Well the problem is that corporations are a creation of the state. The corporations that are creations of the state, can tell the state what they want. What is lost is that the state is a creation of it citizens. The problem is found when a Judge said corporations are equal to citizens (legal entities) with all the rights of a "person".
This is clearly FALSE if you read the Constitution, the document doesn't once mention "corporations" it does, however mention People (and States).
The judge(s) who made that ruling should have been lynched by the people, literally if necessary. It was a clear usurpation of power from the people, to a state created entity (not a person).
In my world, only PEOPLE (those eligible to vote for candidate/cause) would be able to contribute to a candidate or cause. No PAC, no Union, No Corporate sponsorships PERIOD. Now if they want to buy their own adverts and such by all means they can, just have to announce who they are, and how much they are spending on every advert. It would change politics and bring it closer to home.
I buy expensive shoes when I can afford it. I spend, say $100. That $100 buys me a good pair of shoes that lasts me maybe 2 years.
The guy one income bracket down buys the cheap shoes because he never has $100 cash on hand. He spends the $20 he has to get a passable pair of shoes. In those 2 years he replaces them 8 times.
That is neither the fault of the state, nor its responsibility. Before you mod me troll, hear me out.
First define "Fair" in such a way that a State can enforce it and be "fair" in the process. By definition, if you create "special" conditions where things "break" under certain conditions, I can generate a large number of conditions that break things. What you end up with is the "current" tax system which is far more "unfair" to the average guy paying taxes (not those who don't pay any), than it is for people who can hire others to find all the loopholes and advantages.
Lets take the Housing Interest tax break, for primary mortgages. I don't own a home, so I don't get to deduct large portions of income for the purposes of tax exemptions. IS it fair that I subsidize their tax breaks?
BUT on the otherhand, I've found a brand of shoes that I can spend $25 for a pair that lasts me a year or more. Is it fair that you spend 100 every other year, when I only spend $50 or so?
When "Fairness" is subjective, it isn't fair. Fairness is, everyone is treated the exact same, regardless of personal sob stories or other "exceptions".
A FAIR tax would be FAIR to all, equally, without bias or subjective criteria. That being said, a FLAT income tax, without regard to deductions, children, houses marital status would be more fair (read without bias) than what we currently have. Even if you put in a large deduction per income. Each person would be responsible for their income (not family, not marital status, not housing costs). THAT would be fair to all.
The problem with perceived "fairness" is that once it becomes a judgment call, it no longer is "fair". Once bias gets inserted, you end up with all sorts of unintended consequences that the code constantly is trying to manage, in ever increasing complexity that ends up being the spaghetti code we currently have, which is inherently UNFAIR.
Do you think it is fair that some people cannot afford the software, choose 1040EZ and DO NOT get the full benefit of all the deductions they might be otherwise entitled to? EVERY tax form should be 1040Easier and two lines:How much did you earn, and how much tax are you required to pay on that income, based on a simple lookup table. THAT would be fair. It could be done on a postcard even.
One last point, I think EVERYONE should pay SOMETHING in taxes, even if it is token. EVERYONE needs to feel the pain of the tax man, not just the "Rich". BTW I'm rich by their definition, since I pay taxes, even though I only make 50K year (not enough deductions I guess).
"If we'd have let Iran have elections back then, we wouldn't have problems with Iran today."
Pure speculation. We basically sponsored the Taliban in Afghanistan only to have them support people who flew aircraft into buildings 9 years ago.
Besides, many dictators were elected. Just look at Afghanistan now, elected dictator, just as corrupt as the regimes before. The culture breeds corruption (like DC does). Power corrupts and all that.
IMHO we only have two options, supporting people we can control (by whatever means) and having people hate us, or not supporting anyone and having people hate us, just for different reasons.
Being nice to people who aren't is not productive at all. That is, unless you're their lapdog. Even so, that only lasts while it is convenient.
Health Insurance was something derived from WWII, when wages were frozen for the war. Entrepreneurial companies added both Pensions and Health Insurance to white collar workers "packages", in lieu of wages they couldn't offer.
With the advent of 401k, pensions and other retirement funds, anyone having one of these are the "ownership" class you deride.
The downfall of the middle class has been caused by people living beyond their means, and the expectation that the government is here to rescue you from your poor decisions and planning.
You know, credit card debt, cars and houses they can't afford, and $5 lattes. How many people do you know are in debt over their heads? And how many of those expect ME (tax payer, not in debt) to continue to bail them out?
And Obama bails them out, and put tax cheats in charge of the "solution". Good one. I'm the chump for not taking out 50K in credit card debt and a house I couldn't afford.
And the war sucks. We should have nuked the place and left. I'm sick of cleaning up broken countries run by tyrants. Either that, or let the rest of the world deal with them for a change (yeah right, like that will ever happen).
Or you can go back a president. Perhaps you don't remember the malaise of the 70s. Double Digit inflation, gas rationing, Iran (we're still dealing with that mess).
Racism is calling a black man "uncle tom" because he left the liberal plantation.
Racism is telling black people they can't succeed without help from their Master (government).
Racism is saying all black people are victims of slavery, even if they just immigrated from Africa last year.
Racism is saying that skin color matters at all.
Racism is seeing "code words" for racism even when there is no such thing.
Racism is believing CBC members heard "N" word even though the entire walk in which it was asserted was recorded by all sorts of cameras, for the whole "walk" between the Cannon Building and Capital Building was a news media event called together by the CBC, and yet not one single shred of evidence has been manifested.
The problem with Facebook, is the very thing that makes it work. People like you want walled garden for your life, when in reality, there is no such thing.
You want privacy, but on the other hand, you want people to know how to find you, which means breaching privacy.
I haven't gained any friends since joining FB, and I'm not losing any friends if I leave FB. I don't count new people "friends" and online people are not friends until we've become involved IRL.
Lastly, I don't put anything on FB that I don't want the whole world knowing. Most of the "Privacy" crap people complain about is laziness and stupidity. Most of the information on FB about me can be found elsewhere by Googling me. And it isn't that much.
Unfounded = without foundation; not based on fact, realistic consideration.
Meaning A bunch of CBC guys, walking in public, make the accusation of people YELLING the "N" word. Video Cameras and other recording devices are present recording said "YELLING" without one picking up the infamous "N" word. Must be a conspiracy of Faux News and Brietbart.
And you're willingness to believe the UNFOUNDED accusations of people because your BIAS says the people yelling "MUST BE RACIST", after all they are yelling at "black people", is proof that my original post "ahhh yes, (R) bad (D) good.. sock puppet. You're almost as annoying as the Bushbots" proves 100% accurate.
It is interesting that I got modded -1 "flamebait" for something that you yourself proved... you're one of those (D) good (R) bad sock puppets, and are just as annoying as a Bushbot.
And if the Tea Party is as racist as you seem to think, how do you figure Cedra Crenshaw (IL), Angela McGlowan (MS), Vernon Parker (AZ), and Tim Scott(SC) are Tea Party Supported Candidates? Especially since two of them are from the "Racist South"??
If you don't think Sharpton, Jackson, CBC hurling unfounded "racist" tags just because they can is not "race baiting", I can't help you.
If Brietbart is a liar, then what do you say about the CBC members who claimed (unfounded, undocumented, fictional, imaginary) "N" word was hurled at them and the unclaimed $100K prize being offered by Brietbart for proof that it happened?
I mean they have DOZENS of video evidence from all sorts of angles, and yet no one has heard the "N" word being "shouted" as claimed.
You willing to say that they are liars?
I don't think so.
What Brietbart did (irresponsible) was much less egregious than the terrible "race baiting" accusation made by the CBC. But I doubt you would see it that way. And I doubt your vitriol for "liars" would extend to them (CBC) because... well they are (D) and therefore better than that (R) Brietbart.
"Republicans are bought, lock stock and barrel, by moneyed corporate interests."
And Democrats are bought, lock stock and barrel by Unions, Hollywood, and race baiters. and many others groups.
If you're opposed to being bought(on principle), then I applaud you. If you are just opposed to being bought by people you disagree with, then we have a problem.
Oh, Obama was one of the largest recipients of BP campaign cash
Again, my point, which you can't seem to admit, is that both sides have the exact same problems. And excusing your side (left OR right) because it is "your side" is just stupid and a BIG reason why nothing good comes from it all.
Um, the problem isn't (D) vs (R) which is what you're trying make it.
The problem isn't "regulation" of things, as some regulations are needed. And MORE Regulation isn't the answer to fixing a problem of NOT ENFORCING regulations that are on the books.
And since the REGULATIONS on the books would have, or at least SHOULD HAVE helped prevent this mess weren't being enforced, the problem becomes the administration that FAILED to enforce the regulations already on the books.
And as much as you'd like to blame BUSH for this, it wasn't HIS fault, directly or even indirectly. IF you want to blame an admin, blame the one that was in office a FULL YEAR and could enforced any and all regulations they wanted to. Don't blame Bush for something that was clearly under the EXECUTIVE branch of Obama, on HIS watch.
Bush has his own issues (wars, financial mess), as does Clinton, Bush 1, and back further. It is a mess because people can't take responsibility for the things they clearly could do(or undo).
And We should toss people in jail if they hold a government job, and fail to do it properly to the point of criminal negligence.
IF you go through my posts, you'll find I am not a corporate apologist, even calling for a corporate death penalty (revocation of corporate charter) in the most extreme cases.
Government has a fiduciary responsibility to oversee the entities they have created and give license to. Likewise, if government people don't do their jobs, they should be canned, and in some cases prosecuted for violation of public trust.
If we held people more responsible for the actions they take, we'd have more responsible actions by people
Nope, he wasn't screwed, because it wasn't the only option; it was a false dichotomy. I gave him a chance to offer another choice, it was just veiled. Kobioshi Maru. He could have thought about it and said "half" even though that wasn't an obvious choice.
I often give my kids tests to break them out of self imposed boxes (false dichotomy). Pick a number between 1 and 10.... 1 - no, 2 - no, 3 - no, 4 - no.... 9 - no, 10 no... THAT IMPOSSIBLE DAD!!.
No it isn't. The number I had in mind was Pi.
Raising kids to think for themselves, and outside the "boxes" society tends to put on things makes them able to deal better with things that don't appear to make sense.
You can dumb down your kids by not challenging them, or you can challenge them every step of the way, in ways that force them to learn more than they know.
I'm all for tossing people in jail who didn't do their job, leading up to this debacle. Problem is, only 1/2 the people are going to go to jail who need to.
All those porn watching government official charged with over seeing the whole thing should be as well.
If CEO of BP goes to jail, so should all the idiots between him and the oil rig should as well. Same with those in the MMS that didn't do their jobs right.
UNTIL everyone accountable is charge with crimes, and fired for dereliction of duties I'm gonna be pissed.
All the regulations in the world are worthless with poor enforcement. WE don't need MORE regulation, we need the established regulations enforced.
There is plenty of blame to go around. I only wish people were as outraged at the Government charged with oversight as they are at BP.
Dad here. Had that fight (or similar). I asked a simple question to the kid who wanted it all. I asked him "all or nothing?" and again he said "all", to which I said "nothing".
Of course he rightly cried "Not Fair!!!", and I said, you set the rules, you wanted it all, setting the rule up that you didn't want to be fair, I'm just playing by your rules.
One of the best ways to prevent (at least partially) such a compromise is to establish a two way firewall, one that blocks outbound traffic from applications not authorized to send data.
Next, I'd incorporate a DMZ for general computers, making sure that there are no unauthorized computers on the network.
Servers would all communicate via encrypted traffic to only designated computers in the DMZ. ANY other traffic would sound alarms.
Random forensic examination of user computers and adding in regular re-imaging of desktops will help keep already compromized machines to a limited number. And I've also noticed that it also cuts down the number of "customizations" people make to their workstations.
Proper segmentation of network processes will help prevent (not KEEP) data from escaping. Compromised (hacked or 1D10T) computers are always going to be problematic.
I have actually speculated that we're moving much closer to a hybrid approach to storage. We already have pieces there, we just need to get an OS to realize it. Here's the idea:
Going from the CPU to VLTS (very long term storage)
If we built CPUs and OS to view all the MEMORY (that's what it all is) as a single (or as close to that as possible) address space, where the File System and the OS work in concert to bring data from the distant (computationally speaking) to the much closer MEMORY as needed.
In the future, OS will most likely require SSD, as they require HDs (and some require Network). I don't see HDs going away anytime soon, I just see them taking a place further away from the CPU.
Slashdot Mirror
Well the problem is that corporations are a creation of the state. The corporations that are creations of the state, can tell the state what they want. What is lost is that the state is a creation of it citizens. The problem is found when a Judge said corporations are equal to citizens (legal entities) with all the rights of a "person".
This is clearly FALSE if you read the Constitution, the document doesn't once mention "corporations" it does, however mention People (and States).
The judge(s) who made that ruling should have been lynched by the people, literally if necessary. It was a clear usurpation of power from the people, to a state created entity (not a person).
In my world, only PEOPLE (those eligible to vote for candidate/cause) would be able to contribute to a candidate or cause. No PAC, no Union, No Corporate sponsorships PERIOD. Now if they want to buy their own adverts and such by all means they can, just have to announce who they are, and how much they are spending on every advert. It would change politics and bring it closer to home.
That is neither the fault of the state, nor its responsibility. Before you mod me troll, hear me out.
First define "Fair" in such a way that a State can enforce it and be "fair" in the process. By definition, if you create "special" conditions where things "break" under certain conditions, I can generate a large number of conditions that break things. What you end up with is the "current" tax system which is far more "unfair" to the average guy paying taxes (not those who don't pay any), than it is for people who can hire others to find all the loopholes and advantages.
Lets take the Housing Interest tax break, for primary mortgages. I don't own a home, so I don't get to deduct large portions of income for the purposes of tax exemptions. IS it fair that I subsidize their tax breaks?
BUT on the otherhand, I've found a brand of shoes that I can spend $25 for a pair that lasts me a year or more. Is it fair that you spend 100 every other year, when I only spend $50 or so?
When "Fairness" is subjective, it isn't fair. Fairness is, everyone is treated the exact same, regardless of personal sob stories or other "exceptions".
A FAIR tax would be FAIR to all, equally, without bias or subjective criteria. That being said, a FLAT income tax, without regard to deductions, children, houses marital status would be more fair (read without bias) than what we currently have. Even if you put in a large deduction per income. Each person would be responsible for their income (not family, not marital status, not housing costs). THAT would be fair to all.
The problem with perceived "fairness" is that once it becomes a judgment call, it no longer is "fair". Once bias gets inserted, you end up with all sorts of unintended consequences that the code constantly is trying to manage, in ever increasing complexity that ends up being the spaghetti code we currently have, which is inherently UNFAIR.
Do you think it is fair that some people cannot afford the software, choose 1040EZ and DO NOT get the full benefit of all the deductions they might be otherwise entitled to? EVERY tax form should be 1040Easier and two lines:How much did you earn, and how much tax are you required to pay on that income, based on a simple lookup table. THAT would be fair. It could be done on a postcard even.
One last point, I think EVERYONE should pay SOMETHING in taxes, even if it is token. EVERYONE needs to feel the pain of the tax man, not just the "Rich". BTW I'm rich by their definition, since I pay taxes, even though I only make 50K year (not enough deductions I guess).
No, but Government sponsored ones do. ;)
"If we'd have let Iran have elections back then, we wouldn't have problems with Iran today."
Pure speculation. We basically sponsored the Taliban in Afghanistan only to have them support people who flew aircraft into buildings 9 years ago.
Besides, many dictators were elected. Just look at Afghanistan now, elected dictator, just as corrupt as the regimes before. The culture breeds corruption (like DC does). Power corrupts and all that.
IMHO we only have two options, supporting people we can control (by whatever means) and having people hate us, or not supporting anyone and having people hate us, just for different reasons.
Being nice to people who aren't is not productive at all. That is, unless you're their lapdog. Even so, that only lasts while it is convenient.
Health Insurance was something derived from WWII, when wages were frozen for the war. Entrepreneurial companies added both Pensions and Health Insurance to white collar workers "packages", in lieu of wages they couldn't offer.
With the advent of 401k, pensions and other retirement funds, anyone having one of these are the "ownership" class you deride.
The downfall of the middle class has been caused by people living beyond their means, and the expectation that the government is here to rescue you from your poor decisions and planning.
You know, credit card debt, cars and houses they can't afford, and $5 lattes. How many people do you know are in debt over their heads? And how many of those expect ME (tax payer, not in debt) to continue to bail them out?
And Obama bails them out, and put tax cheats in charge of the "solution". Good one. I'm the chump for not taking out 50K in credit card debt and a house I couldn't afford.
And the war sucks. We should have nuked the place and left. I'm sick of cleaning up broken countries run by tyrants. Either that, or let the rest of the world deal with them for a change (yeah right, like that will ever happen).
Or you can go back a president. Perhaps you don't remember the malaise of the 70s. Double Digit inflation, gas rationing, Iran (we're still dealing with that mess).
AND LET US NOT FORGET DISCO!!!
Yeah, but unlike government, a private company that is grossly inefficient will expire and die (or get a Government bailout being "too big to die)
Government only grows and grows (see parenthetical above).
You're the one that admits to believing something you have never seen, and cannot prove. That sounds more like fantasy than anything I've said.
Racism is calling a black man "uncle tom" because he left the liberal plantation.
Racism is telling black people they can't succeed without help from their Master (government).
Racism is saying all black people are victims of slavery, even if they just immigrated from Africa last year.
Racism is saying that skin color matters at all.
Racism is seeing "code words" for racism even when there is no such thing.
Racism is believing CBC members heard "N" word even though the entire walk in which it was asserted was recorded by all sorts of cameras, for the whole "walk" between the Cannon Building and Capital Building was a news media event called together by the CBC, and yet not one single shred of evidence has been manifested.
Yet you believe it. That is some faith.
What I don't get is the warning on a curling iron that says "Do not use on eye lashes". REALLY??? I would never have known!
I've heard the same argument before. Sounded something like this ...
The problem with Facebook, is the very thing that makes it work. People like you want walled garden for your life, when in reality, there is no such thing.
You want privacy, but on the other hand, you want people to know how to find you, which means breaching privacy.
I haven't gained any friends since joining FB, and I'm not losing any friends if I leave FB. I don't count new people "friends" and online people are not friends until we've become involved IRL.
Lastly, I don't put anything on FB that I don't want the whole world knowing. Most of the "Privacy" crap people complain about is laziness and stupidity. Most of the information on FB about me can be found elsewhere by Googling me. And it isn't that much.
I'd love to. However, I wouldn't even vote for me.
In the words of Groucho Marx "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members"
Unfounded = without foundation; not based on fact, realistic consideration.
Meaning A bunch of CBC guys, walking in public, make the accusation of people YELLING the "N" word. Video Cameras and other recording devices are present recording said "YELLING" without one picking up the infamous "N" word. Must be a conspiracy of Faux News and Brietbart.
And you're willingness to believe the UNFOUNDED accusations of people because your BIAS says the people yelling "MUST BE RACIST", after all they are yelling at "black people", is proof that my original post "ahhh yes, (R) bad (D) good .. sock puppet. You're almost as annoying as the Bushbots" proves 100% accurate.
It is interesting that I got modded -1 "flamebait" for something that you yourself proved ... you're one of those (D) good (R) bad sock puppets, and are just as annoying as a Bushbot.
And if the Tea Party is as racist as you seem to think, how do you figure Cedra Crenshaw (IL), Angela McGlowan (MS), Vernon Parker (AZ), and Tim Scott(SC) are Tea Party Supported Candidates? Especially since two of them are from the "Racist South"??
(D) good, (R) bad mantra is old.
If you don't think Sharpton, Jackson, CBC hurling unfounded "racist" tags just because they can is not "race baiting", I can't help you.
If Brietbart is a liar, then what do you say about the CBC members who claimed (unfounded, undocumented, fictional, imaginary) "N" word was hurled at them and the unclaimed $100K prize being offered by Brietbart for proof that it happened?
I mean they have DOZENS of video evidence from all sorts of angles, and yet no one has heard the "N" word being "shouted" as claimed.
You willing to say that they are liars?
I don't think so.
What Brietbart did (irresponsible) was much less egregious than the terrible "race baiting" accusation made by the CBC. But I doubt you would see it that way. And I doubt your vitriol for "liars" would extend to them (CBC) because ... well they are (D) and therefore better than that (R) Brietbart.
Did I sum it up well enough for you?
"Republicans are bought, lock stock and barrel, by moneyed corporate interests."
And Democrats are bought, lock stock and barrel by Unions, Hollywood, and race baiters. and many others groups.
If you're opposed to being bought(on principle), then I applaud you. If you are just opposed to being bought by people you disagree with, then we have a problem.
Oh, Obama was one of the largest recipients of BP campaign cash
Again, my point, which you can't seem to admit, is that both sides have the exact same problems. And excusing your side (left OR right) because it is "your side" is just stupid and a BIG reason why nothing good comes from it all.
Um, the problem isn't (D) vs (R) which is what you're trying make it.
The problem isn't "regulation" of things, as some regulations are needed. And MORE Regulation isn't the answer to fixing a problem of NOT ENFORCING regulations that are on the books.
And since the REGULATIONS on the books would have, or at least SHOULD HAVE helped prevent this mess weren't being enforced, the problem becomes the administration that FAILED to enforce the regulations already on the books.
And as much as you'd like to blame BUSH for this, it wasn't HIS fault, directly or even indirectly. IF you want to blame an admin, blame the one that was in office a FULL YEAR and could enforced any and all regulations they wanted to. Don't blame Bush for something that was clearly under the EXECUTIVE branch of Obama, on HIS watch.
Bush has his own issues (wars, financial mess), as does Clinton, Bush 1, and back further. It is a mess because people can't take responsibility for the things they clearly could do(or undo).
And We should toss people in jail if they hold a government job, and fail to do it properly to the point of criminal negligence.
IF you go through my posts, you'll find I am not a corporate apologist, even calling for a corporate death penalty (revocation of corporate charter) in the most extreme cases.
Government has a fiduciary responsibility to oversee the entities they have created and give license to. Likewise, if government people don't do their jobs, they should be canned, and in some cases prosecuted for violation of public trust.
If we held people more responsible for the actions they take, we'd have more responsible actions by people
Passing the buck has become a national pastime.
ahhh yes, (R) bad (D) good .. sock puppet. You're almost as annoying as the Bushbots.
I wish I would have hit you now - Dad
Nope, he wasn't screwed, because it wasn't the only option; it was a false dichotomy. I gave him a chance to offer another choice, it was just veiled. Kobioshi Maru. He could have thought about it and said "half" even though that wasn't an obvious choice.
I often give my kids tests to break them out of self imposed boxes (false dichotomy). Pick a number between 1 and 10 .... 1 - no, 2 - no, 3 - no, 4 - no .... 9 - no, 10 no ... THAT IMPOSSIBLE DAD!!.
No it isn't. The number I had in mind was Pi.
Raising kids to think for themselves, and outside the "boxes" society tends to put on things makes them able to deal better with things that don't appear to make sense.
You can dumb down your kids by not challenging them, or you can challenge them every step of the way, in ways that force them to learn more than they know.
I'm all for tossing people in jail who didn't do their job, leading up to this debacle. Problem is, only 1/2 the people are going to go to jail who need to.
All those porn watching government official charged with over seeing the whole thing should be as well.
If CEO of BP goes to jail, so should all the idiots between him and the oil rig should as well. Same with those in the MMS that didn't do their jobs right.
UNTIL everyone accountable is charge with crimes, and fired for dereliction of duties I'm gonna be pissed.
All the regulations in the world are worthless with poor enforcement. WE don't need MORE regulation, we need the established regulations enforced.
There is plenty of blame to go around. I only wish people were as outraged at the Government charged with oversight as they are at BP.
Dad here. Had that fight (or similar). I asked a simple question to the kid who wanted it all. I asked him "all or nothing?" and again he said "all", to which I said "nothing".
Of course he rightly cried "Not Fair!!!", and I said, you set the rules, you wanted it all, setting the rule up that you didn't want to be fair, I'm just playing by your rules.
Never had that problem again. EVER.
Statistics matter to the 73.54% of the people who make them up on the spot.
One of the best ways to prevent (at least partially) such a compromise is to establish a two way firewall, one that blocks outbound traffic from applications not authorized to send data.
Next, I'd incorporate a DMZ for general computers, making sure that there are no unauthorized computers on the network.
Servers would all communicate via encrypted traffic to only designated computers in the DMZ. ANY other traffic would sound alarms.
Random forensic examination of user computers and adding in regular re-imaging of desktops will help keep already compromized machines to a limited number. And I've also noticed that it also cuts down the number of "customizations" people make to their workstations.
Proper segmentation of network processes will help prevent (not KEEP) data from escaping. Compromised (hacked or 1D10T) computers are always going to be problematic.
I have actually speculated that we're moving much closer to a hybrid approach to storage. We already have pieces there, we just need to get an OS to realize it. Here's the idea:
Going from the CPU to VLTS (very long term storage)
Level 1 - 3 Cache (CPU), RAM, SSD, HD, Network Storage, VLTS, etc.
If we built CPUs and OS to view all the MEMORY (that's what it all is) as a single (or as close to that as possible) address space, where the File System and the OS work in concert to bring data from the distant (computationally speaking) to the much closer MEMORY as needed.
In the future, OS will most likely require SSD, as they require HDs (and some require Network). I don't see HDs going away anytime soon, I just see them taking a place further away from the CPU.