My guess is that, in the case of Mongolia, and perhaps a few other countries, "strong ally" means they don't dare do other than what China wants. This may not be a fervent ally, but it's a strong one, whether the populace likes it or not.
Why are you assuming "at the internet level"? That would be nice, sure, but there are lots of other uses for ethernet, between end-points that aren't that far apart. Parallel processing, e.g. Not over copper, but, say, over light links. Yes, I'm thinking of using an internet protocol, so that light can be broadcast within the cabinet, and you don't need to match connections. You receive with photocells, and broadcast with any fast light source that's fast enough and bright enough and tunable enough. That probably means lasers (though you don't need much of a lens), but I don't want to rule out things I haven't considered. This means you don't need a system bus to pass signals between the processes. That's done with IP headers. The system bus only needs to handle things like power, blocks passing from disk to RAM, etc. So a couple of the cores have a strong connection to the full system bus, but most of them only get power and a very few basic control signals. Everything else goes over internal IP.
P.S.: I'm not thinking of building this beast, but someone will, and then I'll think of buying it. But for it to work, you need REALLY FAST ethernet connections. Terrabit might be a bit slow, unless you use a fancy frequency division system, so you can pass lots of signals in parallel. (I'm thinking of a variant of CSMACD where you listen first to see if a frequency is in use before you try to grab it. And instead of waiting for a random time if there's a collision detected, you try a random different frequency. But for that to work, you've got to be listening for your IP address on LOTS of different frequencies.)
That he is actually *is* guilty is an interesting assertion. I wouldn't say it's implausible, but I certainly haven't seen any proof. Just lots of assertions without evidence.
OTOH, I had never heard of his company before this action. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason they couldn't find any evidence is because there isn't any to be found. Hearing lots of assertions of his guilt recited over and over makes me skeptical. And the more so because a large number of those reciting the accusations are "anonymous coward".
Still, the name of his company is a suspicious name, so I wouldn't be surprised if he actually is guilty, to some extent, of something. But that isn't the reason that I feel the police should be forced to follow the law, and punished SEVERELY when they break it. The reason for that is that anyone can have a politically powerful enemy, one they may not even know of. (There is an example of someone using police powers to aid his brother-in--law. This was, IIRC, a British police sergeant [equivalent?], so not someone you would normally think of as a high ranking political enemy, but because of access to police computers and records, he effectively was one.)
Whenever any individual is in a position of greater than normal power, that individual should also be held to a stricter than normal standard of behavior. WHENEVER! It's much more reasonable to forgive those who are relatively powerless for minor transgressions.
You can sue anyone over anything, if you have the money, and you dare. Getting any justice is another matter. What you get is lawyer's bills. You can also get stuck with whopping court costs that equal your opposition's lawyers bills, and perhaps with their lawyer bills to boot. (I'm assuming that you are suing someone, or some corporation, who is wealthier than you are, and better politically connected...though that's not a simple thing to figure out, and some corporations have been surprised.)
Now what I said doesn't apply in all cases, but suing anyone over anything is dangerous.
It reflects poorly, BECAUSE most people don't like to hear strong opinions clearly expressed.
I will also grant that it wasn't a good technical analysis of why the idea was batshit crazy. And it didn't define the term carefully. But I suspect that most people knew what he meant, and wouldn't have read a long and detailed analysis of all the reasons that it was batshit crazy.
If you're going to be politically correct, you need to waffle and obscure your position. Otherwise it will reflect poorly on you.
Given that definition, modal dialogs should *NEVER* come up. They are appropriate to lock the process of the application that they are attached to. It is never appropriate to lock the function of all other applications.
Unfortunately, the way modal dialogs are implemented in the system is in this broken way. And one *does* want the dialog to bounce to the top of the screen (z axis) so that the user sees it. And it needs to be separate from the rest of the dialogs, so that it can be on top while the rest of the application is lower down. This is usually done properly, but I have no idea how Gnome3 handles it. That way you can look up information in another application to properly reply to the modal dialog.
Well, I'm not talking about how it's done, but about how it should be done. I've seen it done that way, but I have no idea as to whether it was actually implemented using system modal dialogs. Personally, I just avoid using the beasts. When I must do something similar, there's application specific code that takes a normal dialog and causes it to lock other parts of the UI FOR THAT APPLICATION!!! It also grants the dialog focus, and ensures that it's at the top of the stack (z-axis). But it doesn't interfere with other applications.
I can see occasional uses for the common modal dialog in system library routines. Nowhere else.
The thing is, there's broken by bugs, and then there's broken by design. Gnome3 is so broken by design that I've never even noticed any bugs. And the designers don't appear to have noticed that it's broken by design, so there's no way they'll fix the bugs.
Yes, the same thing happened with the KDE3->KDE4 upgrade, which is why I even *care* about the fate of Gnome. And KDE4 is still broken by design. Not as badly broken as Gnome3, but it "broken by design" bugs don't tend to get fixed, because the implementers can't see the problems. I see no indication that the Gnome crew is any different. They've even promised to remove the capability of making the changes that various people have implemented to make the system usable. ("Tweaks", etc.)
I sometimes suspect that both the KDE and the Gnome designers are in the pay of Microsoft, but I *trust* that's mere paranoia. It's too much like normal human behavior to need that kind of an explanation.
KDE4 is better than Gnome3, but that's a pretty low bar. It's not nearly as good as KDE3, or even Gnome2. Of course, I'm not using a tablet, or I might have other opinions.
If SUSE weren't essentially broken, I'd switch to it merely because it's kept the KDE3 desktop available. Unfortunately, the live disk won't even boot on my computer. (Who knows why. All I can see is a solid green screen.)
When Debian drops Gnome2 I'll probably switch to LXDE for awhile. (That's what I'm using on my testing partition.) But perhaps I'll switch to MATE. The last time I tried it, it needed more work, but by the time I need it, it will have HAD more work. (I do strongly prefer Gnome2 over LXDE, and LXDE over KDE4, which should give you some idea of where I place Gnome3.)
That's actually being proposed as a system called Car-Talk, to allow cars to see around corners. Sounds reasonable. *Sounds* like it could be secure. Will it be? Who knows. Some idiot may decide to use a Turing complete protocol. But for now it sounds good.
My understanding was that the basic.NET features were covered by the promise, but that some of the basic libraries weren't. I'll admit that I was never interested enough to remember the details. Something like "it didn't cover the window manager classes from the library".
No, but in my experience cows will wander even with food available, if they aren't in a stall. (Granted, they don't object to sticking their head in where they can get the food.)
For that matter, some cows will kick the pail, but I've never been certain whether this was that they didn't want you to milk them (even though they clearly did), clumsiness, or a weird sense of humor. Or maybe they just feel tickled.
N.B.: I can clearly see an argument that can be made in many circumstances that the cows are agreeing to a deal that lets you milk them in exchange for food (and the relief of internal pressure). I think it's often true. But then don't fences count as a form of coercion?
OTOH, now that I think on it, I have seen eggs under the chicken roost, so you gain that point. But again, don't fences count as a form of coercion? (I know that they're to keep out skunks, foxes, etc., but the chickens clearly don't agree to them...except when they do.)
Claiming a volitional agreement with an animal that can't speak and has a short attention span is always going to be problematic. I can see your point if the chickens were unconfined...but in that case there better not be much traffic, and no "varmints" (which includes ill-mannered dogs as much as foxes and weasels).
If they had been successful, MS had already pledged to sue them "To defend our intellectual property". Now that was only an MS vice-president, so while he's an official spokesman, he might not know the true plan. But it was said, and never denied.
We've been trying for a long time to come up with a universal language; Partly in case we ever contact E.T., but also because of the problem of language fragmentation. Human language tends to diverge, not converge. How do you manage to tell someone how to construct a complex device from scratch, without any linguistic foundation and scientific understanding to build from?
I can see you've never milked a cow or raised chickens. Though I suppose some modern breeds might just leave their eggs, it's not normal chicken behavior. Generally they secrete them in a nest that is intended to protect them. And will often come back to check on them. So they aren't consenting to your taking their eggs. If they think they can get away with it they will often even peck at you. (Lets not talk about how aggressive roosters can be.)
Cows are milked in stalls, because if you don't they WILL walk away while you're milking them. Even then, there's "delicious" food in the manger to keep them placid.
What I was asserting was that I had more frequently heard of christian groups infringing on copyright than I had heard of muslim groups doing so. And I hypothesized that a good part of the reason was that christian groups had more access to video editors, at least in English.
This may or may not be an incorrect hypothesis. There could be other reasons. But it was definitely about copyright infringement.
Well, christians do it more frequently, or at least I hear about christians doing it more frequently. Doesn't make the muslims good guys, though. Just less frequently having access to video editors (at least in English).
Did you notice that it requires the Apache 2.0 license? To me that means the goal is more software that they can copy without more than acknowledging...and even that not even visibly (except, possibly, at installation).
OTOH, I do consider it possible that I don't understand the Apache 2.0 license. It *is* compatible with GPL3.0, though. So if you can get the source, you can use it. But I suspect you can't get the source to the libraries that you need to build on. (I wasn't interested enough to push things any further, so I didn't check. That's just my paranoid supposition.)
OK. I don't have any answers, but here are some rules of thumb: 1) Nobody who is willing to exert much effort to achieve power should have power. 2) Centralized authority will become corrupt. 3) Situations frequently need to be dealt with quickly.
So... To solve -1-, select the leaders by draft lottery. No excuses, but some qualifications. (What?) N.B.: This makes solving -2- and -3- more urgent, but at the same time it's a partial solution to -2-.
To solve -2-, government officials are forbidden to accept any reward, payment, or recompense from anyone except the government. this continues to apply for 5-10 years after they step down. They are, however, entitled to an income from the government of twice the median income during that period of time. (If this gets changed, have an extra rule that no change in recompense from the government will apply to anyone currently holding office.)
To solve -3-, centralized (top) authority is divided up among 5 individuals chosen by lot (as specified in -1-). A majority concurrence is required. There are staggered terms of 5 years, so each year there's a new member who needs to be brought up to speed. (Note that occasionally with a lotter system, the selected individual will be a real loser. With a group of 5 you'll probably have one loser, one winner, a couple of average joes, and one neophyte who is learning the ropes. But none of them will have gotten there because they lust for power.)
All currently elected officials should be selected by lottery, but generally there will be enough diffusion of power so that this complex arrangement to allow reasonably quick probably correct action even in the presence of an ass isn't necessary.
It's also true that the entire bureaucracy needs revamping. People need to be made responsible for their use of official power. But the details of that aren't obvious.
O, yes, and it should be made blatantly clear that corporations are not people, and have no right of free speech. That right is solely inherent in the intelligences that operate the corporations. (I didn't say people this time, because I feel that any AI that can demand it's rights, should be allowed them. It should also be made clear that money does not equal speech. Bribing politicians, under whatever guise (including campaign contributions...which this system is designed to eliminate) should be a major felony, up there with kidnapping a government official.
While I do know people who match your description, I don't believe it describes even near to a majority. But it does appear to match the majority of management, and the majority of politicians. And I suspect that it's a systematic thing. I used to think that only those motivated to become cutthroat would possess the psychotic drive to devote the time and energy necessary to get elected, but as I observed longer it seems more and more that there's some factor built into the system that will take well-meaning people and corrupt them. And it seems to exist at all levels, from the bottom to the top.
Perhaps it's television. Do role-playing games produce the same kind of character change? If so, what factors cause them to do so. If not, what differences avoid that change. Clearly more research is necessary, as it's a statistical issue, so one or two cases won't answer the question.
Another question is "Did people always prefer to vote for psychopathic leaders?" There's some evidence that they did. One certainly can't deny Teddy Rooseveldt's popularity, even if his party did eventually disown him. Very few presidents have ever shown much concern for the lower classes. Whether this is convenient blindness or a paralized empathy is not always clear. And most presidents become consumed by a monstrous egotism, though admittedly it doesn't always manifest in a destructive manner. (i've always thought that a president should have as many sexual affairs as he could find time for, with the requirement that in all cases mutual consent is required. Keeps him out of worse mischief.)
I can see how astonishingly well informed you are. And your vast personal experience.
P.S.: I'm not denying that you may know of a case that merits your attitude. I'd be a fool to deny that such exist. They are such a slim portion of the poor and disabled that you could search for a year picking one person a day AT RANDOM without finding an example. (Yes, there are biased sampling methods that can reliably find them. That is irrelevant.)
This was a stereotype created during WWII, to describe the Fascist states (which *did* require that kind of card carrying, at least in occupied countries). Later it was expanded to include, I don't know with what justice, the USSR. It was probably also enforced there mainly in areas subject to unrest. Like Georgia.. (Was it enforced? I don't know.)
As such the gp (ggp?) is contrasting the US with those stereotypes. He's forgotten "You become that which you attack.".
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is that, in the case of Mongolia, and perhaps a few other countries, "strong ally" means they don't dare do other than what China wants. This may not be a fervent ally, but it's a strong one, whether the populace likes it or not.
Why are you assuming "at the internet level"? That would be nice, sure, but there are lots of other uses for ethernet, between end-points that aren't that far apart. Parallel processing, e.g. Not over copper, but, say, over light links. Yes, I'm thinking of using an internet protocol, so that light can be broadcast within the cabinet, and you don't need to match connections. You receive with photocells, and broadcast with any fast light source that's fast enough and bright enough and tunable enough. That probably means lasers (though you don't need much of a lens), but I don't want to rule out things I haven't considered. This means you don't need a system bus to pass signals between the processes. That's done with IP headers. The system bus only needs to handle things like power, blocks passing from disk to RAM, etc. So a couple of the cores have a strong connection to the full system bus, but most of them only get power and a very few basic control signals. Everything else goes over internal IP.
P.S.: I'm not thinking of building this beast, but someone will, and then I'll think of buying it. But for it to work, you need REALLY FAST ethernet connections. Terrabit might be a bit slow, unless you use a fancy frequency division system, so you can pass lots of signals in parallel. (I'm thinking of a variant of CSMACD where you listen first to see if a frequency is in use before you try to grab it. And instead of waiting for a random time if there's a collision detected, you try a random different frequency. But for that to work, you've got to be listening for your IP address on LOTS of different frequencies.)
That he is actually *is* guilty is an interesting assertion. I wouldn't say it's implausible, but I certainly haven't seen any proof. Just lots of assertions without evidence.
OTOH, I had never heard of his company before this action. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason they couldn't find any evidence is because there isn't any to be found. Hearing lots of assertions of his guilt recited over and over makes me skeptical. And the more so because a large number of those reciting the accusations are "anonymous coward".
Still, the name of his company is a suspicious name, so I wouldn't be surprised if he actually is guilty, to some extent, of something. But that isn't the reason that I feel the police should be forced to follow the law, and punished SEVERELY when they break it. The reason for that is that anyone can have a politically powerful enemy, one they may not even know of. (There is an example of someone using police powers to aid his brother-in--law. This was, IIRC, a British police sergeant [equivalent?], so not someone you would normally think of as a high ranking political enemy, but because of access to police computers and records, he effectively was one.)
Whenever any individual is in a position of greater than normal power, that individual should also be held to a stricter than normal standard of behavior. WHENEVER! It's much more reasonable to forgive those who are relatively powerless for minor transgressions.
You can sue anyone over anything, if you have the money, and you dare. Getting any justice is another matter. What you get is lawyer's bills. You can also get stuck with whopping court costs that equal your opposition's lawyers bills, and perhaps with their lawyer bills to boot. (I'm assuming that you are suing someone, or some corporation, who is wealthier than you are, and better politically connected...though that's not a simple thing to figure out, and some corporations have been surprised.)
Now what I said doesn't apply in all cases, but suing anyone over anything is dangerous.
You mean because you get sunstroke and dehydration rather than frostbite?
It reflects poorly, BECAUSE most people don't like to hear strong opinions clearly expressed.
I will also grant that it wasn't a good technical analysis of why the idea was batshit crazy. And it didn't define the term carefully. But I suspect that most people knew what he meant, and wouldn't have read a long and detailed analysis of all the reasons that it was batshit crazy.
If you're going to be politically correct, you need to waffle and obscure your position. Otherwise it will reflect poorly on you.
Given that definition, modal dialogs should *NEVER* come up. They are appropriate to lock the process of the application that they are attached to. It is never appropriate to lock the function of all other applications.
Unfortunately, the way modal dialogs are implemented in the system is in this broken way. And one *does* want the dialog to bounce to the top of the screen (z axis) so that the user sees it. And it needs to be separate from the rest of the dialogs, so that it can be on top while the rest of the application is lower down. This is usually done properly, but I have no idea how Gnome3 handles it. That way you can look up information in another application to properly reply to the modal dialog.
Well, I'm not talking about how it's done, but about how it should be done. I've seen it done that way, but I have no idea as to whether it was actually implemented using system modal dialogs. Personally, I just avoid using the beasts. When I must do something similar, there's application specific code that takes a normal dialog and causes it to lock other parts of the UI FOR THAT APPLICATION!!! It also grants the dialog focus, and ensures that it's at the top of the stack (z-axis). But it doesn't interfere with other applications.
I can see occasional uses for the common modal dialog in system library routines. Nowhere else.
The thing is, there's broken by bugs, and then there's broken by design. Gnome3 is so broken by design that I've never even noticed any bugs. And the designers don't appear to have noticed that it's broken by design, so there's no way they'll fix the bugs.
Yes, the same thing happened with the KDE3->KDE4 upgrade, which is why I even *care* about the fate of Gnome. And KDE4 is still broken by design. Not as badly broken as Gnome3, but it "broken by design" bugs don't tend to get fixed, because the implementers can't see the problems. I see no indication that the Gnome crew is any different. They've even promised to remove the capability of making the changes that various people have implemented to make the system usable. ("Tweaks", etc.)
I sometimes suspect that both the KDE and the Gnome designers are in the pay of Microsoft, but I *trust* that's mere paranoia. It's too much like normal human behavior to need that kind of an explanation.
KDE4 is better than Gnome3, but that's a pretty low bar. It's not nearly as good as KDE3, or even Gnome2. Of course, I'm not using a tablet, or I might have other opinions.
If SUSE weren't essentially broken, I'd switch to it merely because it's kept the KDE3 desktop available. Unfortunately, the live disk won't even boot on my computer. (Who knows why. All I can see is a solid green screen.)
When Debian drops Gnome2 I'll probably switch to LXDE for awhile. (That's what I'm using on my testing partition.) But perhaps I'll switch to MATE. The last time I tried it, it needed more work, but by the time I need it, it will have HAD more work. (I do strongly prefer Gnome2 over LXDE, and LXDE over KDE4, which should give you some idea of where I place Gnome3.)
That's actually being proposed as a system called Car-Talk, to allow cars to see around corners. Sounds reasonable. *Sounds* like it could be secure. Will it be? Who knows. Some idiot may decide to use a Turing complete protocol. But for now it sounds good.
My understanding was that the basic .NET features were covered by the promise, but that some of the basic libraries weren't. I'll admit that I was never interested enough to remember the details. Something like "it didn't cover the window manager classes from the library".
No, but in my experience cows will wander even with food available, if they aren't in a stall. (Granted, they don't object to sticking their head in where they can get the food.)
For that matter, some cows will kick the pail, but I've never been certain whether this was that they didn't want you to milk them (even though they clearly did), clumsiness, or a weird sense of humor. Or maybe they just feel tickled.
N.B.: I can clearly see an argument that can be made in many circumstances that the cows are agreeing to a deal that lets you milk them in exchange for food (and the relief of internal pressure). I think it's often true. But then don't fences count as a form of coercion?
OTOH, now that I think on it, I have seen eggs under the chicken roost, so you gain that point. But again, don't fences count as a form of coercion? (I know that they're to keep out skunks, foxes, etc., but the chickens clearly don't agree to them...except when they do.)
Claiming a volitional agreement with an animal that can't speak and has a short attention span is always going to be problematic. I can see your point if the chickens were unconfined...but in that case there better not be much traffic, and no "varmints" (which includes ill-mannered dogs as much as foxes and weasels).
Have YOU heard about how compatible they were?
If they had been successful, MS had already pledged to sue them "To defend our intellectual property". Now that was only an MS vice-president, so while he's an official spokesman, he might not know the true plan. But it was said, and never denied.
With interest?
We've been trying for a long time to come up with a universal language; Partly in case we ever contact E.T., but also because of the problem of language fragmentation. Human language tends to diverge, not converge. How do you manage to tell someone how to construct a complex device from scratch, without any linguistic foundation and scientific understanding to build from?
Cuneiform and clay tablets!
I can see you've never milked a cow or raised chickens. Though I suppose some modern breeds might just leave their eggs, it's not normal chicken behavior. Generally they secrete them in a nest that is intended to protect them. And will often come back to check on them. So they aren't consenting to your taking their eggs. If they think they can get away with it they will often even peck at you. (Lets not talk about how aggressive roosters can be.)
Cows are milked in stalls, because if you don't they WILL walk away while you're milking them. Even then, there's "delicious" food in the manger to keep them placid.
What I was asserting was that I had more frequently heard of christian groups infringing on copyright than I had heard of muslim groups doing so. And I hypothesized that a good part of the reason was that christian groups had more access to video editors, at least in English.
This may or may not be an incorrect hypothesis. There could be other reasons. But it was definitely about copyright infringement.
What does that have to do with infringing copyright?
Yes, but if I read the contest rules correctly, to enter the contest you must use the Apache 2.0 license.
Well, christians do it more frequently, or at least I hear about christians doing it more frequently. Doesn't make the muslims good guys, though. Just less frequently having access to video editors (at least in English).
Did you notice that it requires the Apache 2.0 license? To me that means the goal is more software that they can copy without more than acknowledging...and even that not even visibly (except, possibly, at installation).
OTOH, I do consider it possible that I don't understand the Apache 2.0 license. It *is* compatible with GPL3.0, though. So if you can get the source, you can use it. But I suspect you can't get the source to the libraries that you need to build on. (I wasn't interested enough to push things any further, so I didn't check. That's just my paranoid supposition.)
OK. I don't have any answers, but here are some rules of thumb:
1) Nobody who is willing to exert much effort to achieve power should have power.
2) Centralized authority will become corrupt.
3) Situations frequently need to be dealt with quickly.
So...
To solve -1-, select the leaders by draft lottery. No excuses, but some qualifications. (What?) N.B.: This makes solving -2- and -3- more urgent, but at the same time it's a partial solution to -2-.
To solve -2-, government officials are forbidden to accept any reward, payment, or recompense from anyone except the government.
this continues to apply for 5-10 years after they step down. They are, however, entitled to an income from the government of twice the median income during that period of time. (If this gets changed, have an extra rule that no change in recompense from the government will apply to anyone currently holding office.)
To solve -3-, centralized (top) authority is divided up among 5 individuals chosen by lot (as specified in -1-). A majority concurrence is required. There are staggered terms of 5 years, so each year there's a new member who needs to be brought up to speed. (Note that occasionally with a lotter system, the selected individual will be a real loser. With a group of 5 you'll probably have one loser, one winner, a couple of average joes, and one neophyte who is learning the ropes. But none of them will have gotten there because they lust for power.)
All currently elected officials should be selected by lottery, but generally there will be enough diffusion of power so that this complex arrangement to allow reasonably quick probably correct action even in the presence of an ass isn't necessary.
It's also true that the entire bureaucracy needs revamping. People need to be made responsible for their use of official power. But the details of that aren't obvious.
O, yes, and it should be made blatantly clear that corporations are not people, and have no right of free speech. That right is solely inherent in the intelligences that operate the corporations. (I didn't say people this time, because I feel that any AI that can demand it's rights, should be allowed them. It should also be made clear that money does not equal speech. Bribing politicians, under whatever guise (including campaign contributions...which this system is designed to eliminate) should be a major felony, up there with kidnapping a government official.
While I do know people who match your description, I don't believe it describes even near to a majority. But it does appear to match the majority of management, and the majority of politicians. And I suspect that it's a systematic thing. I used to think that only those motivated to become cutthroat would possess the psychotic drive to devote the time and energy necessary to get elected, but as I observed longer it seems more and more that there's some factor built into the system that will take well-meaning people and corrupt them. And it seems to exist at all levels, from the bottom to the top.
Perhaps it's television. Do role-playing games produce the same kind of character change? If so, what factors cause them to do so. If not, what differences avoid that change. Clearly more research is necessary, as it's a statistical issue, so one or two cases won't answer the question.
Another question is "Did people always prefer to vote for psychopathic leaders?" There's some evidence that they did. One certainly can't deny Teddy Rooseveldt's popularity, even if his party did eventually disown him. Very few presidents have ever shown much concern for the lower classes. Whether this is convenient blindness or a paralized empathy is not always clear. And most presidents become consumed by a monstrous egotism, though admittedly it doesn't always manifest in a destructive manner. (i've always thought that a president should have as many sexual affairs as he could find time for, with the requirement that in all cases mutual consent is required. Keeps him out of worse mischief.)
I can see how astonishingly well informed you are. And your vast personal experience.
P.S.: I'm not denying that you may know of a case that merits your attitude. I'd be a fool to deny that such exist. They are such a slim portion of the poor and disabled that you could search for a year picking one person a day AT RANDOM without finding an example. (Yes, there are biased sampling methods that can reliably find them. That is irrelevant.)
This was a stereotype created during WWII, to describe the Fascist states (which *did* require that kind of card carrying, at least in occupied countries). Later it was expanded to include, I don't know with what justice, the USSR. It was probably also enforced there mainly in areas subject to unrest. Like Georgia.. (Was it enforced? I don't know.)
As such the gp (ggp?) is contrasting the US with those stereotypes. He's forgotten "You become that which you attack.".