It is, if you're under 30 there are plenty of jobs. But as soon as your salary reaches a certain point, manage or panhandle.
I've been hearing that shit since the early years of my career.
I'm 43, making an upper-middle class salary (not counting benefits), doing nothing but coding and software engineering. Management is not anywhere in my plans (not in the near future). I have a colleague in his 50's doing a killing as a contractor (over $100/hr, with O/T.) Others in their 40's and 50's are still doing predominantly technical jobs doing a killing in terms of salaries with no shortage of opportunities. And I'm not talking coding in some safe-COBOL-niche cave, but doing a variety of things, from Machine Learning/Big Data to device driver development.
Jobs are plenty in systems and/or application development spaces (and to a lesser, but still substantial degree in IT/infrastructure)... if you have the technical know-how. Age is rarely an issue. Now, if you (the generic "you", not one in particular) are an easily replaceable, cookie-cutter, copy-n-paste programmer, your job prospects are dim, even if you are in the vitality of your 20's.
Why not preserve the whole moon for posterity, after all it's the site of mankind's first off-Earth planetary landing? Off course that's a bit of reductio ad absurdum, but arguably no one will actually be any the worse off in any quantifiable way in the future for being able to say "this is the Apollo landing site" versus "this is the Apollo landing site with some untouched footprints". History is about knowing what happened, and while pristine preserved artefacts can help tell the story, they're not the be all and end all of it, and you can't preserve everything.
Like, the prosecutorial discretion of doing absolutely nothing with the fat cats that nearly ruined the economy? Like that kind of prosecutorial discretion?
Damned bought-out hypocrites. They have no right to bring "prosecutorial discretion" as a justification until we see "prosecutorial discretion" being used fairly and uniformingly.
This was not a case of prosecutorial discretion. It was a case of selective Javertism fueled by ulterior motives. At least the mythical Javert would prosecute everyone. So these prosecutors are even worse.
Unlike most in IT, I am aiming for what businesses are looking for
And what is that, pray tell, oh wise one?:)
P.S. I wish people stop using the word IT. IT only encompasses a sector of the software industry (let alone the industries involved the various engineering disciplines.)
A person in a position of power abused that power?
That's not exactly unusual on the 'net - once you have influence... the temptation to use it for your own personal hobbyhorses rises exponentially. (Heck, most of my friends use their blogs and Facebook feeds as platforms for their personal views - and they have pretty much no influence even over their own friends.)
Oh, wait... you were talking about the DHS agent? No. She didn't abuse her power. She, as he insisted, followed the letter of the law. No paperwork, no boat.
But Arrington is not at blame for the lack of paperwork. If you read the article (if you didn't you shouldn't be talking shi... err, writing an opinion), the paper is/was provided by the government, and it was provided with wrong/false data. Furthermore, the agent was demanding Arrignton to sign the paper, testifying that the information PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT was accurate, which was not.
So she, the agent, did not follow the letter of the law. Nowhere in the letter of the law says that you must put your signature as affidavit that something false is true when you know that it is false.
Either that, or you have a funny understanding of what the letter of the law means (and I don't mean "funny" as a term of endearment.)
Rationalize or not, I'm pretty sure you can't do shit about it either, no matter how "powerful" you may feel.
Joe Schmoe may not, but someone well known in the interweebz (like the founder of Tech Crunch) might. The fact that this is in./ in the San Francisco Chronicle and Business Insider might give him (and his lawyer) a good chance to fix that shit.
A person in a position of power abused that power? Well color me surprised! I'm sure this has everything to do with DHS and nothing at all to do with the fact that every imaginable authority organization has had people who abuse their power since the dawn of time. Why is this news? Pursue your problem, get it resolved... But this is not "news for nerds" by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.
Uhhhhh, because it happened to the founder of TechCrunch? Seriously man...
Thinking as hard as they can't won't magically mean someone living paycheque to paycheque can still afford food if they quit their job.
It's great you have the resources to afford voluntary unemployment. Many, many people do not.
You are missing he's trying to convey. Working in a at-will state does not put the employee at a a greater dissadvantage than living in a state that does not have at-will work policies. Unions aren't a panacea of workers' rights anymore. They had their place when the labor laws were defficient or non-existing. But now they have become an economic cancer (just look at the UAW).
Auto workers in the South/South East might not be getting $50/hr but they are still getting a decent salary. They have work, and unlike their UAW counterparts, sustainable work.
Being in a at-will location might look bad in paper,but in practice, guess what, you have jobs, relatively plenty compared to, say, Detroid. In practice, any lopsideness (sp?) against the common worker gets compensated by a greater variety of sustainable work opportunities.
I used to be a strong believer in unions, but after 20+ years of seeing what kind of parasites it harbors, and after realizing that our body of laws have substantially evolved since the late 1800's/early 1900's, I've come to the conclusion they do more harm than good to the modern-era, developed world common worker...
.... now if we were talking about a common worker in India, China or Nicaragua (where I'm from) were labor laws are still shitty or non-existent/non-enforceable, then yeah, unions have their place.
The problem is that humans of today aren't any different than the ones from 2000 years ago (or even more).
Our civilization isn't even better socially speaking, we haven't moved at all. We only moved forward technically speaking.
Oh yeah, at least, 2000 years ago, people were calling a slave a slave. Now they're calling "chinese workers". "india workers".
I dislike the work conditions many workers (myself included 23 years) in the third world are subjected to. However, to not-so-succintly compare their state to slaves (in particular when we think about African slaves in the Americas or say in the Ancient World), that's pretty stupid, savage and illiterate thinking, even if it is meant as a hyperbole.
Depends on the university, obviously, but I would say yes. I have not seen anything as bad as what the OP reported, but yeah, it has gotten bad at many public universities. Case in point, when you allow people to graduate with a CS degree w/o knowing what a pointer is (one of the many examples I have witnessed), we can say that yes, the bar has been lowered.
Yeah, the issue is that Python is pretty hard to sandbox, being the hugely dynamic language it is.
Forgive me but JavaScript is also hugely dynamic. How does this prevent effective sand boxing in the general sense?
I imagine it would take a lot to get the browsers to stop working on their JavaScript implementations that they have sunk insane amounts of time and effort into, and start something brand new.
Another solution is to program in a subset of Python that gets verified at compile time with additional restrictions, and then compiled into JavaScript (the way CoffeeScript does.) That way we re-capture the investment already made in browser-side JavaScript technology.
Trust me, I'd love to see it happen, but I don't think it will.
That sounds more like a solution looking for a problem. No need to reinvent the browser vm wheel. Reuse what's there to greatest extend possible and get the best ROI.
It might not sound as cool as re-inventing browser script vm technology, but it is certainly a more pragmatic solution for which working precedents already exist. Plus, it's not as if it were trivial. Language-to-language compilers are fertile ground for very cool experimentation.
I work with C and C++ on a daily basis, and I have to ask/answer: For parallelized scientific computation or data crunching? No thank you. You don't use a phillips screw driver to unscrew a hexagonal bolt, do you? Know your tools, their strenghts and limitations.
I think you're right.
I love Ruby, it's a very fun and effective language, I could write it in my sleep but there are so many cool projects that are written in Python.
Those languages are *very* similar, and it's a shame that so much effort is being divided between communities.
I might get to learn Python one day but I'm afraid I'd become a so-so programmer in both languages.
Both languages suffer from the global interpreter lock defect and will require a rewrite in the next 5-10 years if the languages have any chance of surviving in the servers.
Gee, because there are no distributed enterprise solutions written on Python or Ruby <rolls eyes/>
It will take some very serious, dedicated, low level work and I just don't see it happening.
It already has happened. The solutions aren't just in the mainstream versions, though. Take Jython. On a typical JVM, it is the fastest Python in-the-trenches implementation available. Throw that over specialized Java-focused hardware (like the Azul Vega 3), and you are on fire.
Furthermore, a solution to the GIL problem is not necessary in the general case. In any modern system, the cost of communicating processes vs threads is no longer so much of an issue as it was a decade ago. Depending on the nature of computation, context switching between processes can be as cheap as switching between threads, and the former is typically somewhat (but no completely free) of the locking issues that are experienced with threading paradigms as seen in, say, Java/JEE solutions.
In the back-end server arena where the greatest bottlenecks are those between http servers, app servers and database servers, there are so many, tried and true solutions to the so-called GIL process that it typically renders it as a non-issue. More processes per box, more RAM and SDDs, more boxes collocated on the same subnets running more processes, all communicating with some type of messaging queue. For these typical solutions, the issue of the GIL get blurred into non-existence.
It's only for those applications where you have to squeeze every last drop out of your cores that the GIL becomes an issue, and where Java/JEE shines. But for the typical bizneyty application, a platform with a GIL issue does just fine by simply scaling horizontally.
I have this fantasy where Guido and Matsumoto will sit down and write the common code together for a super-interpreter that will handle different syntax in a modular way. I know it's technically possible since GCC is doing something very similar but, again, I just can't see this happening.
In the meantime, Go is looking mighty good...
Google Go looks mighty good... for systems-level programming. That's what Google intended it to be. For app development, sorry, you need more than a language. You need a tried and true app stack. Until that happens (and it will take some time for that to happen), Java, Python, Ruby and even.NET do more than fine.
You need more than the language (however greatly designed it might be) to make potentially complex domain-specific shit happen.
What is this APRANET thing? It sounds like some useless crap loaded acronym to me.
You gotta be fucking kidding me. Either you are trolling or you are completely clueless about technology. In the case of the later, it begs the question what are you doing in/. If you don't know what ARPANET you should be posting in MySpace instead of posting on a nerd/tech news site. It'd be like me posting opinions on a medicine-related site without knowing the meaning of the word 'penicilin'.
Are you serious? How many other Christian countries other than the US have an Evangelical-based Creationist movement with such political influence as the one displayed here, with politicians openly question evolution? None. That's your prove. No citations necessary as this is common knowledge (or at least it should be in this era of widespread access to global information.)
And regardless, even if it this were not true, how does that change anything. Don't bother replying until you answer my original question, re-quoted below, which is the crux of the matter:
No (by virtue of Betteridge's law of headlines.) I have a dream, that someday/. posters wise the f* up and stop creating headlines that end with a question mark.
Religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
I can quote a few religious beliefs where the idea of a superhuman controlling power is absent or not required. Feel free to find a few as a homework for your own elucidation... or not, if you are the type to be content with spewing nonsense in the hopes of sounding avant garde.
Since there is no evidence gods exist and science is based on fact and evidence religion,
I like how you take the science banner while at the same time relying on a argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy (quoted in bold above).
by default, is bullshit and is therefore incompatible with religion.
That's an invective, not an argument. The nuisance is missed to most. I'm not saying whether you are right or wrong, but any truth values on your propositions are merely coincidental, and nothing to do with your actual understanding and application of the scientific method and the construction of logically-sound arguments.
You are aware that the so-called "bastardized american christianity" didn't even originate on this continent, right?
</flying red herring alert>
So what? How does that change anything? How does it alter anything that what the AC posted (re-quoted below):
You have a very narrow view of what constitutes religion. Not all religions have a rigid dogma, or even believe in a single God. The wacko bastardized American Christianity is not representative of global religions as a whole. Get out and travel the world before you spew such narrow-minded rhetoric.
It might not have originated here, but American (or I rather say, a section of America) has gone to bat for it (while the rest of the Christian world has to one degree or another moved away from it.)
By the numbers, Creationist Christian Fundamentalism has become a strictly American phenomenon to the point that it no longer matters where it originated (for our everlasting shame.)
Finding a way to sue Microsoft into bankruptcy is never irrelevant to me.
There. Fixed that for you.
I just don't think they'll find anything
So if you believe with utmost certainty that MS can pull a hocus pocus act, why exactly then should one spend taxpayers' money on said fishing expedition in the name of the public good (not your personal interest/infatuation/cause/whatever, but public good)?
, MS can do this w/o leaving a trail.
I can't prove it, but I can say it - Stephen Colbert
True as it might be, we have more serious state and federal crimes that need attention and prosecuting. You need to provide some tangible evidence that further at-public-expense dead horse beating is truly in the public interest. Without that, we are not pursuing justice, but a twisted game of Javertist masturbatory taxpayers' money fishing expedition without probably cause, for a cause that is no longer relevant to the times we currently live in.
Yes, that is no justice. It's a game. People can feel free to pursue, on their own dime however.
Slashdot Mirror
It is, if you're under 30 there are plenty of jobs. But as soon as your salary reaches a certain point, manage or panhandle.
I've been hearing that shit since the early years of my career.
I'm 43, making an upper-middle class salary (not counting benefits), doing nothing but coding and software engineering. Management is not anywhere in my plans (not in the near future). I have a colleague in his 50's doing a killing as a contractor (over $100/hr, with O/T.) Others in their 40's and 50's are still doing predominantly technical jobs doing a killing in terms of salaries with no shortage of opportunities. And I'm not talking coding in some safe-COBOL-niche cave, but doing a variety of things, from Machine Learning/Big Data to device driver development.
Jobs are plenty in systems and/or application development spaces (and to a lesser, but still substantial degree in IT/infrastructure) ... if you have the technical know-how. Age is rarely an issue. Now, if you (the generic "you", not one in particular) are an easily replaceable, cookie-cutter, copy-n-paste programmer, your job prospects are dim, even if you are in the vitality of your 20's.
Why not preserve the whole moon for posterity, after all it's the site of mankind's first off-Earth planetary landing? Off course that's a bit of reductio ad absurdum, but arguably no one will actually be any the worse off in any quantifiable way in the future for being able to say "this is the Apollo landing site" versus "this is the Apollo landing site with some untouched footprints". History is about knowing what happened, and while pristine preserved artefacts can help tell the story, they're not the be all and end all of it, and you can't preserve everything.
We need breathing room.
a good use of prosecutorial discretion.
Like, the prosecutorial discretion of doing absolutely nothing with the fat cats that nearly ruined the economy? Like that kind of prosecutorial discretion?
Damned bought-out hypocrites. They have no right to bring "prosecutorial discretion" as a justification until we see "prosecutorial discretion" being used fairly and uniformingly.
This was not a case of prosecutorial discretion. It was a case of selective Javertism fueled by ulterior motives. At least the mythical Javert would prosecute everyone. So these prosecutors are even worse.
/* But if I thought Apple killed children and unicorns then I wouldn't use OSX, even if it was the best tool for a job. */
Shit, that'd probably get me to switch to Apple.
Same here, specially if we are talking about organically grown, cage-free children and unicorns.
Unlike most in IT, I am aiming for what businesses are looking for
And what is that, pray tell, oh wise one? :)
P.S. I wish people stop using the word IT. IT only encompasses a sector of the software industry (let alone the industries involved the various engineering disciplines.)
How about weeding them out according to character?
How do you do that economically, methodically and with a repeatable process?
That's not exactly unusual on the 'net - once you have influence... the temptation to use it for your own personal hobbyhorses rises exponentially. (Heck, most of my friends use their blogs and Facebook feeds as platforms for their personal views - and they have pretty much no influence even over their own friends.) Oh, wait... you were talking about the DHS agent? No. She didn't abuse her power. She, as he insisted, followed the letter of the law. No paperwork, no boat.
But Arrington is not at blame for the lack of paperwork. If you read the article (if you didn't you shouldn't be talking shi... err, writing an opinion), the paper is/was provided by the government, and it was provided with wrong/false data. Furthermore, the agent was demanding Arrignton to sign the paper, testifying that the information PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT was accurate, which was not.
So she, the agent, did not follow the letter of the law. Nowhere in the letter of the law says that you must put your signature as affidavit that something false is true when you know that it is false.
Either that, or you have a funny understanding of what the letter of the law means (and I don't mean "funny" as a term of endearment.)
Rationalize or not, I'm pretty sure you can't do shit about it either, no matter how "powerful" you may feel.
Joe Schmoe may not, but someone well known in the interweebz (like the founder of Tech Crunch) might. The fact that this is in ./ in the San Francisco Chronicle and Business Insider might give him (and his lawyer) a good chance to fix that shit.
A person in a position of power abused that power? Well color me surprised! I'm sure this has everything to do with DHS and nothing at all to do with the fact that every imaginable authority organization has had people who abuse their power since the dawn of time. Why is this news? Pursue your problem, get it resolved... But this is not "news for nerds" by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.
Uhhhhh, because it happened to the founder of TechCrunch? Seriously man...
Thinking as hard as they can't won't magically mean someone living paycheque to paycheque can still afford food if they quit their job.
It's great you have the resources to afford voluntary unemployment. Many, many people do not.
You are missing he's trying to convey. Working in a at-will state does not put the employee at a a greater dissadvantage than living in a state that does not have at-will work policies. Unions aren't a panacea of workers' rights anymore. They had their place when the labor laws were defficient or non-existing. But now they have become an economic cancer (just look at the UAW).
Auto workers in the South/South East might not be getting $50/hr but they are still getting a decent salary. They have work, and unlike their UAW counterparts, sustainable work.
Being in a at-will location might look bad in paper ,but in practice, guess what, you have jobs, relatively plenty compared to, say, Detroid. In practice, any lopsideness (sp?) against the common worker gets compensated by a greater variety of sustainable work opportunities.
I used to be a strong believer in unions, but after 20+ years of seeing what kind of parasites it harbors, and after realizing that our body of laws have substantially evolved since the late 1800's/early 1900's, I've come to the conclusion they do more harm than good to the modern-era, developed world common worker...
.... now if we were talking about a common worker in India, China or Nicaragua (where I'm from) were labor laws are still shitty or non-existent/non-enforceable, then yeah, unions have their place.
The problem is that humans of today aren't any different than the ones from 2000 years ago (or even more). Our civilization isn't even better socially speaking, we haven't moved at all. We only moved forward technically speaking.
Oh yeah, at least, 2000 years ago, people were calling a slave a slave. Now they're calling "chinese workers". "india workers".
I dislike the work conditions many workers (myself included 23 years) in the third world are subjected to. However, to not-so-succintly compare their state to slaves (in particular when we think about African slaves in the Americas or say in the Ancient World), that's pretty stupid, savage and illiterate thinking, even if it is meant as a hyperbole.
Is the Bar Being Lowered At Universities?
Depends on the university, obviously, but I would say yes. I have not seen anything as bad as what the OP reported, but yeah, it has gotten bad at many public universities. Case in point, when you allow people to graduate with a CS degree w/o knowing what a pointer is (one of the many examples I have witnessed), we can say that yes, the bar has been lowered.
Java/JEE never shines. It is total crap.
That's an invective, not an argument. Now go back and finish your programming homework.
Uh.... I though the placental lineages extended well within the Cretaceous (????).
Poe's Law.
In /., you never know.
Yeah, the issue is that Python is pretty hard to sandbox, being the hugely dynamic language it is.
Forgive me but JavaScript is also hugely dynamic. How does this prevent effective sand boxing in the general sense?
I imagine it would take a lot to get the browsers to stop working on their JavaScript implementations that they have sunk insane amounts of time and effort into, and start something brand new.
Another solution is to program in a subset of Python that gets verified at compile time with additional restrictions, and then compiled into JavaScript (the way CoffeeScript does.) That way we re-capture the investment already made in browser-side JavaScript technology.
Trust me, I'd love to see it happen, but I don't think it will.
That sounds more like a solution looking for a problem. No need to reinvent the browser vm wheel. Reuse what's there to greatest extend possible and get the best ROI.
It might not sound as cool as re-inventing browser script vm technology, but it is certainly a more pragmatic solution for which working precedents already exist. Plus, it's not as if it were trivial. Language-to-language compilers are fertile ground for very cool experimentation.
Well.. there's C, of course...
I work with C and C++ on a daily basis, and I have to ask/answer: For parallelized scientific computation or data crunching? No thank you. You don't use a phillips screw driver to unscrew a hexagonal bolt, do you? Know your tools, their strenghts and limitations.
I think you're right. I love Ruby, it's a very fun and effective language, I could write it in my sleep but there are so many cool projects that are written in Python. Those languages are *very* similar, and it's a shame that so much effort is being divided between communities. I might get to learn Python one day but I'm afraid I'd become a so-so programmer in both languages.
Both languages suffer from the global interpreter lock defect and will require a rewrite in the next 5-10 years if the languages have any chance of surviving in the servers.
Gee, because there are no distributed enterprise solutions written on Python or Ruby <rolls eyes/>
It will take some very serious, dedicated, low level work and I just don't see it happening.
It already has happened. The solutions aren't just in the mainstream versions, though. Take Jython. On a typical JVM, it is the fastest Python in-the-trenches implementation available. Throw that over specialized Java-focused hardware (like the Azul Vega 3), and you are on fire.
Furthermore, a solution to the GIL problem is not necessary in the general case. In any modern system, the cost of communicating processes vs threads is no longer so much of an issue as it was a decade ago. Depending on the nature of computation, context switching between processes can be as cheap as switching between threads, and the former is typically somewhat (but no completely free) of the locking issues that are experienced with threading paradigms as seen in, say, Java/JEE solutions.
In the back-end server arena where the greatest bottlenecks are those between http servers, app servers and database servers, there are so many, tried and true solutions to the so-called GIL process that it typically renders it as a non-issue. More processes per box, more RAM and SDDs, more boxes collocated on the same subnets running more processes, all communicating with some type of messaging queue. For these typical solutions, the issue of the GIL get blurred into non-existence.
It's only for those applications where you have to squeeze every last drop out of your cores that the GIL becomes an issue, and where Java/JEE shines. But for the typical bizneyty application, a platform with a GIL issue does just fine by simply scaling horizontally.
I have this fantasy where Guido and Matsumoto will sit down and write the common code together for a super-interpreter that will handle different syntax in a modular way. I know it's technically possible since GCC is doing something very similar but, again, I just can't see this happening.
In the meantime, Go is looking mighty good...
Google Go looks mighty good... for systems-level programming. That's what Google intended it to be. For app development, sorry, you need more than a language. You need a tried and true app stack. Until that happens (and it will take some time for that to happen), Java, Python, Ruby and even .NET do more than fine.
You need more than the language (however greatly designed it might be) to make potentially complex domain-specific shit happen.
What is this APRANET thing? It sounds like some useless crap loaded acronym to me.
You gotta be fucking kidding me. Either you are trolling or you are completely clueless about technology. In the case of the later, it begs the question what are you doing in /. If you don't know what ARPANET you should be posting in MySpace instead of posting on a nerd/tech news site. It'd be like me posting opinions on a medicine-related site without knowing the meaning of the word 'penicilin'.
"By the numbers", you say? Cite sources, please.
Are you serious? How many other Christian countries other than the US have an Evangelical-based Creationist movement with such political influence as the one displayed here, with politicians openly question evolution? None. That's your prove. No citations necessary as this is common knowledge (or at least it should be in this era of widespread access to global information.)
And regardless, even if it this were not true, how does that change anything. Don't bother replying until you answer my original question, re-quoted below, which is the crux of the matter:
So what? How does that change anything?
Is the Era of Groundbreaking Science Over?
No (by virtue of Betteridge's law of headlines.) I have a dream, that someday /. posters wise the f* up and stop creating headlines that end with a question mark.
Religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
I can quote a few religious beliefs where the idea of a superhuman controlling power is absent or not required. Feel free to find a few as a homework for your own elucidation... or not, if you are the type to be content with spewing nonsense in the hopes of sounding avant garde.
Since there is no evidence gods exist and science is based on fact and evidence religion,
I like how you take the science banner while at the same time relying on a argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy (quoted in bold above).
by default, is bullshit and is therefore incompatible with religion.
That's an invective, not an argument. The nuisance is missed to most. I'm not saying whether you are right or wrong, but any truth values on your propositions are merely coincidental, and nothing to do with your actual understanding and application of the scientific method and the construction of logically-sound arguments.
You are aware that the so-called "bastardized american christianity" didn't even originate on this continent, right?
</flying red herring alert>
So what? How does that change anything? How does it alter anything that what the AC posted (re-quoted below):
You have a very narrow view of what constitutes religion. Not all religions have a rigid dogma, or even believe in a single God. The wacko bastardized American Christianity is not representative of global religions as a whole. Get out and travel the world before you spew such narrow-minded rhetoric.
It might not have originated here, but American (or I rather say, a section of America) has gone to bat for it (while the rest of the Christian world has to one degree or another moved away from it.)
By the numbers, Creationist Christian Fundamentalism has become a strictly American phenomenon to the point that it no longer matters where it originated (for our everlasting shame.)
Finding a way to sue Microsoft into bankruptcy is never irrelevant to me.
There. Fixed that for you.
I just don't think they'll find anything
So if you believe with utmost certainty that MS can pull a hocus pocus act, why exactly then should one spend taxpayers' money on said fishing expedition in the name of the public good (not your personal interest/infatuation/cause/whatever, but public good)?
, MS can do this w/o leaving a trail.
I can't prove it, but I can say it - Stephen Colbert
Solicitation is a crime in most states.
True as it might be, we have more serious state and federal crimes that need attention and prosecuting. You need to provide some tangible evidence that further at-public-expense dead horse beating is truly in the public interest. Without that, we are not pursuing justice, but a twisted game of Javertist masturbatory taxpayers' money fishing expedition without probably cause, for a cause that is no longer relevant to the times we currently live in.
Yes, that is no justice. It's a game. People can feel free to pursue, on their own dime however.