If you care to define the difference in semantics between "Population Sample" and "Population being surveyed" be my guest. Incidentally, as the population that doesn't vote doesn't matter, Population==Population Sample. I stick by my assertion that you are clueless.
And you are right on the second point. Initially, the first results that Florida announced on Friday, the 10th of November had Bush leading by only 327 votes. How does this help your case? On Friday, December 4th, the official count had Bush leading by only 154 votes. On the 5th, the Supreme Court ordered Florida to stop counting votes. Any way you slice it, projecting Florida's mistakes nation-wide still does not get you close to Gore's 500,000 vote lead.
Or did you get your information from watching Fox News recaps?
And how exactly do you perceive the electoral system to run? If you vote, you are part of the population sample. If you don't vote, you are not part of the population sample. Therefore, your sample size is defined by the number of surveys. Thus 100% returns.
As to your second uninformed opinion, Gore was arguing that out of the 5,963,110 counted in Florida, that there is the potential for enough error to account for the 537 vote difference. In case your math is not up to the task, that is 0.009% difference.
Not to belabor the obvious but if you can't see the difference between.5% of the national vote and.009% of Florida's votes, you should spend a few years of your life looking for a clue.
So, has clown college recently started offering courses in statistics? Seriously, in an election, you have 100% of the population being surveyed. Hence, there is no such thing as "statistical significance."
Think about this for a moment. Statistics is a means to estimate the total population's sentiment based on a percentage of the population. If you have the total population being polled, then you have no need for estimates and there is 0 margin of error.
Unless you seriously are arguing that procedural error accounts for the half a million more votes that were cast for Al Gore than for GW Bush. And no, your opinion does not matter (.blogspot.com).
Star Control 1 was a good game. Ahead of its time, excellent gameplay and good graphics.
Star Control 2 was, at the time, the greatest game ever written. Gameplay, depth, graphics, sound, in every part, the game was so far ahead of the competition that there could be no realistic challenger. Indeed, the ending left so many strings for a sequel that quite literally from the month it came out, there was anticipation for Star Control III.
Then came Star Control III. Ugh. Accolade took the game to new developers and it was clumbsy, uninteresting and not fun to play. The sub-plots were meaningless and the story was unengaging. Gameplay took a step backwards.
You can help!
Sign the Petition Ask Accolade to re-make Star Control III with the original developers at Toys for Bob.
I purchased a Volkswagen Jetta TDI in 2000. What really won me over was the fuel efficiency. While advertised mpg is around 43-45, my actual mpg is 51 on the last tank. The efficiency is minimally affected by city driving, down to about 47 mpg.
Additionally, with the diesel engine, your pickup is good and the power is outstanding. I have hauled 2200lbs of flooring over the Appalachians in this car (uHaul trailer). When hauling that much weight, it is often neccesary to downshift to 4th gear to get up steep mountains. However, I averaged 32 mpg on that trip.
Try that in a hybrid
I recognize that many people are diesel adverse, but I recommend doing the math on pollution first. Mile for mile, I output significantly less CO and only slightly more particulate matter than a normal sedan.
Do yourself a favor and test drive a VW TDI. You won't regret it.
BTW, I am not associated with VW, apart from being a satisfied customer
I am glad that engineering is right up your alley and you made the good choice the first time. Hopefully, it will be rewarding enough to continue throughout your life.
I will pay better attention this time. Luckily I was able to indentify where I need to be before it was too late. Hopefully, should you find yourself in a similar situation at some point in the future, you will find just the answer you need in this oracle.
I feel like there should be some sort of secret handshake here. But what's the need when we can so easily identify the incidary markings of those years.
I am curious; do you perceive your job now as meaningful? In other words, are you looking for something better? If so, what?
I am legitimately older. All guarantees stop there.
In my short time around, I have worked in industry, sport, education and government. I have seen the limitations of each and now, 7 years after deciding on my original path, I feel confident in where I want to be in the future.
Economists, policy makers and those that implement the decisions are all limited to the tools at hand. Today, the tools are centralized, expensive and polluting. Research is the first step to changing that.
Thanks for the advice, though. You sound satisfied with where you are.
Here is the letter I sent to Trident. Feel free to copy/modify for your own use.
To Whom It May Concern-
I have recently become aware of a change in Trident's policy toward the documentation of function calls starting with the CyberBladeXP chipset. This change will have deliterious effects on Trident's relations with the large and growing Open Source community.
For years, Trident has been a strongly-supported line of video cards for XFree86, a graphical user interface similar in purpose to Windows or MacOS. Drivers for the Trident line of video cards have been written, free of cost, by volunteers working in concert over the internet. The cost to Trident to expand their market in this manner has been publishing existing documentation on the internet.
This has now changed, it seems, arbitrarily. While we as a community recognize that it is well within your discretion to limit the availability of any documentation of your product, please realize the harm that this does to your reputation within the community. It makes it impossible for a Linux or FreeBSD user to purchase your video card.
We are not asking for you to spend your developer's time to write new drivers. We merely ask that you allow us to assist your efforts to provide the highest quality video to consummers, irregardless of their operating system.
Make no mistake, drivers will eventually be written. However, they will be of lower quality for a longer period of time than they would be with simple documentation. This lower quality will reflect inappropriately on Trident in the eyes of users.
Please e-mail me with any questions you have on this issue.
Files posted on a website are supposed to be downloaded.
The Perl script was not intended to be public. Read the charges; Brian went into the computer, found the username and password file, used that to enter parts of the system not authorized for normal users and downloaded the script. Seems simple to us but is nonetheless not an authorized means of entering a computer system under the law.
Yes, there were security holes. Yes, they were easy to exploit. However, exploiting them and downloading company files is not legal. Period.
Enormously inflated values are hardly uncommon in cases of downloaded files. $5,000 just happens to be the minimum figure for the FBI not to have told them to get lost.
I suggest that you read Lawrence Weschler's book on J.S.G Boggs for a good intro to perceived value and public acceptance. Frankly, it doesn't matter that you think the script is not worth $5,000. You do not own the script and therefore cannot begin to estimate what it was worth to this company. Perhaps they have foolishly invested $5,000 worth of employee time into creating it.
Point is this: Their assigned value matters in the eyes of the law not anyone else's. So inflated or not, Brian has still downloaded the script and still committed the crime.
Your screed would be all well and good except for one thing: He is being charged with d/ling a Perl script which the company values at $5,000. That means that under USC, no matter how insecure the site, he caused damage to the company (a competitor of his!)
The better analogy would be you are walking down the street, you see a door is unlocked, walk in and take a wad of cash. _Then_ you report the door not being locked to the owners.
I imagine that if Brian had not downloaded anything off the website, he would never have seen the FBI. Now, however, if Brian kept a copy of the Perl script on his hard drive there is nothing that can save him.
According to USC 1030(e)(2)(B) a protected computer is defined as a computer which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication.
By this definition, all computers connected to the Internet are "Protected" under US law. So what they are charging Brian with is accessing this "protected" computer and downloading a Perl script to which the company assigns a value of $5,000.
The fact that the computer was unsecured does not play in the matter. If the Perl script had been on a public FTP server, they could still charge him with "obtaining anything of value" from a "protected computer".
That's a 13-gallon tank (approx) in a 2000 Jetta TDI. The diesel in this engine also produces less CO2 (albeit slightly more particulate matter) than unleaded gas.
Of course, graduating benefits! Why didn't I think of that? Wait...I did.
Look at my numbers again. A person's income goes up $5,000 and their negative tax goes down $4,000. That is a measured decrease which could lead to a gentle asymptote as you suggest.
Now, if you want to see this, get out a piece of graphing paper, put total income on the x-axis and earned income (work) on the y-axis.
Now, again using descriptive numbers (if you want use p and q), plot work at earning $10,000 and total income at $15,000. Now plot work at $15,000 and total income at $16,000. See how steep that line is? The slope of that line represents unrewarded work. The steeper the line, the more work you have to do to get the same amount of reward.
Notice now, lets gradiate the curve even more. What happened? The line got steeper! The more we try to gradiate the introduction to the average tax rate, the steeper the line is at the beginning of the gradiation and therefore the harder the poor have to work for the same reward.
Eventually, as people get richer, they will have to move above the 1:1 line because we want to tax them more than average. I challenge someone to point out how we can provide massive subsidies to the poor while not overly-taxing them on the margin and thereby encouraging them to remain poor. If you can do that, you deserve a spot in the next administration's cabinet.
Wow, and I didn't think I'd get to be a "geezer" for at least another 40 years.
Perhaps I should clarify for the mathematically impared...My numbers were illustrative, not fixed. Since McReynolds does not list solid proposals on his site or in his post, I cannot use real numbers. Instead, I use an example and trust that the average slashdot reader has the ability to draw the same conclusion. For Pentagram who may not be an average reader, I offer the following:
Of course, the income tax would be a sliding scale. You will notice that my numbers do not indicate a cut-off point. But I see I will need to clear the idea up for you:
a = your income
b = your tax
c = fixed income point at which a - b = 0
So long as c > a, there will exist some point at which the poor are paying a substantially higher marginal tax rate than the rich. Thus, they have a substantially lower return on their additional work.
No, socialist utopia is a reference to Sir Thomas More's seminal work outlining modern socialist theory (as opposed to Communist, Marxist, et al). I mean no insult to you or socialists in general.
And in answer to your last question, you would need to define capitalist society. Pick up a copy of the Marx-Engels Reader and find Marx's definition of the ten goals of Communism. Now answer me this, how many have been addressed already? The answer is more than most Americans would think.
I love it when socialists pretend to understand economics: McReynoldsI'm not for a tax cut. I'm for higher taxes, lower for the poor (in fact a "negative income tax" for those at the poverty level, which means they would get cash
back) and much higher for the wealthy
Looking at this statement, he supports giving additional money to people who are at the poverty level. Let's say I make $10,000/year. Under his plan, I would get perhaps $5,000/year from a "negative tax" to bring me up to some pre-set standard.
Now, let's say that I get a raise. I am now making $15,000/year. Now I am no longer at the poverty line, so I do not get nearly as much of a "negative tax" as before. Let's say that I only get $1,000 now.
Before I was making $15,000/year after taxes. I worked my ass off to get a raise and now I make $16,000/year. That is a marginal tax of 80%! I would have been much happier to not work as hard and stay at $15,000 than to work myself to the bone for a measly $1,000.
Don't be fooled by Socialist economics. They will do nothing but keep the poor poor.
But what about the rich, they say. McReynolds is for much higher taxes for the rich and almost complete estate tax at death. The argument goes that then we will have sooo much money to give back to the poor.
I call BS
If I have a couple million dollars in the bank, I can afford lawyers and accountants. In fact, I can afford lawyers and accountants in multiple countries. See where I am going with this? If the US starts to tax people's assets at death, the rich will simply displace the assets into non-taxables. Whether that be fixed capital (buildings, land, machines) or foreign assets, if you are rich, you can afford to move your money around. In fact, if you spend a couple of months of the year outside of the US, you don't pay taxes. You could live on Euros or Loonies paid to you through a bank account in Switzerland for which you have a VISA check card.
Do you think the poor or middle-income families in America can do this? Not a chance. They are stuck here with their mid-level mediocrity enforced by the income tax/gift tax/estate tax and everything else that McReynolds wants to institute in his Socialist utopia.
This translation has all the clarity of the Fish. It is unfortunate as the original is insightful, well-reasoned (from a point) and funny.
To answer your 4 confusions:
bits [that] flower, flourish and reproduce
Here he is referring to the aforementioned data-gardens. He uses the metaphor to show that if data is constrained by too many rules and regulations, (weeds) the information will not have enough free space to grow. This relates to the view that "Information wants to be free."
Boundless amounts of money
Here he is making fun of the people flocking to the Internet precisely because of its size. He draws the comparison (sarcasticly, I believe) that if the Internet is infinitely large with few borders to commerce, then the potential for commerce (or making money) would also be infinitely large.
Here, he refers back to the two types of internet "content-makers". The first is looking at the possibility of an endless amount of money (see above) without concerning themselves with the regulation. The second is frightened by the amount of regulation which is wielded by a small number of governments trying to prevent parts of the internet (France vs. neo-nazis) from penetrating their national borders. The response (hyperbole) is to move to a spaceport (no government), south seas island and buy server space in non-governmental regions such as satellites.
Blowing up concrete prisons
This is the most prevailing metaphor in the article. The translator, unfortunately did not see fit to translate enough of it to make it understandable. There is a german verb festzementieren which literally translates to solidly cementing. His first reference to this is translated instead as "regimented".
He speaks of the lawyers and law-makers worrying initially about terrorism and building large "safety-devices" (presumably against porn and the like) instead of regulating intellectual property on the net. Rules on regular means of communication (HTTP, FTP) became cemented. Thus people who did not wish to be tied to these cemented rules created new means of communication and new areas (protocols) of the internet. This is the refernce to blowing up concrete prisons. The creation of protocols such as Gnutella, Freenet and Banana Tree essentially "blew up" the old set of cemented rules (prisons).
As to the last comment about ties restricting the supply of oxygen to the brain, there is a bit of comedy which is missing from the translation. It is a subtle jab at the lawyers of ICANN in German. In English, it becomes a clumbsy frontal assault. The point remains, however, that the ICANN administration has not seen fit to create a set of network names specifically for companies to lay claim to and allow the rest of the Internet to exist as a "parallel universe" with free expression (good or bad).
I hope this clears some issues up. Incidentally, the original title of the article was not "Just Do Whatever You Want" but "An Explaination of Governing Theory". That in and of itself may give you an idea of the ideological slant of the translator.
I sincerely hope that no one takes that translation on the basis of its tone. Quite frankly, it has been stripped of its jesting nature and sounds extremely radical. This does not exist in the original German.
To put it more succinctly, this type of writing is an art form almost solely reserved for formal languages. It is hard enough to express in English the formality incurred by the use of the German 'Sie' much less the ironic tone with which this article imitates a FAZ formalistic style. The translator has taken the liberty of stripping the article of its self-depricating jabs while leaving in place the inflamatory statements which they mediate.
We lose Herr Mueller-Maguhn's original meaning if we are reading this article for anything other than straight factual text and even then I would be suspicious as the translator left out some whole sentences which moderate the extremist views.
Undoubtedly, the/. population will love this new, edited version. We will read only as far as we want and then take small quotes from the article which further obscure its true meaning. Please take this with a grain of salt the size of Rhode Island.
Slashdot Mirror
And you are right on the second point. Initially, the first results that Florida announced on Friday, the 10th of November had Bush leading by only 327 votes. How does this help your case? On Friday, December 4th, the official count had Bush leading by only 154 votes. On the 5th, the Supreme Court ordered Florida to stop counting votes. Any way you slice it, projecting Florida's mistakes nation-wide still does not get you close to Gore's 500,000 vote lead.
Or did you get your information from watching Fox News recaps?
As to your second uninformed opinion, Gore was arguing that out of the 5,963,110 counted in Florida, that there is the potential for enough error to account for the 537 vote difference. In case your math is not up to the task, that is 0.009% difference.
Not to belabor the obvious but if you can't see the difference between .5% of the national vote and .009% of Florida's votes, you should spend a few years of your life looking for a clue.
Think about this for a moment. Statistics is a means to estimate the total population's sentiment based on a percentage of the population. If you have the total population being polled, then you have no need for estimates and there is 0 margin of error.
Unless you seriously are arguing that procedural error accounts for the half a million more votes that were cast for Al Gore than for GW Bush. And no, your opinion does not matter (.blogspot.com).
Right. Unless they use one of these.
At one point, my gf (a very petite woman) was using the password: #4#I!Better
A true statement, if ever there was one.
Dang AC...post as yourself, wouldya? I hate getting blamed for other people's crappy code.
-Seth
Star Control 2 was, at the time, the greatest game ever written. Gameplay, depth, graphics, sound, in every part, the game was so far ahead of the competition that there could be no realistic challenger. Indeed, the ending left so many strings for a sequel that quite literally from the month it came out, there was anticipation for Star Control III.
Then came Star Control III. Ugh. Accolade took the game to new developers and it was clumbsy, uninteresting and not fun to play. The sub-plots were meaningless and the story was unengaging. Gameplay took a step backwards.
You can help!
Sign the Petition Ask Accolade to re-make Star Control III with the original developers at Toys for Bob.
Additionally, with the diesel engine, your pickup is good and the power is outstanding. I have hauled 2200lbs of flooring over the Appalachians in this car (uHaul trailer). When hauling that much weight, it is often neccesary to downshift to 4th gear to get up steep mountains. However, I averaged 32 mpg on that trip.
Try that in a hybrid
I recognize that many people are diesel adverse, but I recommend doing the math on pollution first. Mile for mile, I output significantly less CO and only slightly more particulate matter than a normal sedan.
Do yourself a favor and test drive a VW TDI. You won't regret it.
BTW, I am not associated with VW, apart from being a satisfied customer
Seriously, though, you don't want to work further with that?
I am glad that engineering is right up your alley and you made the good choice the first time. Hopefully, it will be rewarding enough to continue throughout your life.
I will pay better attention this time. Luckily I was able to indentify where I need to be before it was too late. Hopefully, should you find yourself in a similar situation at some point in the future, you will find just the answer you need in this oracle.
I am curious; do you perceive your job now as meaningful? In other words, are you looking for something better? If so, what?
In my short time around, I have worked in industry, sport, education and government. I have seen the limitations of each and now, 7 years after deciding on my original path, I feel confident in where I want to be in the future.
Economists, policy makers and those that implement the decisions are all limited to the tools at hand. Today, the tools are centralized, expensive and polluting. Research is the first step to changing that.
Thanks for the advice, though. You sound satisfied with where you are.
And you think I'm kidding
Apparently Apple beat out IEEE 802.11, the Be-Sharps and Ron Popiel's combination prune-pitter/diaper squeezer.
The Perl script was not intended to be public. Read the charges; Brian went into the computer, found the username and password file, used that to enter parts of the system not authorized for normal users and downloaded the script.
Seems simple to us but is nonetheless not an authorized means of entering a computer system under the law.
Yes, there were security holes. Yes, they were easy to exploit. However, exploiting them and downloading company files is not legal. Period.
Enormously inflated values are hardly uncommon in cases of downloaded files. $5,000 just happens to be the minimum figure for the FBI not to have told them to get lost.
I suggest that you read Lawrence Weschler's book on J.S.G Boggs for a good intro to perceived value and public acceptance. Frankly, it doesn't matter that you think the script is not worth $5,000. You do not own the script and therefore cannot begin to estimate what it was worth to this company. Perhaps they have foolishly invested $5,000 worth of employee time into creating it.
Point is this: Their assigned value matters in the eyes of the law not anyone else's. So inflated or not, Brian has still downloaded the script and still committed the crime.
The better analogy would be you are walking down the street, you see a door is unlocked, walk in and take a wad of cash. _Then_ you report the door not being locked to the owners.
I imagine that if Brian had not downloaded anything off the website, he would never have seen the FBI. Now, however, if Brian kept a copy of the Perl script on his hard drive there is nothing that can save him.
By this definition, all computers connected to the Internet are "Protected" under US law. So what they are charging Brian with is accessing this "protected" computer and downloading a Perl script to which the company assigns a value of $5,000.
The fact that the computer was unsecured does not play in the matter. If the Perl script had been on a public FTP server, they could still charge him with "obtaining anything of value" from a "protected computer".
That's a 13-gallon tank (approx) in a 2000 Jetta TDI. The diesel in this engine also produces less CO2 (albeit slightly more particulate matter) than unleaded gas.
Look at my numbers again. A person's income goes up $5,000 and their negative tax goes down $4,000. That is a measured decrease which could lead to a gentle asymptote as you suggest.
Now, if you want to see this, get out a piece of graphing paper, put total income on the x-axis and earned income (work) on the y-axis.
Now, again using descriptive numbers (if you want use p and q), plot work at earning $10,000 and total income at $15,000. Now plot work at $15,000 and total income at $16,000. See how steep that line is? The slope of that line represents unrewarded work. The steeper the line, the more work you have to do to get the same amount of reward.
Notice now, lets gradiate the curve even more. What happened? The line got steeper! The more we try to gradiate the introduction to the average tax rate, the steeper the line is at the beginning of the gradiation and therefore the harder the poor have to work for the same reward.
Eventually, as people get richer, they will have to move above the 1:1 line because we want to tax them more than average. I challenge someone to point out how we can provide massive subsidies to the poor while not overly-taxing them on the margin and thereby encouraging them to remain poor. If you can do that, you deserve a spot in the next administration's cabinet.
Perhaps I should clarify for the mathematically impared...My numbers were illustrative, not fixed. Since McReynolds does not list solid proposals on his site or in his post, I cannot use real numbers. Instead, I use an example and trust that the average slashdot reader has the ability to draw the same conclusion. For Pentagram who may not be an average reader, I offer the following:
Of course, the income tax would be a sliding scale. You will notice that my numbers do not indicate a cut-off point. But I see I will need to clear the idea up for you:
a = your income
b = your tax
c = fixed income point at which a - b = 0
So long as c > a, there will exist some point at which the poor are paying a substantially higher marginal tax rate than the rich. Thus, they have a substantially lower return on their additional work.
No, socialist utopia is a reference to Sir Thomas More's seminal work outlining modern socialist theory (as opposed to Communist, Marxist, et al). I mean no insult to you or socialists in general.
And in answer to your last question, you would need to define capitalist society. Pick up a copy of the Marx-Engels Reader and find Marx's definition of the ten goals of Communism. Now answer me this, how many have been addressed already? The answer is more than most Americans would think.
McReynolds I'm not for a tax cut. I'm for higher taxes, lower for the poor (in fact a "negative income tax" for those at the poverty level, which means they would get cash back) and much higher for the wealthy
Looking at this statement, he supports giving additional money to people who are at the poverty level. Let's say I make $10,000/year. Under his plan, I would get perhaps $5,000/year from a "negative tax" to bring me up to some pre-set standard.
Now, let's say that I get a raise. I am now making $15,000/year. Now I am no longer at the poverty line, so I do not get nearly as much of a "negative tax" as before. Let's say that I only get $1,000 now.
Before I was making $15,000/year after taxes. I worked my ass off to get a raise and now I make $16,000/year. That is a marginal tax of 80%! I would have been much happier to not work as hard and stay at $15,000 than to work myself to the bone for a measly $1,000.
Don't be fooled by Socialist economics. They will do nothing but keep the poor poor.
But what about the rich, they say. McReynolds is for much higher taxes for the rich and almost complete estate tax at death. The argument goes that then we will have sooo much money to give back to the poor.
I call BS
If I have a couple million dollars in the bank, I can afford lawyers and accountants. In fact, I can afford lawyers and accountants in multiple countries. See where I am going with this? If the US starts to tax people's assets at death, the rich will simply displace the assets into non-taxables. Whether that be fixed capital (buildings, land, machines) or foreign assets, if you are rich, you can afford to move your money around. In fact, if you spend a couple of months of the year outside of the US, you don't pay taxes. You could live on Euros or Loonies paid to you through a bank account in Switzerland for which you have a VISA check card.
Do you think the poor or middle-income families in America can do this? Not a chance. They are stuck here with their mid-level mediocrity enforced by the income tax/gift tax/estate tax and everything else that McReynolds wants to institute in his Socialist utopia.
To answer your 4 confusions:
- bits [that] flower, flourish and reproduce
Here he is referring to the aforementioned data-gardens. He uses the metaphor to show that if data is constrained by too many rules and regulations, (weeds) the information will not have enough free space to grow. This relates to the view that "Information wants to be free."- Boundless amounts of money
Here he is making fun of the people flocking to the Internet precisely because of its size. He draws the comparison (sarcasticly, I believe) that if the Internet is infinitely large with few borders to commerce, then the potential for commerce (or making money) would also be infinitely large.- Blowing up concrete prisons
This is the most prevailing metaphor in the article. The translator, unfortunately did not see fit to translate enough of it to make it understandable. There is a german verb festzementieren which literally translates to solidly cementing. His first reference to this is translated instead as "regimented".He speaks of the lawyers and law-makers worrying initially about terrorism and building large "safety-devices" (presumably against porn and the like) instead of regulating intellectual property on the net. Rules on regular means of communication (HTTP, FTP) became cemented. Thus people who did not wish to be tied to these cemented rules created new means of communication and new areas (protocols) of the internet. This is the refernce to blowing up concrete prisons. The creation of protocols such as Gnutella, Freenet and Banana Tree essentially "blew up" the old set of cemented rules (prisons).
As to the last comment about ties restricting the supply of oxygen to the brain, there is a bit of comedy which is missing from the translation. It is a subtle jab at the lawyers of ICANN in German. In English, it becomes a clumbsy frontal assault. The point remains, however, that the ICANN administration has not seen fit to create a set of network names specifically for companies to lay claim to and allow the rest of the Internet to exist as a "parallel universe" with free expression (good or bad).
I hope this clears some issues up. Incidentally, the original title of the article was not "Just Do Whatever You Want" but "An Explaination of Governing Theory". That in and of itself may give you an idea of the ideological slant of the translator.
To put it more succinctly, this type of writing is an art form almost solely reserved for formal languages. It is hard enough to express in English the formality incurred by the use of the German 'Sie' much less the ironic tone with which this article imitates a FAZ formalistic style. The translator has taken the liberty of stripping the article of its self-depricating jabs while leaving in place the inflamatory statements which they mediate.
We lose Herr Mueller-Maguhn's original meaning if we are reading this article for anything other than straight factual text and even then I would be suspicious as the translator left out some whole sentences which moderate the extremist views.
Undoubtedly, the /. population will love this new, edited version. We will read only as far as we want and then take small quotes from the article which further obscure its true meaning. Please take this with a grain of salt the size of Rhode Island.