What if Un's generals are pushing this situation in order to get rid of him? I'm sure at least a few of them wouldn't mind moving up in rank themselves...
Nice try but this won't work as.NET is innovating us all away from the registry and back to the pathetic config files that the registry was supposed to replace...
--> That was, is, and will always be the LAMEST plot I've ever heard of
Personally I liked Khan the best, and I am in the rare bunch that really really liked the first movie too. I loved TNG the series but I haven't really liked any of the TNG movies.
One thing I would really like to see is a large scale battle. I'd love to see a battle scene on the scale of the battle we didn't get to see when the Borg stomped the Federation while on the way to sector 001.
I'd like to see a plot where the movie opens with tensions very high on the Romulan neutral zone. So high that the Enterprise gets recalled to a Starbase for a "refit". To our surprise we see the saucer section replaced with a "battle saucer" section; a big gun runs through the center of it and the rest of the saucer is devoted to carrying troops, equipment, and a mobile hospital. Don't get me wrong - I don't want a dumb action flick. I want an intelligent plot line that is heavy on how the TNG crew does the strategy/tactics and execution of a large scale battle. I thnk that would be really cool...
--Richard
Stupidity runs rampant in our industry
on
MySQL 4.0 Released
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Well said! I agree with you!
On my last contract I was unable to convince project leads of the value of transactions. Even though my resume clearly shows 10 years of Oracle and 6 years of SQL Server I couldn't convince a bunch of idiots {with an admitted combined total of SQL Server experience of less than 4 weeks} that being able to transactionally update a patient record and the related information about which medications had been administered was a good idea. Their stated reason for not wanting views, transactions, foreign keys, and stored procedures? "Our database is small - only a thousand or so patients per hospital. Transactions would reduce performance. We don't want to use stored procedures because some day we might want to port the database. What's a view? What's a foreign key?"
So after a few weeks of gently, but fruitlessly, trying to explain that stored procedures and views will guarantee the performance you want, that foreign key constraints and transactions will guarantee the integrity that your medical device database must have - I finally couldn't take it anymore.
So one day in a meeting I said: "Can a patient be hurt if a medication is administered twice? What if the power goes down while updating a patient's treatment record and information about a treatment is lost?"
"Yes a patient could be harmed by duplicate treatments, but that won't happen..."
So I said: "I cannot help you..." And I walked off the gig. I dunno what came of that project but I did hear from a friend that 6 months later they had a GUI that featured several screens that took between 30 seconds to a full minute to bring up one screenful of information. People just don't get the golden rule: Code defensively and keep your business logic as CLOSE to the disk as you can! There are alot of astoundingly ignorant people out there and you just can't stop them all...
I have been seriousely, SERIOUSELY, thinking about writing a Trek Episode. But, uhhmm, the only plot line I can think of for Enterprise is that the experimental warp drive detonates and the show ends!
Here's my 2 cents: D Sounds ok. I DO like the idea that a typedef actually creates a new type. But as a C++ programmer of 9+ years who is not "terrified" of managing his own memory, and who thinks that operator overloading and templates are cool, I have some issues with the draft standard as it stands:
1) Templates: I hope that Mr. Bright does find an answer. I agree that C++ template syntax is tough, but the power of generic programming is far too great a feature to drop for large applications!
2) Operator overloading: I like it, many people don't. Used properly you can make some very cool looking type safe code. I don't think a very powerful feature should be dropped from a language just because some people are idiots. C++ is not a toy; and neither should it's successor be.
3) Interfaces: Hello out there? The world has gone distributed. How about direct language support for CORBA interfaces? Now THAT would be a slick feature to add to an extended C++ language!
4) Standardize the name mangling! Name mangling issues are what make different C++ compilers incompatible; let's fix this oversight...
5) Garbage Collection: I'm ok with garbage collection but DO give me a way to override the collector! There will always be situations where I know I can get rid of something but the garbage collector wouldn't see it that way. DO give me a way to manually kick off a garbage collection cycle and DO give me a way to manually delete things.
6) I'm working on a million line+ surface ship combat system right now. One thing that the old Ada programmers keep screaming about is the inability to get very fine grained control over numbers; and for this application I can see why they are complaining. What's needed is a way to enforce the domain of a numeric type, ala low bound high bound with an exception thrown for invalid values. Very fine grained control over coordinate and range values is key to a large class of military applications.
I've been pondering my own new language too. Maybe I should go for it. My language would look alot like C++/D - with the items listed above - plus some other ideas that I've been pondering...
Nope I'm not an industry lobbyist and I do hate mega-lithic exploitive corporations. But I don't agree with this argument:
Question: The industry dismisses concerns about older programmers by claiming that those programmers' experience is in COBOL, a language popular in the 1960s and 1970s but radically different from the languages used today. Is this true?
Virtually none of the older programmers I talk to around the nation who have trouble finding programming work are COBOL people. Their experience is in the C programming language. Java and C++, two of the hottest languages today, are extensions of the C language.
The industry lobbyists then claim that the C language is not enough, asserting that Java and C++, with their ``object-oriented programming'' (OOP) philosophy, represent an ``abrupt change in the paradigms of programming.'' This is simply false. Those of us ``dinosaurs'' who have been programming since way back in the days of punched cards have heard claims of ``abrupt paradigm changes'' many times as programming languages have evolved over the years. The claims have always simply been hype. Programming is programming is programming, and it has always been a straightforward matter to quickly become productive in a new language.
Question: Since the issue of specific programming skills issue is central, is the solution to increase government or private training programs?
No, this is absolutely the wrong ``solution,'' for these reasons:
Any competent programmer can pick up a new software skill on his/her own, on the job, without formal instruction.
The training programs are for technicians, not programmers, and thus are not achieving their stated purpose of reducing the industry's usage of H-1Bs.
This is not a ``career path'' issue. Technicians do not later become programmers. The two jobs are unrelated, just a computer technician at a magazine would not become a writer, a lighting technician in a theater would not become an actor, etc.
Even if retraining programs were to focus on programmers instead of technicians, they would be useless. Employers are not willing to hire a veteran programmer who has taken a course in a new software skill. They want actual work experience.
My Opinion:
I am currently working on a military contract and I am currently in C-- hell! This is the second time in my career when I have worked on a project that was a 'first OOP effort'. Both times I have seen large amounts of unbelievably bloated and convoluted code produced by programmers who didn't get the OOP paradigm. If you think I'm kidding hear this: We're building a surface ship combat system. There are more than 7,000 classes defined for this project and NO object named "ship", or "weapon", or "sensor"...
I don't mean to be pessimistic but, frankly, many of the people I'm working with will never make the paridigm shift to OOP. Some of them don't want to try. But many of them are so ingrained in structured techniques that even after 2 years of training and working on this project they still don't get it.
I pay $40+ bucks per month for my cable modem. I realize that my ISP is not a content provider but it feels like I'm already paying alot for the content now...
IMHO if I could teach a computer science curriculum I would teach Assembly and C++.
I say Assembly because you really should understand what is happening inside the CPU. I know that I'm more concientious about my code today because I have programmed assembly on Commodore 64, Intel, VAX, and Sparc's in the past.
I say C++ because 1) C++ isn't hiding anything. To understand the computer you SHOULD be forced to manage resources manually. You SHOULD be forced to understand that you - the programmer - are creating, using, and destroying resources and that those resources cost memory and CPU time. 3) It is precisely because C++ doesn't hide anything that it is much easier to transition from C++ to Java or VB or most any other language than it is to go the other way around.
One thing that I definitely would NOT do is survey many different languages. Learning how to say Hello world 10 times over isn't teaching much about computers.
Speaking as a Sociology Major I must remind everyone that the current leading theory for the development of civilization was so that people could have a steady supply of grain to make beer with. I dunno exactly how this fits into this discussion except that whatever our definition of life is it should probably include "that which seeks beer"...
This post is a question related to Microsoft's OEM agreements; the ones which force me to buy an M$ license each time I purchase hardware:
I'm a software developer so I roll machines over every 2-3 years. In addition to the forced purchases of OS licenses each time I upgrade I am also an MSDN subscriber {which includes licenses for all OSs and Office}. At this point I currently have at least 5 licenses for DOS, 5 licenses for Windows 95/98, 5 licenses for Office, 5 licenses for NT 4.0, and 1 license for 2000.
Does anybody think that people like me have a legitimate gripe? It seems to me that a case could easily be made that Microsoft's OEM agreements have caused me great harm - yes? How best can I proceed?
Hi all. This is a long post but I promise it's on topic...
I was a Sociology major and yes I did read my C. Wright Mills. Coming directly out of Mills, and Weber, and others is my own exciting breakthrough in Sociology:
Fraud Theory: This theory postulates that all governments everywhere are gargantuous mega-frauds designed to suck up to wealthy individuals and big corporations. Governments do this work at the expense of the bottom 98% of the population {also known as "those pathetic lilliputian losers that were too stupid to be born wealthy"}. This condition of existence has been a historical reality since the one and only real revolution occurred more than 10,000 years ago: the revolution in which the top 2% climbed up on the back of religion and stole a critical mass of power. One of the cornerstone principles of Fraud Theory is that when it comes to doing the right thing vs. maintaining the eternal present {defined as the top 2% owning everything and the bottom 98% locked in eternal debt peonage slavery to the top} the system will almost always swing in favor of the top 2%. On planet earth there is a mutant extended case of fraud theory: the case of The United States government having the additional task of sucking up to Israel.
Fraud theory in action:
Using fraud theory I easily won a $1 bet that O.J. Simpson would not be found guilty. Why? Because the Simpson affair had come shortly on the heals of the Rodney King affair. If O.J. Simpson had actually been found guilty there would have been rioting in every city in the nation. Nationwide rioting is a threat to the eternal present; therefore it was a logical impossibility that O.J. could ever have been found guilty. --> If you think this is a stretch please recall the following: the one lone white juror was thrown out because a note was found under her seat. To this day she insists that she was not passing notes and that she had nothing to do with the note. As we all no she was replaced by a latino male and together with the 11 other idiots on the jury they went on to make history...
A more recent example of fraud theory is the pardoning of Mark Rich. Here we see a fine example of the mutant extended case in action. In this example a criminal business man stole more than $400 million in unpaid taxes. Using thinly guised laundering techniques approximately $100 million was donated to various Israeli based charities and an additional $4-$5 million was donated to various Democratic party concerns. In exchange for these donations Bill Clinton's Israeli handlers directed him to pardon Mr. Rich. The net result was that the American people were ripped off for $400 million, Israel got a free $100 million, and the biggest tax cheat in U.S. history got off scott free with a net profit of approximately $205 million. See also The Crazy Eddie Anti-Pattern below.
How does fraud theory apply to the Microsoft case? Bill Gates has spoken: "...this whole Anti-Trust thing will blow over..." I didn't know how he was going to do it until recently but ever since the day he said that I've known that Microsoft would be pardoned. Well now we know: seeing that he was being battered in the first trial Mr. Gates thoughtfully pre-bribed all of the appeals court judges. There can be no other reasonable explanation for the appeals court's one sided behavior. In fact it would be a good idea if we stopped complaining about the injustice and just started looking for the money trail now. Microsoft will be pardoned.
--Richard
P.S. Here are some free bonus mutant extended case examples:
1) The Crazy Eddie Anti-Pattern: It is a strange, but none the less true, fact that the United States does not have an extradition treaty with Israel. This condition has resulted in a clear anti-pattern of corrupt behavior: 1) U.S. businessman evades paying taxes. 2) U.S. businessman gets caught. 3) U.S. businessman donates money to Israeli charities, flees to Israel, and renounces U.S. citizenship. 4) Israeli government accepts donated money and fleeing criminal. 5) U.S. government protests but does not allow the action to upset good relations between the two mega-fraudal governments. 6) American people get screwed. There are literally dozens of examples of this Anti-Pattern but it is named in honor of the most famous of the fleeing criminals: the founder of the Crazy Eddies electronics store chain. It is often rumored that Leona Hemlsley was engaging in this anti-pattern but somehow her paperwork got lost and so it was decided to have a show trial in the U.S. followed by --> her servants performing the required community service.
2) Peace for $$: The most recent peace accords between the Israeli government and the Palestinian leadership offer yet another example of the mutant extended case in action. Though this was not widely reported on television the most recent peace accord included an additional clause granting Israel $15 billion in military aid over the next five years as part of the deal {I stumbled across this factoid while surfing the text of the budget of the United States}. Net result: 1) The Israelis got a free military upgrade and a peace deal, 2) The Palestinians got a stay of execution, 3) The American people got raped.
3) The High Technology Transfer Broker: It is a well known fact {and is fully documented in the online text of the laws of the United States} that Israel has special access to U.S. civil and military high technology. As multiple recent sales from Israel to China demonstrate, there is a full blown trade cycle in which: 1) The American people get taxed to develop a new technology. 2) The hot technology is given to Israel as part of one or more military/civilian agreements. 3) Israel sells this technology to China or Iran {etc.} at a profit. 4) The American people get taxed to develop the inevitable replacement technology.
Wow what an exciting theory! Maybe we could make a science fiction movie out of it! Oh wait we did: MISSION TO MARS.
Why do people think that shadows on satelite photos == alien life? I dunno. Oh wait I think I have an idea... At last count the polls say that 30%+ people still believe Hillary is telling the truth. There must be a connection... Hmmm... Ahh yes: these people are STUPID!!!!
I hate the fact that the local, state, and federal government are all corporate sucking people f@ckers. Yes this is a giant conspiracy to defraud us and yes the morally correct thing to do is to round up the responsible parties and electrocute them! But, in spite of the fact that the government is nothing more than an enabling technology for corporate extortion I still say:
I moved to San Diego 2 years ago from New Jersey. And frankly, living in pseudo 3rd world conditions out here is FAR better than living back east with a bunch of abnoxious Seinfeld and Basketball obsessed type-A workaholics!
When my Quake server blacks out I'm going surfing --> so put that in your snow blowers and press start!
--Richard
I second the SETI Institute!
on
Geek Charities?
·
· Score: 1
I recommend these charities that I too support:
- The San Diego Zoo
- NPR Radio
- SETI
--Richard
Slashdot Mirror
What if Un's generals are pushing this situation in order to get rid of him? I'm sure at least a few of them wouldn't mind moving up in rank themselves...
And make it painful... --Richard
PR Agency? They are still reeling from the public response to the awful flying-nun/user XP commercials! --Richard
I never wanted to know how to land --> I just wanted to know how to steer ;)
Nice try but this won't work as .NET is innovating us all away from the registry and back to the pathetic config files that the registry was supposed to replace...
--Richard
4)Whales?
--> That was, is, and will always be the LAMEST plot I've ever heard of
Personally I liked Khan the best, and I am in the rare bunch that really really liked the first movie too. I loved TNG the series but I haven't really liked any of the TNG movies.
One thing I would really like to see is a large scale battle. I'd love to see a battle scene on the scale of the battle we didn't get to see when the Borg stomped the Federation while on the way to sector 001.
I'd like to see a plot where the movie opens with tensions very high on the Romulan neutral zone. So high that the Enterprise gets recalled to a Starbase for a "refit". To our surprise we see the saucer section replaced with a "battle saucer" section; a big gun runs through the center of it and the rest of the saucer is devoted to carrying troops, equipment, and a mobile hospital. Don't get me wrong - I don't want a dumb action flick. I want an intelligent plot line that is heavy on how the TNG crew does the strategy/tactics and execution of a large scale battle. I thnk that would be really cool...
--RichardWell said! I agree with you!
On my last contract I was unable to convince project leads of the value of transactions. Even though my resume clearly shows 10 years of Oracle and 6 years of SQL Server I couldn't convince a bunch of idiots {with an admitted combined total of SQL Server experience of less than 4 weeks} that being able to transactionally update a patient record and the related information about which medications had been administered was a good idea. Their stated reason for not wanting views, transactions, foreign keys, and stored procedures? "Our database is small - only a thousand or so patients per hospital. Transactions would reduce performance. We don't want to use stored procedures because some day we might want to port the database. What's a view? What's a foreign key?"
So after a few weeks of gently, but fruitlessly, trying to explain that stored procedures and views will guarantee the performance you want, that foreign key constraints and transactions will guarantee the integrity that your medical device database must have - I finally couldn't take it anymore.
So one day in a meeting I said: "Can a patient be hurt if a medication is administered twice? What if the power goes down while updating a patient's treatment record and information about a treatment is lost?"
"Yes a patient could be harmed by duplicate treatments, but that won't happen..."
So I said: "I cannot help you..." And I walked off the gig. I dunno what came of that project but I did hear from a friend that 6 months later they had a GUI that featured several screens that took between 30 seconds to a full minute to bring up one screenful of information. People just don't get the golden rule: Code defensively and keep your business logic as CLOSE to the disk as you can! There are alot of astoundingly ignorant people out there and you just can't stop them all...
--Richard
I have been seriousely, SERIOUSELY, thinking about writing a Trek Episode. But, uhhmm, the only plot line I can think of for Enterprise is that the experimental warp drive detonates and the show ends!
--Richard
Bring back Picard!
Both of these games are non violent (unless you crash your airplane}. And come to think of it EA golf, soccer etal could be considered non violent....
--Richard
A good IDE like Visual C++ or {dare I say it} Multi will do the sorting for you. You just add files to the project and write code... --Richard
Here's my 2 cents: D Sounds ok. I DO like the idea that a typedef actually creates a new type. But as a C++ programmer of 9+ years who is not "terrified" of managing his own memory, and who thinks that operator overloading and templates are cool, I have some issues with the draft standard as it stands:
1) Templates: I hope that Mr. Bright does find an answer. I agree that C++ template syntax is tough, but the power of generic programming is far too great a feature to drop for large applications!
2) Operator overloading: I like it, many people don't. Used properly you can make some very cool looking type safe code. I don't think a very powerful feature should be dropped from a language just because some people are idiots. C++ is not a toy; and neither should it's successor be.
3) Interfaces: Hello out there? The world has gone distributed. How about direct language support for CORBA interfaces? Now THAT would be a slick feature to add to an extended C++ language!
4) Standardize the name mangling! Name mangling issues are what make different C++ compilers incompatible; let's fix this oversight...
5) Garbage Collection: I'm ok with garbage collection but DO give me a way to override the collector! There will always be situations where I know I can get rid of something but the garbage collector wouldn't see it that way. DO give me a way to manually kick off a garbage collection cycle and DO give me a way to manually delete things.
6) I'm working on a million line+ surface ship combat system right now. One thing that the old Ada programmers keep screaming about is the inability to get very fine grained control over numbers; and for this application I can see why they are complaining. What's needed is a way to enforce the domain of a numeric type, ala low bound high bound with an exception thrown for invalid values. Very fine grained control over coordinate and range values is key to a large class of military applications.
I've been pondering my own new language too. Maybe I should go for it. My language would look alot like C++/D - with the items listed above - plus some other ideas that I've been pondering...
--Richard
--Richard
Question: The industry dismisses concerns about older programmers by claiming that those programmers' experience is in COBOL, a language popular in the 1960s and 1970s but radically different from the languages used today. Is this true?
Virtually none of the older programmers I talk to around the nation who have trouble finding programming work are COBOL people. Their experience is in the C programming language. Java and C++, two of the hottest languages today, are extensions of the C language.
The industry lobbyists then claim that the C language is not enough, asserting that Java and C++, with their ``object-oriented programming'' (OOP) philosophy, represent an ``abrupt change in the paradigms of programming.'' This is simply false. Those of us ``dinosaurs'' who have been programming since way back in the days of punched cards have heard claims of ``abrupt paradigm changes'' many times as programming languages have evolved over the years. The claims have always simply been hype. Programming is programming is programming, and it has always been a straightforward matter to quickly become productive in a new language.
Question: Since the issue of specific programming skills issue is central, is the solution to increase government or private training programs?
No, this is absolutely the wrong ``solution,'' for these reasons:
Any competent programmer can pick up a new software skill on his/her own, on the job, without formal instruction.
The training programs are for technicians, not programmers, and thus are not achieving their stated purpose of reducing the industry's usage of H-1Bs. This is not a ``career path'' issue. Technicians do not later become programmers. The two jobs are unrelated, just a computer technician at a magazine would not become a writer, a lighting technician in a theater would not become an actor, etc.
Even if retraining programs were to focus on programmers instead of technicians, they would be useless. Employers are not willing to hire a veteran programmer who has taken a course in a new software skill. They want actual work experience.
My Opinion:
I am currently working on a military contract and I am currently in C-- hell! This is the second time in my career when I have worked on a project that was a 'first OOP effort'. Both times I have seen large amounts of unbelievably bloated and convoluted code produced by programmers who didn't get the OOP paradigm. If you think I'm kidding hear this: We're building a surface ship combat system. There are more than 7,000 classes defined for this project and NO object named "ship", or "weapon", or "sensor"...
I don't mean to be pessimistic but, frankly, many of the people I'm working with will never make the paridigm shift to OOP. Some of them don't want to try. But many of them are so ingrained in structured techniques that even after 2 years of training and working on this project they still don't get it.
--Richard
I pay $40+ bucks per month for my cable modem. I realize that my ISP is not a content provider but it feels like I'm already paying alot for the content now...
--Richard
IMHO if I could teach a computer science curriculum I would teach Assembly and C++.
I say Assembly because you really should understand what is happening inside the CPU. I know that I'm more concientious about my code today because I have programmed assembly on Commodore 64, Intel, VAX, and Sparc's in the past.
I say C++ because 1) C++ isn't hiding anything. To understand the computer you SHOULD be forced to manage resources manually. You SHOULD be forced to understand that you - the programmer - are creating, using, and destroying resources and that those resources cost memory and CPU time. 3) It is precisely because C++ doesn't hide anything that it is much easier to transition from C++ to Java or VB or most any other language than it is to go the other way around.
One thing that I definitely would NOT do is survey many different languages. Learning how to say Hello world 10 times over isn't teaching much about computers.
--Richard
I'm still waiting for my "I survived service pack #2" t-shirt. Do you know when they will be shipping?
--Richard
Speaking as a Sociology Major I must remind everyone that the current leading theory for the development of civilization was so that people could have a steady supply of grain to make beer with. I dunno exactly how this fits into this discussion except that whatever our definition of life is it should probably include "that which seeks beer"...
--Richard
This post is a question related to Microsoft's OEM agreements; the ones which force me to buy an M$ license each time I purchase hardware:
I'm a software developer so I roll machines over every 2-3 years. In addition to the forced purchases of OS licenses each time I upgrade I am also an MSDN subscriber {which includes licenses for all OSs and Office}. At this point I currently have at least 5 licenses for DOS, 5 licenses for Windows 95/98, 5 licenses for Office, 5 licenses for NT 4.0, and 1 license for 2000.
Does anybody think that people like me have a legitimate gripe? It seems to me that a case could easily be made that Microsoft's OEM agreements have caused me great harm - yes? How best can I proceed?
--RichardHi all. This is a long post but I promise it's on topic...
I was a Sociology major and yes I did read my C. Wright Mills. Coming directly out of Mills, and Weber, and others is my own exciting breakthrough in Sociology:
Fraud Theory: This theory postulates that all governments everywhere are gargantuous mega-frauds designed to suck up to wealthy individuals and big corporations. Governments do this work at the expense of the bottom 98% of the population {also known as "those pathetic lilliputian losers that were too stupid to be born wealthy"}. This condition of existence has been a historical reality since the one and only real revolution occurred more than 10,000 years ago: the revolution in which the top 2% climbed up on the back of religion and stole a critical mass of power. One of the cornerstone principles of Fraud Theory is that when it comes to doing the right thing vs. maintaining the eternal present {defined as the top 2% owning everything and the bottom 98% locked in eternal debt peonage slavery to the top} the system will almost always swing in favor of the top 2%. On planet earth there is a mutant extended case of fraud theory: the case of The United States government having the additional task of sucking up to Israel.
Fraud theory in action:
Using fraud theory I easily won a $1 bet that O.J. Simpson would not be found guilty. Why? Because the Simpson affair had come shortly on the heals of the Rodney King affair. If O.J. Simpson had actually been found guilty there would have been rioting in every city in the nation. Nationwide rioting is a threat to the eternal present; therefore it was a logical impossibility that O.J. could ever have been found guilty. --> If you think this is a stretch please recall the following: the one lone white juror was thrown out because a note was found under her seat. To this day she insists that she was not passing notes and that she had nothing to do with the note. As we all no she was replaced by a latino male and together with the 11 other idiots on the jury they went on to make history...
A more recent example of fraud theory is the pardoning of Mark Rich. Here we see a fine example of the mutant extended case in action. In this example a criminal business man stole more than $400 million in unpaid taxes. Using thinly guised laundering techniques approximately $100 million was donated to various Israeli based charities and an additional $4-$5 million was donated to various Democratic party concerns. In exchange for these donations Bill Clinton's Israeli handlers directed him to pardon Mr. Rich. The net result was that the American people were ripped off for $400 million, Israel got a free $100 million, and the biggest tax cheat in U.S. history got off scott free with a net profit of approximately $205 million. See also The Crazy Eddie Anti-Pattern below.
How does fraud theory apply to the Microsoft case? Bill Gates has spoken: "...this whole Anti-Trust thing will blow over..." I didn't know how he was going to do it until recently but ever since the day he said that I've known that Microsoft would be pardoned. Well now we know: seeing that he was being battered in the first trial Mr. Gates thoughtfully pre-bribed all of the appeals court judges. There can be no other reasonable explanation for the appeals court's one sided behavior. In fact it would be a good idea if we stopped complaining about the injustice and just started looking for the money trail now. Microsoft will be pardoned.
--Richard
P.S. Here are some free bonus mutant extended case examples:
1) The Crazy Eddie Anti-Pattern: It is a strange, but none the less true, fact that the United States does not have an extradition treaty with Israel. This condition has resulted in a clear anti-pattern of corrupt behavior: 1) U.S. businessman evades paying taxes. 2) U.S. businessman gets caught. 3) U.S. businessman donates money to Israeli charities, flees to Israel, and renounces U.S. citizenship. 4) Israeli government accepts donated money and fleeing criminal. 5) U.S. government protests but does not allow the action to upset good relations between the two mega-fraudal governments. 6) American people get screwed. There are literally dozens of examples of this Anti-Pattern but it is named in honor of the most famous of the fleeing criminals: the founder of the Crazy Eddies electronics store chain. It is often rumored that Leona Hemlsley was engaging in this anti-pattern but somehow her paperwork got lost and so it was decided to have a show trial in the U.S. followed by --> her servants performing the required community service.
2) Peace for $$: The most recent peace accords between the Israeli government and the Palestinian leadership offer yet another example of the mutant extended case in action. Though this was not widely reported on television the most recent peace accord included an additional clause granting Israel $15 billion in military aid over the next five years as part of the deal {I stumbled across this factoid while surfing the text of the budget of the United States}. Net result: 1) The Israelis got a free military upgrade and a peace deal, 2) The Palestinians got a stay of execution, 3) The American people got raped.
3) The High Technology Transfer Broker: It is a well known fact {and is fully documented in the online text of the laws of the United States} that Israel has special access to U.S. civil and military high technology. As multiple recent sales from Israel to China demonstrate, there is a full blown trade cycle in which: 1) The American people get taxed to develop a new technology. 2) The hot technology is given to Israel as part of one or more military/civilian agreements. 3) Israel sells this technology to China or Iran {etc.} at a profit. 4) The American people get taxed to develop the inevitable replacement technology.
Wow what an exciting theory! Maybe we could make a science fiction movie out of it! Oh wait we did: MISSION TO MARS.
Why do people think that shadows on satelite photos == alien life? I dunno. Oh wait I think I have an idea... At last count the polls say that 30%+ people still believe Hillary is telling the truth. There must be a connection... Hmmm... Ahh yes: these people are STUPID!!!!
--Richard
P.S. Don't pee on the electric fence!
I'm betting the gyros or the power generators will go out again! And maybe if we're lucky it will land on a car insurance company!
--Richard
Somebody get the CIA on this right away!
We need Elizabeth "liberated" from England, brought here, Nationalized into public property, and then EVERYBODY can get a copy! Woohoo!
Who's your daddy, who's your daddy....
I hate the fact that the local, state, and federal government are all corporate sucking people f@ckers. Yes this is a giant conspiracy to defraud us and yes the morally correct thing to do is to round up the responsible parties and electrocute them! But, in spite of the fact that the government is nothing more than an enabling technology for corporate extortion I still say:
I moved to San Diego 2 years ago from New Jersey. And frankly, living in pseudo 3rd world conditions out here is FAR better than living back east with a bunch of abnoxious Seinfeld and Basketball obsessed type-A workaholics!
When my Quake server blacks out I'm going surfing --> so put that in your snow blowers and press start!
--Richard
I recommend these charities that I too support: - The San Diego Zoo - NPR Radio - SETI --Richard
It's hard to think of a more advantageous setup.
I want wings...