1) If they don't have the original disk, they don't get the software. 2) I don't agree to any EULAs. You get to read and agree to all of them. If you don't, that's your choice, but the software won't be installed. 3) Could I interest you in an alternative? I have this handy Knoppix disk here to show what I'm offering, and what I *will* support.
Granted, I don't do this for a company, but even when I did I wouldn't agree to the EULAs. (As you might guess, this WASN'T my primary job. I was a programmer. And I tried to do my development in Linux. And I tried for cross-platform. But for times when I *HAD* to develop in MSWind, someone else agreed to the EULAs. I *read* the bloody things, and there was no way *I* was agreeing to them!)
E.g., paraphrased from a MS EULA: "You agree that MS has the right to add, remove, modify, or delete any file that it chooses at any time, with or without notifying you." There was also something in there which I understand has been interpreted to mean that you agree in advance to allow them to enter your place of business and conduct an audit without warning and without reimbursing you for any damages that might be caused by the process. Nice stuff.
Some jurisdictions have held that EULAs are legally binding contracts. Do you live in one? How do you know? (I don't know whether I do or not, but as a matter of consideration for the authors [and self protection], I choose not to do business with them rather than violate their expressed wishes.)
Actually, it's even an offense to develop tools that it could be claimed are for the purpose of circumventing the copy protection. The DMCA is a thoroughly evil law. The only redeeming feature that it has, is that it could have been worse.
While this argument is correct, it seems to me a valid argument against extradition.
Yeah, what he (did | is asserted to have done) is stupid, the results that he claims to fear AREN'T legal. And they probably violate the treaty arrangements under which extradition is agreed upon. (E.g., serial murder is definitely not a nice thing to do, but capital punishment for it violates the extradition agreement, so those accused of that won't be extradited from Britain to countries with the death penalty.)
Why should anyone care whether they are evil because others urged them to be evil, or because they chose to be evil of their own free will?
I will admit that evil is a bit of strong term to use when describing Dell. Opportunistically amoral comes closer.
Is he testing the waters on backstabbing MS? Intel? Is he just flapping his lips to make noise? Or are we supposed to only attribute his opportunistically amoral actions to MS and Intel, and any noble and progressive actions he can dig up to his own true integrity?
Sorry, this interview causes me to despise Mr. Dell. I don't know whether it's any more accurate than news stories usually are, but...sheesh! He needs to screen his conversations through a press secretary...that way he'd at least have someone to blame.
It would actually be fairer to say "The companies don't choose to do anything right." That would be a true statement, as opposed to the one which you created.
That said, since their goals and mine are so different, I doubt whether they will ever come up with an offer that I find tempting...of course, they would also need different bait. I stopped watching TV decades ago because there wasn't anything worth watching. It's true that an excess of commercials drives up the cost of watching, but even without ads (or with minimal ads) they still didn't offer anything I would go out of my way to see...much less pay money to see. So if they wish to satisfy me (which they don't, as I wouldn't be a part of their audience), they would need to do it strictly on moral grounds.
Abuse of the legal system (and I count being covered by the DMCA as abuse...it's a threat, even if you don't use it) is an action I find immoral. Therefore any action they could take that would satisfy me would avoid being covered by the DMCA. Now strictly speaking that's not possible, but I would definitely require the avoidance of any "technical measures of copy protection" (I think I've got that quote right. I wouldn't require this because it's intrinsically immoral, it isn't, but in the current legal system it HAS BECOME immoral. I didn't buy the law, so don't blame me. I campaigned against it, but law it is, and therefore what used to be moral has become immoral.
Sorry, but it's always been jerky, not actually being a law of nature. This doesn't mean that the long term trend won't still match the projection, just that you can't use it short term or you'll get both over and underestimates.
That said, it will hit a wall some day. Just when is still up in the air, and depends on, probably the most, on when people run out of reasons to buy fancier computers.
This year, OK. Do you really expect that the companies will stay in this pattern?
The off-shoring situation is unstable. It is building up skills in foreign markets, where new businesses will form. THESE are where the new products will be coming from. And they will hire sales organizations to sell the products within the US, as long as the money holds out. Then they'll sell mainly to their own local customers, and to other markets that they develop.
The US is (intentionally?) deskilling itself. I suggest intentionally merely because it's government policies that are driving the trends, and it seems impossible for them to not see where they will lead within a decade or two. (Yes, this won't happen instantly. You have time to try to find an area where the US *isn't* sabotaging it's future. Will you be successful? That's less certain. Everywhere I've looked we seem to either be killing a currently productive business or sabotaging the attempt to start a new one. The only growth field appears to be lawyers specializing in lawsuits, and that (fortunately?) is *not* productive. Even when they are successful that at most redistribute wealth rather than producing it, and there's no particular evidence that the resulting distribution of wealth averages any fairer than the original was. (Remember the overhead costs.)
Finite math, to be precise. Or possibly Finite modular math.
If you want you could call it "applied information theory", or some such.
Computer science is nothing but math, which is why software patents should already be illegal. It doesn't explain why they're a bad idea, that's a different field.
Software patents DO stiffle innovation, but writing letters? Please! (Well, I do write letters, but Congress folk don't respond [except with form letters] without large enough donations to warrant a personal interview to discuss your concerns.)
Proof? Read the news! Or talk to a lawyer...one that isn't being paid to convince you that patents are good. No software developer should EVER read a patent. If you can be shown to have read a applicable patent, your potential fines TRIPLE. And patents are written by lawyers with the explicit intention of NOT "making patent" (i.e., revealing) that which is being patented. To do so would limit what you could claim the patent covered. There won't even usually be a partial example. We can thank Intel for this ruling. They managed to get the argument through 1) that demonstrating a binary implementation was sufficient for a patent and 2) they didn't need to file a listing of the binary. Don't you just *love* Intel?
...As someone who has tried over the past few years to hire top rate people I can safely...
Thank you for clearly labeling your interest in the matter. It seems reasonable that you should come down on the same side as the official IBM position, because you have the same interests. Probably in cheap labor willing to work overtime without pay, but you aren't explicit enough to be sure.
Were I starting college now, I would NOT choose CompSci. I'm not really sure just what I would choose, but then I haven't been devoting a lot of thought to the matter. Still, CompSci graduates aren't exactly doing well these days, and I'm quite happy that I got into the field 30 years ago. That said, I'm a technologist, NOT a manager (I've tried, that's not where my skills lie). It's not surprising that a manager should want different things than is optimal for the people doing the coding. (I almost said "doing the work", but managing is work...it's just work of a kind that is paid unjustly well. [N.B.: Entrepreneurs may reasonably claim risk justifies their pay scale, managers use deceit and power politics to reach the same level. There are good reasons why most managers so arrange things that THEIR pay scales are hidden.])
You may be mistaking malfeasance for incompetence. I know that it's usually more appropriate to assume that incompetence is the explanation, but there's really too consistent a pattern here for that to be suitable.
OTOH, if you do desire to ascribe their actions to incompetence, then they have risen that to such a level that it *should* be punished as malfeasance. (I.e., a heavy felony). I'm not saying that I believe that there's any chance of that. I don't believe it's incompetence. Well, not except on the part of a very few pre-selected fall guys. I expect that they are sufficiently competent that they will never pay any significant penalty for their crimes. (Fraud, and tampering with evidence, etc. are ones that they seem probably guilty of, though collecting evidence would be quite challenging...and pointless since there won't be any prosecution.)
All wars have "A LOT of support". Certain people can make money from them.
Korea was NOT a popular war, but it wasn't as bad as Viet Nam. You are right that I don't know how well justified it was. I wasn't there. Walt Kelly doesn't seem to have approved of it. The point, however, was that although this tarnished the heroic image of the american soldier, it was just a light coating. This wasn't enough that the government decided to remove the college sponsorship and cut the health benefits to ex-soldiers.
After Viet Nam, soldiers were seen as the oppressing party. Yes, they had some supporters, but not many, and of their supporters many saw them as victims of a stupid and evil system rather than as heros.
Here we are in ANOTHER senseless war. Every attempt at a justification has been shown to be a lie, and the government that has sent the soldiers over to die is already cutting their benefits, before the war is over. With NO popular complaint. These guys aren't seen as heros. They are victims. They are muggees, in the process of being mugged. Passers by avert their eyes, so they don't get involved.
The only image of a soldier from the current war that I have is a large man screaming at a little old lady who's carrying a sign against the war. He attacks her, and another demonstrator tackles him and forces him to the ground. So there he is, the veteran soldier being held to the ground by a peace marcher for assaulting a helpless victim. (This is from a news story, but we ARE talking about image.) Hero? Not likely. Incompetent maniac, possibly driven crazy by they army, and thus more a victim than a criminal, but still unsafe and insane. And not even any good at fighting. (Subdued by a peace-marcher.)
Image doesn't equal reality, but that is the image that I have gotten of the returned soldiers. And that image was shared to via a newspaper that got it off a wire service, so I'm not the only one to receive it. I don't watch TV. Possibly the soldiers are depicted as heroic on TV. I wouldn't bet on it. Their benefits are being cut, and there's no significant public complaint. They are being served food that makes K-rations look good. Contractors are getting rich, but there's no public complaint. These aren't even sympathetic victims that we're talking about here. These are people who are being used as the receiver in a particularly viscous round of slapstick. ("So then this schmuck has his leg blown off, and he asks for medical help, and guess what happens then?")
FWIW, it's probably at least as important to recommend against purchasing them (as you are doing here) as to personally boycott them.
Congratulations. This isn't much, but it's what can be done. And remember to keep reminding other people (on appropriate occasions) of why you don't support Belkin.
I've got a little list, I've got a little list... Unfortunately, it's gotten to the point where the little list is companies that I'm willing to do business with. The other one is so large that I keep it on a database in my computer. Companies, why I dislike them, and under what conditions I would consider doing business with them. Intel, e.g., needs to be 20% cheaper than the competition at a given price point...there have been a series of things they've done that have caused this number to increase to this point. OTOH, I would never consider working for them as an employee. No conditions. This is the result of their filing criminal charges against an employee who was tasked with ensuring system security for reporting a security problem. (He was exceeded his job, but I bet he expected to be praised for being overeager rather than criminally prosecuted.) I don't really care how the trial came out, or even whether it happened. I will NOT work for Intel. Too risky. Everyone slips up a bit in thinking through what they do, and I can even see an argument that he believed what he was doing was what he was hired for.
It was only nearly 100% after he rigged the votes. Even when he was elected, he got in as a minority party and needed to form a coalition government to rule.
Of course, then he started accusing his political opponents of things that couldn't be proven, but were despised (sex crimes, etc.), and had them thrown out of office and (usually) into jail. No trials were needed. They may have happened, but by then he had *APPOINTED* their successors. The coalition didn't last long, but by the time it dissolved, he didn't need it any more to have a ruling majority. Then he essentially voted to suspend the rules.
This time they're being a bit sneakier, but have you noticed how docile the Democrats are being. And how so much of the leadership might almost be considered to be in coalition with the Republicans? Reasons are speculative, and I don't necessarily believe that the genuine power is actually held by those who are ostensibly in charge. A Democrat being elected next wouldn't surprise me, since I suspect that it's the party leadership of BOTH parties that has been taken over. As to "By who?" I'm not sure. The evidence is equivocal. As to what their policies are...it seems to be an authoritarian dictatorship masquerading as a democracy, but with throughly rigged elections AND throughly manipulated mass media. So everybody will only hear that everybody supports the government. Whether this will be enough to make it true that the majority of the people support the government isn't clear. But most people appear to think that the fact that the leadership role switches between the parties is proof that we don't have a dictatorship. And possibly they are technically correct. But the control is as centralized as if we did.
All THAT said, people en mass make some very stupid mistakes. A democracy isn't a very good system. All of the other traditional systems are worse. Perhaps it IS time to try something new. I just don't trust a government that is instituted secretly, that is never explained or justified (except with lies), that works from the shadows, and that seems to be operating for the benefit of only a few people. Silly of me, isn't it.
G.I.Joe stopped being an american hero in Viet Nam. Did you notice how the returning soldiers were treated? People may not have approved of Korea, Santa Domingo, etc., but those weren't sufficient to throw away the heroic image that was purchased so dearly in WWII.
Viet Nam did that. This was a war that was never satisfactorily explained to anyone who wanted an explanation. It wasn't even well justified. (The closest thing I heard was Johnson saying we could afford "both guns and butter", and as a justification that's pretty poor.)
So. We're going into this war. The popular image of the soldiers has already been destroyed. But we go into war. The reasons for doing so are, one by one, ripped to shreds and shown to be lies. The government responds by cutting the benefits to the soldiers without even waiting for the war to be over.
G.I.Joe isn't a hero, he's a scape goat. (Well, actually, not the scape goat, but instead the one that gets slain on the altar.)
Slashdot Mirror
I had heard about him before, but only because of the "Lonely Hearts Club Band". I didn't know WHY he was so "celebrated".
1) If they don't have the original disk, they don't get the software.
2) I don't agree to any EULAs. You get to read and agree to all of them. If you don't, that's your choice, but the software won't be installed.
3) Could I interest you in an alternative? I have this handy Knoppix disk here to show what I'm offering, and what I *will* support.
Granted, I don't do this for a company, but even when I did I wouldn't agree to the EULAs. (As you might guess, this WASN'T my primary job. I was a programmer. And I tried to do my development in Linux. And I tried for cross-platform. But for times when I *HAD* to develop in MSWind, someone else agreed to the EULAs. I *read* the bloody things, and there was no way *I* was agreeing to them!)
E.g., paraphrased from a MS EULA: "You agree that MS has the right to add, remove, modify, or delete any file that it chooses at any time, with or without notifying you." There was also something in there which I understand has been interpreted to mean that you agree in advance to allow them to enter your place of business and conduct an audit without warning and without reimbursing you for any damages that might be caused by the process. Nice stuff.
Some jurisdictions have held that EULAs are legally binding contracts. Do you live in one? How do you know? (I don't know whether I do or not, but as a matter of consideration for the authors [and self protection], I choose not to do business with them rather than violate their expressed wishes.)
Actually, it's even an offense to develop tools that it could be claimed are for the purpose of circumventing the copy protection. The DMCA is a thoroughly evil law. The only redeeming feature that it has, is that it could have been worse.
Yeah .... but guess who's going to be given free converter boxes, with free tech support. And no waits on hold for tech support.
While this argument is correct, it seems to me a valid argument against extradition.
Yeah, what he (did | is asserted to have done) is stupid, the results that he claims to fear AREN'T legal. And they probably violate the treaty arrangements under which extradition is agreed upon. (E.g., serial murder is definitely not a nice thing to do, but capital punishment for it violates the extradition agreement, so those accused of that won't be extradited from Britain to countries with the death penalty.)
The figures I've seen for hydrogen efficiency still make fuel cells questionable. Perhaps they could buy batteries from Toyota.
Maybe it means the "Homeland Security" has a different job than the PR claims...and *that* is where it's attention lies.
Don't believe what they say, watch what they do. They lie constantly, but you can't even depend on that.
Watch your legislator. When they claim to be against something, but they vote for it, you know one of the things they are lying about.
A definite point. But even so, the promises that the Feds *did* make, even though they weren't a adequate as might be desired, weren't kept.
Originally the SSI# was for use ONLY by the social security agency. Even the IRS was refused permission to use it.
This tells you what government promises and safeguards are worth.
Why should anyone care whether they are evil because others urged them to be evil, or because they chose to be evil of their own free will?
I will admit that evil is a bit of strong term to use when describing Dell. Opportunistically amoral comes closer.
Is he testing the waters on backstabbing MS? Intel? Is he just flapping his lips to make noise? Or are we supposed to only attribute his opportunistically amoral actions to MS and Intel, and any noble and progressive actions he can dig up to his own true integrity?
Sorry, this interview causes me to despise Mr. Dell. I don't know whether it's any more accurate than news stories usually are, but...sheesh! He needs to screen his conversations through a press secretary...that way he'd at least have someone to blame.
It would actually be fairer to say "The companies don't choose to do anything right." That would be a true statement, as opposed to the one which you created.
That said, since their goals and mine are so different, I doubt whether they will ever come up with an offer that I find tempting...of course, they would also need different bait. I stopped watching TV decades ago because there wasn't anything worth watching. It's true that an excess of commercials drives up the cost of watching, but even without ads (or with minimal ads) they still didn't offer anything I would go out of my way to see...much less pay money to see. So if they wish to satisfy me (which they don't, as I wouldn't be a part of their audience), they would need to do it strictly on moral grounds.
Abuse of the legal system (and I count being covered by the DMCA as abuse...it's a threat, even if you don't use it) is an action I find immoral. Therefore any action they could take that would satisfy me would avoid being covered by the DMCA. Now strictly speaking that's not possible, but I would definitely require the avoidance of any "technical measures of copy protection" (I think I've got that quote right. I wouldn't require this because it's intrinsically immoral, it isn't, but in the current legal system it HAS BECOME immoral. I didn't buy the law, so don't blame me. I campaigned against it, but law it is, and therefore what used to be moral has become immoral.
Sorry, but it's always been jerky, not actually being a law of nature. This doesn't mean that the long term trend won't still match the projection, just that you can't use it short term or you'll get both over and underestimates.
That said, it will hit a wall some day. Just when is still up in the air, and depends on, probably the most, on when people run out of reasons to buy fancier computers.
This year, OK. Do you really expect that the companies will stay in this pattern?
The off-shoring situation is unstable. It is building up skills in foreign markets, where new businesses will form. THESE are where the new products will be coming from. And they will hire sales organizations to sell the products within the US, as long as the money holds out. Then they'll sell mainly to their own local customers, and to other markets that they develop.
The US is (intentionally?) deskilling itself. I suggest intentionally merely because it's government policies that are driving the trends, and it seems impossible for them to not see where they will lead within a decade or two. (Yes, this won't happen instantly. You have time to try to find an area where the US *isn't* sabotaging it's future. Will you be successful? That's less certain. Everywhere I've looked we seem to either be killing a currently productive business or sabotaging the attempt to start a new one. The only growth field appears to be lawyers specializing in lawsuits, and that (fortunately?) is *not* productive. Even when they are successful that at most redistribute wealth rather than producing it, and there's no particular evidence that the resulting distribution of wealth averages any fairer than the original was. (Remember the overhead costs.)
Math.
Finite math, to be precise. Or possibly Finite modular math.
If you want you could call it "applied information theory", or some such.
Computer science is nothing but math, which is why software patents should already be illegal. It doesn't explain why they're a bad idea, that's a different field.
Software patents DO stiffle innovation, but writing letters? Please! (Well, I do write letters, but Congress folk don't respond [except with form letters] without large enough donations to warrant a personal interview to discuss your concerns.)
Proof? Read the news! Or talk to a lawyer...one that isn't being paid to convince you that patents are good. No software developer should EVER read a patent. If you can be shown to have read a applicable patent, your potential fines TRIPLE. And patents are written by lawyers with the explicit intention of NOT "making patent" (i.e., revealing) that which is being patented. To do so would limit what you could claim the patent covered. There won't even usually be a partial example. We can thank Intel for this ruling. They managed to get the argument through 1) that demonstrating a binary implementation was sufficient for a patent and 2) they didn't need to file a listing of the binary. Don't you just *love* Intel?
...As someone who has tried over the past few years to hire top rate people I can safely...
Thank you for clearly labeling your interest in the matter. It seems reasonable that you should come down on the same side as the official IBM position, because you have the same interests. Probably in cheap labor willing to work overtime without pay, but you aren't explicit enough to be sure.
Were I starting college now, I would NOT choose CompSci. I'm not really sure just what I would choose, but then I haven't been devoting a lot of thought to the matter. Still, CompSci graduates aren't exactly doing well these days, and I'm quite happy that I got into the field 30 years ago. That said, I'm a technologist, NOT a manager (I've tried, that's not where my skills lie). It's not surprising that a manager should want different things than is optimal for the people doing the coding. (I almost said "doing the work", but managing is work...it's just work of a kind that is paid unjustly well. [N.B.: Entrepreneurs may reasonably claim risk justifies their pay scale, managers use deceit and power politics to reach the same level. There are good reasons why most managers so arrange things that THEIR pay scales are hidden.])
Don't those mean the same thing? I thought that all mighty only became one word when you capitalized it.
You may be mistaking malfeasance for incompetence. I know that it's usually more appropriate to assume that incompetence is the explanation, but there's really too consistent a pattern here for that to be suitable.
OTOH, if you do desire to ascribe their actions to incompetence, then they have risen that to such a level that it *should* be punished as malfeasance. (I.e., a heavy felony). I'm not saying that I believe that there's any chance of that. I don't believe it's incompetence. Well, not except on the part of a very few pre-selected fall guys. I expect that they are sufficiently competent that they will never pay any significant penalty for their crimes. (Fraud, and tampering with evidence, etc. are ones that they seem probably guilty of, though collecting evidence would be quite challenging...and pointless since there won't be any prosecution.)
All wars have "A LOT of support". Certain people can make money from them.
Korea was NOT a popular war, but it wasn't as bad as Viet Nam. You are right that I don't know how well justified it was. I wasn't there. Walt Kelly doesn't seem to have approved of it. The point, however, was that although this tarnished the heroic image of the american soldier, it was just a light coating. This wasn't enough that the government decided to remove the college sponsorship and cut the health benefits to ex-soldiers.
After Viet Nam, soldiers were seen as the oppressing party. Yes, they had some supporters, but not many, and of their supporters many saw them as victims of a stupid and evil system rather than as heros.
Here we are in ANOTHER senseless war. Every attempt at a justification has been shown to be a lie, and the government that has sent the soldiers over to die is already cutting their benefits, before the war is over. With NO popular complaint. These guys aren't seen as heros. They are victims. They are muggees, in the process of being mugged. Passers by avert their eyes, so they don't get involved.
The only image of a soldier from the current war that I have is a large man screaming at a little old lady who's carrying a sign against the war. He attacks her, and another demonstrator tackles him and forces him to the ground. So there he is, the veteran soldier being held to the ground by a peace marcher for assaulting a helpless victim. (This is from a news story, but we ARE talking about image.) Hero? Not likely. Incompetent maniac, possibly driven crazy by they army, and thus more a victim than a criminal, but still unsafe and insane. And not even any good at fighting. (Subdued by a peace-marcher.)
Image doesn't equal reality, but that is the image that I have gotten of the returned soldiers. And that image was shared to via a newspaper that got it off a wire service, so I'm not the only one to receive it. I don't watch TV. Possibly the soldiers are depicted as heroic on TV. I wouldn't bet on it. Their benefits are being cut, and there's no significant public complaint. They are being served food that makes K-rations look good. Contractors are getting rich, but there's no public complaint. These aren't even sympathetic victims that we're talking about here. These are people who are being used as the receiver in a particularly viscous round of slapstick. ("So then this schmuck has his leg blown off, and he asks for medical help, and guess what happens then?")
FWIW, it's probably at least as important to recommend against purchasing them (as you are doing here) as to personally boycott them.
Congratulations. This isn't much, but it's what can be done. And remember to keep reminding other people (on appropriate occasions) of why you don't support Belkin.
I've got a little list, I've got a little list...
Unfortunately, it's gotten to the point where the little list is companies that I'm willing to do business with. The other one is so large that I keep it on a database in my computer. Companies, why I dislike them, and under what conditions I would consider doing business with them. Intel, e.g., needs to be 20% cheaper than the competition at a given price point...there have been a series of things they've done that have caused this number to increase to this point. OTOH, I would never consider working for them as an employee. No conditions. This is the result of their filing criminal charges against an employee who was tasked with ensuring system security for reporting a security problem. (He was exceeded his job, but I bet he expected to be praised for being overeager rather than criminally prosecuted.) I don't really care how the trial came out, or even whether it happened. I will NOT work for Intel. Too risky. Everyone slips up a bit in thinking through what they do, and I can even see an argument that he believed what he was doing was what he was hired for.
There ARE decent alternatives. Unfortunately, you need to be young to take advantage of them. (25 is about optimum.)
Otherwise, where do you have relatives living? Many countries will accept those with close relatives already living there.
Otherwise, how are you at Scandinavian languages or Finn? If you are fluent at any of them you may have an option.
Otherwise... well... your choices are limited. But if you can get a job at a foreign corporation, they can often get you a visa.
It was only nearly 100% after he rigged the votes. Even when he was elected, he got in as a minority party and needed to form a coalition government to rule.
Of course, then he started accusing his political opponents of things that couldn't be proven, but were despised (sex crimes, etc.), and had them thrown out of office and (usually) into jail. No trials were needed. They may have happened, but by then he had *APPOINTED* their successors. The coalition didn't last long, but by the time it dissolved, he didn't need it any more to have a ruling majority. Then he essentially voted to suspend the rules.
This time they're being a bit sneakier, but have you noticed how docile the Democrats are being. And how so much of the leadership might almost be considered to be in coalition with the Republicans? Reasons are speculative, and I don't necessarily believe that the genuine power is actually held by those who are ostensibly in charge. A Democrat being elected next wouldn't surprise me, since I suspect that it's the party leadership of BOTH parties that has been taken over. As to "By who?" I'm not sure. The evidence is equivocal. As to what their policies are...it seems to be an authoritarian dictatorship masquerading as a democracy, but with throughly rigged elections AND throughly manipulated mass media. So everybody will only hear that everybody supports the government. Whether this will be enough to make it true that the majority of the people support the government isn't clear. But most people appear to think that the fact that the leadership role switches between the parties is proof that we don't have a dictatorship. And possibly they are technically correct. But the control is as centralized as if we did.
All THAT said, people en mass make some very stupid mistakes. A democracy isn't a very good system. All of the other traditional systems are worse. Perhaps it IS time to try something new. I just don't trust a government that is instituted secretly, that is never explained or justified (except with lies), that works from the shadows, and that seems to be operating for the benefit of only a few people. Silly of me, isn't it.
G.I.Joe stopped being an american hero in Viet Nam. Did you notice how the returning soldiers were treated? People may not have approved of Korea, Santa Domingo, etc., but those weren't sufficient to throw away the heroic image that was purchased so dearly in WWII.
Viet Nam did that. This was a war that was never satisfactorily explained to anyone who wanted an explanation. It wasn't even well justified. (The closest thing I heard was Johnson saying we could afford "both guns and butter", and as a justification that's pretty poor.)
So. We're going into this war. The popular image of the soldiers has already been destroyed. But we go into war. The reasons for doing so are, one by one, ripped to shreds and shown to be lies. The government responds by cutting the benefits to the soldiers without even waiting for the war to be over.
G.I.Joe isn't a hero, he's a scape goat. (Well, actually, not the scape goat, but instead the one that gets slain on the altar.)
And it's got all that connectivity...I wonder if it's a one way link. Imagine if it got 0wn3d by some foreign (Russian?) Spamlord.
Won't happen, because nobody has similar hardware to practice cracking on. But if it did... (Social engineering? Whee!)
Perhaps you've heard of Moore's law?
Yes, there's a lot more traffic these days, but it's not scaling up as rapidly as computing power.