, Municipalities, etc.) or to private entities. The real situation wouldn't be anywhere near as extreme as people paint it.
To be sure, there ARE people who have fairly radical Libertarian ideals and would want to apply the same concepts at the state level, but I think there are more of us than you might think who believe Libertarianism is near-perfect for the Federal government, while State governments can be more "socialist" if their citizens prefer that.
I think of it being a little like the relationship of the EU with its individual member nations...
There are times when I think the US would tend to be more "comfortable" and get along better with the rest of the world if we were actually 3-4 separate, smaller countries with economies, populations, and areas that might be more efficiently and less abusively governed, but out here in the real world, I doubt that's ever going to happen (and I'm not ENTIRELY convinced it would be a net good overall if it did), so I'll leave the naming of these hypothetical countries and the assignment of which states go to which one as a mental experiment for others...