Opera isn't getting a single dime from this. They never sued. They never asked for money. All they did was to report Microsoft's criminal activity to the authorities. So your insane conspiracy theories are getting crazier by the second.
If you ask your government to intervene on your behalf, that is essentially what a lawsuit is. If they didn't expect to get some reward out of it, obviously, why would they have done it. Of course they did it for money. Your whole argument is retarded.
By the way, do you object to companies that commit fraud being forced to pay reparations to their victims after they are convicted?
What the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to say Microsoft is fraudulent? How are they? Any more than Opera? I downloaded big utopian great guy opera and expected peace and love to break out and all I got was a shitty browser. Total fraud. I'd like to sue Opera.
"Run there's a socialist trying to death-panel gramma!"
Hey Jimbob, I never said Opera didn't start this for their own profit... I just said it's not some sort of governmental conspiracy on their behalf, apparently this contradicts your perspective
I never said there was a conspiracy. The basis of genuine conservative opposition to government is that you don't have to have a conspiracy to buy it. You just have to have political connections. Government interference undermines the idea of a meritocracy and is undemocratic. If you have a problem with corporate power undermining your rights, the answer is to get rid of the tools that give corporations too much power, not to give up the rest of your rights to the government to "protect you". Socialism is militaristic thinking applied to commercial policy and its just stupid.
You are in idiot if you really think Opera approached the EU for anything other than a paycheck. Just a big old dumbass. You love your government.. what a fool.
The purpose of approaching a governing council with a legal complaint alleging antitrust is to have an official evaluation of whether a fair market exists
No, the purpose of any corporation approaching the government with a legal complaint alleging --anything-- is to try and get more money.
you don't understand this
a) No, you don't understand reality. You really believe companies try and sway government for the larger public good. That has the most retarded thing I've read in weeks. The thought process behind Opera was thus: "we have no money, what do we do, let's go bitch the government" It's simple. And here you are buying into all this pap.
b) Yes, I am pro-American.
c) Regulation should be feared. Usually regulations come about because some asshole with connections is trying to sway the government into making me buy a product or force me out of business.
d) I really don't like Opera, when it comes down it. I tried it and even though it has all the right pieces on paper, the u/i is graceless and the pages themselves look like crap, even if they are within spec.
Yeah, because when I'm being protectionist I implement policies that promote four US companies in addition to one european one that isn't a member state of the European Union I work f
That blurs the issue. Opera is getting a free thing. Whether or not other browsers are getting it, doesn't matter. Opera filed the legal complaint, and they are getting free ads for doing so.
Christ almighty... when will learn that interoperability between parties, is one feature, among many. If you want interoperability, go ahead and use that thing. I don't -care- about it nearly as much and I don't need people like you trying to make me pay some kind of a tax.
When Netscape sucked, I wrote for IE. When IE took the plunge, I write for Firefox. If users like the content, they can switch browsers. It's not -that- hard.
The Browser Ballot screen is really just free advertising for Opera. Opera isn't good enough to generate buzz like the way FireFox does, so they whine to regulators... "we're europeans...." So now they get free advertising from Microsoft. Must be nice.
Somehow I suspect that those calls in the "Benchmark" result from using a checked version of ths STL. With Visual C++ > 2005 you have to add quite some defines to eliminate these checks even in release mode.
That's definitely it. I -assumed-, wrongly, I guess, that STL iterators were supposed to be checked out of the box. I'm glad to see you can choose to live performantly, but really, at this point, I'm going to be writing some pleasant articles about the lovely KDevelop4 and GCC 4.4. I really like the new Ubuntu.
White people are a minority, world wide speaking, and that's the market for games. So of course you are going to have lots of other kinds of people. There's two kinds of liberalism, media liberalism and movement liberalism, and the two are DIFFERENT. Media liberalism is really just about internationalization so that they can sell the same crappy content to everyone. Conservatives that think that the media is liberal are just blind to this.
1) Your programs don't even do the same thing since some of them have multiple increments of the loop variable.
Ah FRAK... the one example does, indeed. I would expect that to skew that particular C# benchmark slightly. Once I get out of my Linux box I'll fix that.
I'm not of the opinion that insert-high-level-language-with-GC-here is necessarily slower than insert-C-or-C++-or-whatever-here, but bullshit benchmarks aren't going to help make that case.
For STL vector, using an iterator isn't necessarily idiomatic because the whole point of the vector is to have random access via an integer index. It's designed to be a replacement for a standard C array.
When you say to use the iterator like that, with the expectation that the iterator will compile away the array index check and leave a nice pointer loop, you are really saying that you want to move the loop bounds check out of the equation.
In a sense that makes the use of the array almost pointless. If you didn't need random access in a program, you wouldn't even need the vector. You would likely use a std::list in C++, whereas in C# you would use List, and that would something I'd look at in a future article.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that a GC-based, VM-based language that has layers of intermediate execution is going to be slower than is required for a trading system
I don't think that's necessarily has to be the case. I've been doing some benchmarking and disassembly and frankly, yes, if you use C++ native arrays, rather than STL, then C++ will be faster. But, if you go down the path of STL, then C++ is going to be -significantly slower-.
I have some benchmarks and dissembly comparisons here:
If there is a hole in how Microsoft did things, it is most likely that the consulting group they partnered with is a bunch of retards. Having a Gold membership or whatever their solution program is absolutely no guarantee that anyone works for them is remotely competent. From that we ask, what could have Accenture screwed up?
Well, they could have blindly followed a Gang O' Four Pattern but with giant XML SOAP blobs flying all over the place. They could have forgotten that SQL Server is kind of a shitty database for doing high volumes of transactions with simultaneous reporting unless you use MVCC. They might not have even known what MVCC is. They could have used BizTalk or something really stupid like that, or, maybe in the middle of it they thought they'd get their smarts on and write their own socket server for whatever reason and unwittingly rewrote a single threaded apache 1.0 because they didn't know what they are doing. We don't know.
Bottom line is, its not the language, but the architecture that matters most, in any design. The thing about Linux is, that, the out of the box LAMP stack is a surprisingly robust pattern to cookie cutter all over the place and is fairly flexible, and in any case Linux teams tend to have more real CS people who know what the hell they are doing. I would be willing to bet that if you took the winning Linux team, and said, they had to write it in Mono, they would still have come up with a solution that was pretty good.
"Indeed, we declared war on America and Britain out of our sincere desire to insure Japan's self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia, it being far from our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement.
But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone--the gallant fighting of our military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of out servants of the State and the devoted service of our 100,000,000 people--the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.
Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
Such being the case, how are we to save the millions of our subjects, nor to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of our imperial ancestors? This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers."
It's not an excuse, it's a realization of the grim truth. Reread my post, we agree that it won't change Verizon's actions. It *will* free you individually from the failings of Verizon. That's about as good as it gets these days
Has the thought occurred to you that maybe most of Verizon's other customers don't care if those people in that unreachable zone, cannot be reached? Like, if Verizon decreed that they would no longer provide access to google, there would be a stampede to the door. There hasn't been, so maybe, its just not a big deal.
I'm sick of this excuse. Voting with your dollar works when your dollar is the only dollar.
Let's see. You pick up your marbles from the big bad company, and nobody else leaves with you. So... your answer is to try and impose your will on everyone else. Maybe all those other people simply didn't care about the same issue as you. Like, maybe your opinion doesn't matter.
First off, why on earth is the developer still using Visual Studio 2005? We're on Visual Studio 2008, SP1. That, right there, raises a red flag. If someone compiled something with an ancient version of gcc and found out it didn't work, when distributed, on more up to date Linux distributions, wouldn't you think that the appropriate response would be for our man to get his tools straightened out first?
I would think that if the author shipped his system with a copy of the runtimes and had them install in his application directory, he would have no problem at all. The Windows DLL load order is application directory first, then, some other stuff, so his application should always have the right libraries, if he shipped them. In fact, I even think there's some sort of a doohickey that you can do to have Windows look for COM components first in your own directory before it looks for them in common areas. There's no need to have "DLL hell" at all, unless the developer really asks for it.
Frankly, I doubt DLLs of the relatively small size of the CRT should even be used any more across different applications from different vendors.
1. First, you cannot possibly test your application with all the different versions and patch versions of DLLs that are out there, because patch releases now are way too fast. Reliability, right now, not performance, is the pre-eminent problem in the software community.
2. The static linker is now actually capable of removing unused code, from an image, it could not do that before.
3. DLLs have to be relocated when an application loads them into its own process space, so you take a performance hit there.
4. The Windows API has 95% of what you would need the C runtime to do. This isn't like Linux, where, you would die without libc trying to make heads or tales of syscalls and what not. On Windows, I struggle to think of a CRT call that could not be done nearly as simply as in SDK directly. For files there's CreateFile, WriteFile, etc. All of the basic string functions exist within the SDK, and the stuff to display formatted strings in the SDK is better than what the CRT gives you anyway. It's a bit more involved, but, there's articles out there on how to not have a CRT at all. In fact, applications that use the ATL and WTL frameworks even support not having the CRT code, just so you can write really, really tiny applications and gasp, COM components.
That's actually not true. A british liberal paper went through the Japanese records and found that:
a) Japanese terms for surrender negotiated through the Russians would have basically given them China. Japan made no territorial concessions. b) Russia had no navy to get troops onto Japan. Part of the reason for Russian success on the Continent against Japan was because Japan was busy moving the Imperial Army back to Japan to prepare to fend off an American invasion. Unlike the battered air force and virtually destroyed navy, the Japanese Army was a million man strong and essentially intact. c) Americans had underestimated the strength of Japan during the planning of Olympic. And, unlike the Germans, the Japanese did't fall for any American deception and knew exactly where the Americans were to land. d) The Emperor was actually a prime mover in the war and he would rather take the whole island down with him than give up the throne. It was -only- because of the atomic bombings that he realized that the Americans could literally kill everyone in Japan without even a shot fired back. e) The Emperor never actually surrendered in his speech to the Japanese people. Go read it.
The great tragedy of the atomic bombing was that, really, the emperor was not deposed and tried as a war criminal. But McArthur liked him and to some extent Americans read Japanese aggression as a mishandling of a trade dispute. If you put in free trade, the story goes, Japan could get raw materials and export, and thus, would not need an empire.
I'll just through it out there. Israel is not a bunch of halfwitted fruitcake dopes like Iran is. If you think Iran and Israel are even remotely the same, show me the CPU architecture designed in Iran that stacks up against the likes of Yonah and now Nehalem.
Please... all those people do over there is collect wives, read the Koran, and then collects a check from the west for pumping oil.
I think there are a lot of salespeople that would prefer that this sort of behavior was penalized because it undermines their profession as a whole. Will they give you a hard sell, try to give you the positives? Yes. But to out and out lie is something the best salespeople that I know would never do. They might be aggressive, but they are honest. Besides, the easiest customer to get is the one you already got. If you, as a salesman, lie to your customer, you will not get repeat business from them.
I can't see how liberals say that Bush was against freedom when they first argued away the enumerated powers doctrine of the constitution, then, argued away half of the bill of rights, then argued in favor of increased regulation in all regards, and confiscatory taxation, and suddenly, wow, Bush is the bad guy. Even now, the liberal agenda is going to be enslave much of the country to pay for health insurance for those who are not competent enough to get it for themselves, will effectively place taxes on the fundamental right of building a fire, will disarm a law abiding populace... but they are the party of freedom?
Seriously, Bush was an asshole for doing the travel restrictions, but Dems ran in 2006 on implementing ALL of the TSA recommendations and that included a national ID card for everyone. Bottom line is, anyone looking to Dems to increase their freedom is a total retard. The most practical way to get more freedom is to gut the federal government.
If the USA wants to act like it is a different sort of multinational nation that is a kind of capital of the world, then it cannot arbitrarily bar people of that world from travelling to and from it.
Slashdot Mirror
. I'd like to sue Opera
In fact, I'd like Opera to have my web site as its goddamned home page. I think its anti-trust.
Opera isn't getting a single dime from this. They never sued. They never asked for money. All they did was to report Microsoft's criminal activity to the authorities. So your insane conspiracy theories are getting crazier by the second.
If you ask your government to intervene on your behalf, that is essentially what a lawsuit is. If they didn't expect to get some reward out of it, obviously, why would they have done it. Of course they did it for money. Your whole argument is retarded.
By the way, do you object to companies that commit fraud being forced to pay reparations to their victims after they are convicted?
What the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to say Microsoft is fraudulent? How are they? Any more than Opera? I downloaded big utopian great guy opera and expected peace and love to break out and all I got was a shitty browser. Total fraud. I'd like to sue Opera.
"Run there's a socialist trying to death-panel gramma!"
Hey Jimbob,
I never said Opera didn't start this for their own profit... I just said it's not some sort of governmental conspiracy on their behalf, apparently this contradicts your perspective
I never said there was a conspiracy. The basis of genuine conservative opposition to government is that you don't have to have a conspiracy to buy it. You just have to have political connections. Government interference undermines the idea of a meritocracy and is undemocratic. If you have a problem with corporate power undermining your rights, the answer is to get rid of the tools that give corporations too much power, not to give up the rest of your rights to the government to "protect you". Socialism is militaristic thinking applied to commercial policy and its just stupid.
Conspiracy cook
You are in idiot if you really think Opera approached the EU for anything other than a paycheck. Just a big old dumbass. You love your government.. what a fool.
Yes... opera is getting a free thing
The purpose of approaching a governing council with a legal complaint alleging antitrust is to have an official evaluation of whether a fair market exists
No, the purpose of any corporation approaching the government with a legal complaint alleging --anything-- is to try and get more money.
you don't understand this
a) No, you don't understand reality. You really believe companies try and sway government for the larger public good. That has the most retarded thing I've read in weeks. The thought process behind Opera was thus: "we have no money, what do we do, let's go bitch the government" It's simple. And here you are buying into all this pap.
b) Yes, I am pro-American.
c) Regulation should be feared. Usually regulations come about because some asshole with connections is trying to sway the government into making me buy a product or force me out of business.
d) I really don't like Opera, when it comes down it. I tried it and even though it has all the right pieces on paper, the u/i is graceless and the pages themselves look like crap, even if they are within spec.
Yeah, because when I'm being protectionist I implement policies that promote four US companies in addition to one european one that isn't a member state of the European Union I work f
That blurs the issue. Opera is getting a free thing. Whether or not other browsers are getting it, doesn't matter. Opera filed the legal complaint, and they are getting free ads for doing so.
Christ almighty... when will learn that interoperability between parties, is one feature, among many. If you want interoperability, go ahead and use that thing. I don't -care- about it nearly as much and I don't need people like you trying to make me pay some kind of a tax.
When Netscape sucked, I wrote for IE. When IE took the plunge, I write for Firefox. If users like the content, they can switch browsers. It's not -that- hard.
The Browser Ballot screen is really just free advertising for Opera. Opera isn't good enough to generate buzz like the way FireFox does, so they whine to regulators... "we're europeans ...." So now they get free advertising from Microsoft. Must be nice.
Somehow I suspect that those calls in the "Benchmark" result from using a checked version of ths STL. With Visual C++ > 2005 you have to add quite some defines to eliminate these checks even in release mode.
That's definitely it. I -assumed-, wrongly, I guess, that STL iterators were supposed to be checked out of the box. I'm glad to see you can choose to live performantly, but really, at this point, I'm going to be writing some pleasant articles about the lovely KDevelop4 and GCC 4.4. I really like the new Ubuntu.
Yeah, that is the story then. Visual C++ compiler sucks. Why are we not that surprised?
White people are a minority, world wide speaking, and that's the market for games. So of course you are going to have lots of other kinds of people. There's two kinds of liberalism, media liberalism and movement liberalism, and the two are DIFFERENT. Media liberalism is really just about internationalization so that they can sell the same crappy content to everyone. Conservatives that think that the media is liberal are just blind to this.
1) Your programs don't even do the same thing since some of them have multiple increments of the loop variable.
Ah FRAK... the one example does, indeed. I would expect that to skew that particular C# benchmark slightly. Once I get out of my Linux box I'll fix that.
I'm not of the opinion that insert-high-level-language-with-GC-here is necessarily slower than insert-C-or-C++-or-whatever-here, but bullshit benchmarks aren't going to help make that case.
For STL vector, using an iterator isn't necessarily idiomatic because the whole point of the vector is to have random access via an integer index. It's designed to be a replacement for a standard C array.
When you say to use the iterator like that, with the expectation that the iterator will compile away the array index check and leave a nice pointer loop, you are really saying that you want to move the loop bounds check out of the equation.
In a sense that makes the use of the array almost pointless. If you didn't need random access in a program, you wouldn't even need the vector. You would likely use a std::list in C++, whereas in C# you would use List, and that would something I'd look at in a future article.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that a GC-based, VM-based language that has layers of intermediate execution is going to be slower than is required for a trading system
I don't think that's necessarily has to be the case. I've been doing some benchmarking and disassembly and frankly, yes, if you use C++ native arrays, rather than STL, then C++ will be faster. But, if you go down the path of STL, then C++ is going to be -significantly slower-.
I have some benchmarks and dissembly comparisons here:
http://www.treatyist.com/issue1/cpp_vs_csharp_arrays.aspx
If there is a hole in how Microsoft did things, it is most likely that the consulting group they partnered with is a bunch of retards. Having a Gold membership or whatever their solution program is absolutely no guarantee that anyone works for them is remotely competent. From that we ask, what could have Accenture screwed up?
Well, they could have blindly followed a Gang O' Four Pattern but with giant XML SOAP blobs flying all over the place. They could have forgotten that SQL Server is kind of a shitty database for doing high volumes of transactions with simultaneous reporting unless you use MVCC. They might not have even known what MVCC is. They could have used BizTalk or something really stupid like that, or, maybe in the middle of it they thought they'd get their smarts on and write their own socket server for whatever reason and unwittingly rewrote a single threaded apache 1.0 because they didn't know what they are doing. We don't know.
Bottom line is, its not the language, but the architecture that matters most, in any design. The thing about Linux is, that, the out of the box LAMP stack is a surprisingly robust pattern to cookie cutter all over the place and is fairly flexible, and in any case Linux teams tend to have more real CS people who know what the hell they are doing. I would be willing to bet that if you took the winning Linux team, and said, they had to write it in Mono, they would still have come up with a solution that was pretty good.
I got Hirohito saying it was the bomb:
"Indeed, we declared war on America and Britain out of our sincere desire to insure Japan's self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia, it being far from our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement.
But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone--the gallant fighting of our military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of out servants of the State and the devoted service of our 100,000,000 people--the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.
Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
Such being the case, how are we to save the millions of our subjects, nor to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of our imperial ancestors? This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers."
It's not an excuse, it's a realization of the grim truth. Reread my post, we agree that it won't change Verizon's actions. It *will* free you individually from the failings of Verizon. That's about as good as it gets these days
Has the thought occurred to you that maybe most of Verizon's other customers don't care if those people in that unreachable zone, cannot be reached? Like, if Verizon decreed that they would no longer provide access to google, there would be a stampede to the door. There hasn't been, so maybe, its just not a big deal.
I'm sick of this excuse. Voting with your dollar works when your dollar is the only dollar.
Let's see. You pick up your marbles from the big bad company, and nobody else leaves with you. So... your answer is to try and impose your will on everyone else. Maybe all those other people simply didn't care about the same issue as you. Like, maybe your opinion doesn't matter.
First off, why on earth is the developer still using Visual Studio 2005? We're on Visual Studio 2008, SP1. That, right there, raises a red flag. If someone compiled something with an ancient version of gcc and found out it didn't work, when distributed, on more up to date Linux distributions, wouldn't you think that the appropriate response would be for our man to get his tools straightened out first?
I would think that if the author shipped his system with a copy of the runtimes and had them install in his application directory, he would have no problem at all. The Windows DLL load order is application directory first, then, some other stuff, so his application should always have the right libraries, if he shipped them. In fact, I even think there's some sort of a doohickey that you can do to have Windows look for COM components first in your own directory before it looks for them in common areas. There's no need to have "DLL hell" at all, unless the developer really asks for it.
Frankly, I doubt DLLs of the relatively small size of the CRT should even be used any more across different applications from different vendors.
1. First, you cannot possibly test your application with all the different versions and patch versions of DLLs that are out there, because patch releases now are way too fast. Reliability, right now, not performance, is the pre-eminent problem in the software community.
2. The static linker is now actually capable of removing unused code, from an image, it could not do that before.
3. DLLs have to be relocated when an application loads them into its own process space, so you take a performance hit there.
4. The Windows API has 95% of what you would need the C runtime to do. This isn't like Linux, where, you would die without libc trying to make heads or tales of syscalls and what not. On Windows, I struggle to think of a CRT call that could not be done nearly as simply as in SDK directly. For files there's CreateFile, WriteFile, etc. All of the basic string functions exist within the SDK, and the stuff to display formatted strings in the SDK is better than what the CRT gives you anyway. It's a bit more involved, but, there's articles out there on how to not have a CRT at all. In fact, applications that use the ATL and WTL frameworks even support not having the CRT code, just so you can write really, really tiny applications and gasp, COM components.
And I'm going from the historians
What, did Gore Vidal suddenly call himself a historian now? Every mainstream history has Japan surrendering because of the bomb.
Also, they still didn't know what had hit them at time of surrender.
Yes they did. The Japanese weren't stupid. They just didn't have the raw materials.
That's actually not true. A british liberal paper went through the Japanese records and found that:
a) Japanese terms for surrender negotiated through the Russians would have basically given them China. Japan made no territorial concessions.
b) Russia had no navy to get troops onto Japan. Part of the reason for Russian success on the Continent against Japan was because Japan was busy moving the Imperial Army back to Japan to prepare to fend off an American invasion. Unlike the battered air force and virtually destroyed navy, the Japanese Army was a million man strong and essentially intact.
c) Americans had underestimated the strength of Japan during the planning of Olympic. And, unlike the Germans, the Japanese did't fall for any American deception and knew exactly where the Americans were to land.
d) The Emperor was actually a prime mover in the war and he would rather take the whole island down with him than give up the throne. It was -only- because of the atomic bombings that he realized that the Americans could literally kill everyone in Japan without even a shot fired back.
e) The Emperor never actually surrendered in his speech to the Japanese people. Go read it.
The great tragedy of the atomic bombing was that, really, the emperor was not deposed and tried as a war criminal. But McArthur liked him and to some extent Americans read Japanese aggression as a mishandling of a trade dispute. If you put in free trade, the story goes, Japan could get raw materials and export, and thus, would not need an empire.
I'll just through it out there. Israel is not a bunch of halfwitted fruitcake dopes like Iran is. If you think Iran and Israel are even remotely the same, show me the CPU architecture designed in Iran that stacks up against the likes of Yonah and now Nehalem.
Please... all those people do over there is collect wives, read the Koran, and then collects a check from the west for pumping oil.
I think there are a lot of salespeople that would prefer that this sort of behavior was penalized because it undermines their profession as a whole. Will they give you a hard sell, try to give you the positives? Yes. But to out and out lie is something the best salespeople that I know would never do. They might be aggressive, but they are honest. Besides, the easiest customer to get is the one you already got. If you, as a salesman, lie to your customer, you will not get repeat business from them.
I can't see how liberals say that Bush was against freedom when they first argued away the enumerated powers doctrine of the constitution, then, argued away half of the bill of rights, then argued in favor of increased regulation in all regards, and confiscatory taxation, and suddenly, wow, Bush is the bad guy. Even now, the liberal agenda is going to be enslave much of the country to pay for health insurance for those who are not competent enough to get it for themselves, will effectively place taxes on the fundamental right of building a fire, will disarm a law abiding populace ... but they are the party of freedom?
Seriously, Bush was an asshole for doing the travel restrictions, but Dems ran in 2006 on implementing ALL of the TSA recommendations and that included a national ID card for everyone. Bottom line is, anyone looking to Dems to increase their freedom is a total retard. The most practical way to get more freedom is to gut the federal government.
If the USA wants to act like it is a different sort of multinational nation that is a kind of capital of the world, then it cannot arbitrarily bar people of that world from travelling to and from it.
Sorry, but the law has to be inconsistent, otherwise, I doubt it could exist.
It just needs to be more organized. Consistency doesn't matter.