Normally I would, but Cisco has been proven to be complicit in lying and subterfuge in this case.
Check out the note above about what they did in Canada. They fed a boatload of lies to the DoJ which were then parroted to the Canadians to get him extradited here. The Canadian judge was PISSED when this was found out.
It was seriously evil and twisted. How's this: He is a British citizen traveling on a valid British passport. He sues Cisco. He lives in Switzerland and can't get back into the US legally until he resolves some immigration issues, which he has documentation he's been actively trying to do. So he can't come to the US to make a deposition in the case. Cisco doesn't want to go to Switzerland, so they arrange for Canada. Cisco/DoJ has him arrested and held for extradition in the middle of the deposition.
Here's a fun lie: The justification for this was that he refused to come into the US, so he had to be nabbed in Canada. But there is documentation showing he had been continually trying to come back to the US to run his company. A quick check with DHS would have shown the DoJ that Cisco was lying, but they didn't even bother. The judge in the antitrust case knew about the situation and had approved the Canadian deposition.
If they wanted him that badly, they could have just granted the visa, he would have entered the US, and he could have been arrested.
He's Nigerian by birth, but he had been a British citizen for years, and a successful executive with IBM, AT&T and then Cisco. Cisco brought him to the US on his British passport. Cisco then fed the DoJ a big story about this shady Nigerian who could flee at any moment if not nabbed in Canada and held there. Without checking, the DoJ passed this false story onto the Canadians.
I've read the Canadian court decision. It is downright scary what happened, Cisco colluding with the DoJ and lying to a sovereign country's courts in order to strongarm a person into giving up his antitrust suit.
Cisco employee with valid credentials let's Adekeye log on for a few minutes to get what he needs. IMHO, firing the employee for a violation of policy is about the extent of the redress here.
Those at the extremes tend to be impractical and even dangerous if implemented in real life.
Luckily, Atlas Shrugged hasn't been implemented. But "The Communist Manifesto," "Das Kapital," "What is to be Done?," "Quotations from Chairman Mao," and "Complete Collection of Kim Il Sung's Works" have, with the cost of about 100 million lives in less than one century.
Verizon's wireless division is hurting, the need for their services is shrinking. Yet they want to pretend it's still the gravy days. No, they can't just mix it in one big pool with the profitable wireless division, since that's a joint venture with Vodafone. Aside from that, how would the wireless people feel about their profitable division being drained by the unprofitable wired division? Sorry, no raises for you this year, we had to bail out the wired division.
Here are some desired concessions:
Contribute to their own health care premiums: I've always done that.
Freezing and killing pensions. That does suck, but the other side is an expanded 401k.
Five sick days a year instead of unlimited: When was the last time I got sick days at a company?
Deny raises to sub-performing employees: This can be an issue only for the lazy, which is probably why it's an issue.
I was against an anti-US contingent on a military issue, but I got lucky with a rational admin who realized I knew what I was talking about, they didn't. It helped that I used to actually run the hardware in question.
It was simply an inconsistency in Wikipedia. Sourced information in one article said one thing, while another article stated differently without a source. It was a long time ago.
Although in looking back at it now, it appears it was "some say" weasel-worded around the problem. I'm sure putting WP:WW on there would get slapped down fast, but I'm not about to try since I know it is an admin- and cabal-controlled article.
Wait, now I see the sources in the other article are gone, all content regarding it removed, claimed to be NPOV or UNDUE. I guess my rogue admin finally got to that article too. That information had been up there for a rather long time. I guess the PC cleansing hadn't gotten around to it.
For the current crop, . Clinton had no diplomatic experience (no, First Lady doesn't count) Panetta had no defense experience LaHood's transportation experience was very thin Napolitano was (and is) pretty clueless on security issues Obama himself had never held an executive position (the thinnest experience for an elected president in scores of years)
But he does have a few people who I must admit had the background, such as Holder, Rice and Geithner.
Then experience or lack thereof is not necessarily an indicator. Holder is royally screwing everything up, while Panetta has been doing a pretty good job.
It has about as much time invested in story building as gameplay, weaving a very large and intricate story with an extensive history and character development.
Long ago I noticed once that the well-sourced facts set out in one Wikipedia article contradicted a claim (not directly sourced) made in a related article. So I naturally edited the claim to correspond to the facts, mentioning the edit was for internal consistency. I hadn't come to edit an article, but I consider it to be a Good Thing to fix small errors as you see them.
Unfortunately for me the claim happened to be in a gay-related article and apparently embodied the PC position towards this incident.
The storm hit. An admin reverted it without comment (against Wikipedia rules). I explained the reasoning in Talk and reverted back. Then he reverted again, no comment. Now I reverted, explaining he was violating the rule about explaining reversions.
Count: Two reverts for me, two for the admin.
The admin reverted again, saying I needed to cite the source outside of Wikipedia (the same source the other article cited). So I re-did the entry and re-posted with the suggestion. I can work with people, and take positive editing suggestions seriously.
Count: Three reverts for me (if you consider a repost to be a revert), three for the admin.
He reverted it AGAIN without comment, blatantly breaking the three revert rule. Then he said if I tried to change it again it would count as a 3RR violation and I would be banned. I checked the admin's personal page, yep, a gay activist.
At no time were the facts in the other related article challenged or changed. At no time did he tell me I was wrong, or that my edit was factually incorrect. He just didn't want the facts to be on that page.
Even if an admin isn't involved, a cabal of supporters can do the same thing, reverting your posts at will. They can get one or two reverts each, winning while you hit your three revert ceiling. There is really no consensus as Wikipedia tries to reach, since a small, organized and dedicated cabal can easily win over the unorganized concensus of many casual editors. If the cause is a liberal one, it is most likely that their cabal will be supported by the admins.
Now I try to stay away from anything relating to PC, but even then it can seep into the most neutral-seeming articles.
Another party just isn't viable with our system. The federal system and the system in all of the states is set up to favor the two parties. You can even check a box for "straight ticket" voting in many states.
The electoral system with "winner takes all" in most states ensures two-party in presidential elections. Money won't necessarily do it. Ross Perot threw millions into his campaign, got a good chunk of the popular vote, and not one single electoral vote.
The system of the federal and state governments would have to be seriously altered to allow a successful third party.
The tea party doesn't operate in the Republican party. The Republican party aligns more closely with tea party thinking, although not by too much. A tea party activist running as a separate party, independent, Libertarian, or as a new party, wouldn't likely get voted in. The manufactured Democrat message is that tea partiers are evil racists (it's amazing that "racist" label stuck, but their spinners are that good, with the help of a complicit media). So tea partiers tend to run as Republicans.
And this is what I was talking about: changing the party from the inside. The tea party struck a chord among a significant number of Americans, and if the Republicans want their vote they'll have to go in their direction. Right now I bet the Republican leadership is thinking "We made a show of standing up for fiscal responsibility, now maybe we'll get the tea party vote in 2012."
The Democrats can do the same on the other side. Their party pays lip service to supporting the little guy, and somehow they believe them while the party completely panders to corporate interests, especially the MAFIAA. Get a platform, change the party. Kucinich is pretty much going it alone right now. I disagree with almost everything he does, but I'm talking about the principle here.
They came down on her as an idiot even when she was right and they were wrong. Half the people still probably think she said she can see Russia from her house.
Train the locals to kill the warlords, and help them do it.
This was really a somewhat factual joke. But sending food is pointless, since it doesn't help in the long run, and can even serve to help prop up the dictator or warlord who is the source of the starvation. Either he confiscates the food to prop up the regime, the food going to the people allows him to confiscate more local food to prop up the regime, or the people finally being fed can alleviate the dissatisfaction that could cause them to revolt.
In reality, both would be required. Train them and give them food and supplies to be strong enough to take out the warlord.
So far, all attempts to bring "civilization" or "democracy" directly by force of arms have failed
I can't think of an instance where just sending food ended long-term famine either. They will remain poor and starving until their political situation improves, and in these places that is not likely to happen through peaceful means.
I've seen a lot of government server rooms. Except for older legacy systems, it's mainly Microsoft, with a bit of Sun to run Oracle or the few thin client installations. Mainframes and others make up maybe a percent if that much.
Look at government job listings, or contractor jobs working with government. It's Microsoft and Oracle for the most part, and Cisco if you're doing networking.
It will be a two-sided coin for the foreseeable future.
The only hope is in changing the existing parties. At the very least I would suggest supporting those within their own parties with a strong penchant for fighting against those parties. Not that I like these people, but here are two good examples of the concept.
Dennis Kucinich, someone liberals adore. He is single-minded in his pursuit of his issues even when it doesn't agree with his party. He has no problem speaking out about the hypocrisy in his party.
Sarah Palin, a Republican who built her career on knocking corrupt encumbent Republicans out of office.
Ron Paul: A good disruptor, a thorn in everybody's side.
Obama was not a good example, having voted party line almost every single time. Despite the "maverick" hype, so does McCain (less than Obama, but still 90+%)
Knock off each up-and-coming warlord before he can consolidate his power. In the perpetual confusion at the top, the people at the bottom will be able to organize themselves and begin providing food.
It costs about $30,000 total to deliver a smart bomb. Not a bad deal, much cheaper than just giving food.
I heard it said once, and it seems true for the most part when describing populations: People don't starve, people are starved.
They are starved by communism (forced farm collectivation), a kleptocracy that keeps everything to the dictator and his supporters, wars that displace people and ruin crops, or they are purposely starved as part of a program by the rulers to suppress a certain demographic.
Donations of food will only temporarily alleviate the problem. A bomb dropped on the dictator's palace might be money better spent.
The use of government force (taxing some to give "considerations" to others) does not justify the further use of government force on others (again taxing some to give "considerations" to others) in order to counter the monopoly. Artificially pumping up competition on taxpayer dollars is wrong.
ALL monopolies eventually fail unless they are perpetually mandated by law as such. Even the Standard Oil monopoly was already starting to crack under market pressures, its market share having shrunk drastically from its height, by the time of the breakup. It wouldn't have lasted much longer anyway.
What we can do to alleviate the situation is prevent the monopolists from taking any further action to use their monopoly position to supress competition. They have already voluntarily involved themselves with government, they partially owe their success to government action, so they can't complain when the government wishes to continue the involvement.
it's only because of predatory policies where the affluent affect our political process disproportionately that many of these people have wealth at all
Are you willing to give a break to those who are rich simply because of their talent or hard work? I doubt it. They're rich, so they're evil. They must be punished.
Jeff Bezos was born middle class and founded Amazon. Jack Taylor built Enterprise rentals from scratch, but it was still small by the time his son came long and made it into the multi-billion dollar company. Steven Spielberg got rich making movies people like to see, and his works would still be under copyright according to the copyright terms of over a hundred years ago. John Tu got rich making good computer memory at Kingston. What predatory policies did they leverage?
George Soros made his money in hedge funds, so I guess he would be one of your evil rich based on predatory policies. Oh, wait, he's a big-time Democrat, so he gets a pass, as long as he keeps using his billions to fund liberal causes.
I'm not grateful that a politically connected tyrant is paying less their "fair" share! I don't agree it's fair!
What's fair to you? Shoot them and take all of their money? Hey, we can be the USSR! Exactly what level of wealth gets you that bullet in the back of the head?
What bullshit for you to say someone with 6 mil on the books lives like a teacher on a teachers salary!
I said it was an example, made more extreme so as to be illustrative even for the dumbest and most liberally class-warfare indoctrinated. Apparently not.
It's disproportionately wrong for the political system to create and uphold laws that prevent the flow of wealth in this society, or worse, direct it.
Yet you want "prevent the flow of wealth" to those who work to obtain it, instead directing that flow to those who do not. That is the very definition of taxation to achieve "equality."
It's disproportionately wrong for you to act as if this extreeeeeeeeme wealth distribution is some how NOT the product of manipulation, opportunism, and downright unethical corruption and graft.
I'm sure some of it is. For example, ACORN was extremely unethical and corrupt, and used its political connections to siphon money from the rich in order to work against their interests.
I see here the desire to use all of those things in order to leverage the deadly force of government to take more money from those who have worked for it, and give it to others.
The new scroll system is designed to go with touch pads. You no longer need to deal with the metaphor of a scroll bar. You directly manipulate the pad as if it were the document.
Notebooks are the majority of Apple sales, with touch pads in them. Apple also has a touch pad for desktops. This metaphor also works in the touch mouse, although you would use one finger instead of two. So this isn't just a software change, it's a hardware/software change.
I do see a problem in that you don't know if there is anything to scroll at first glance. That needs to be fixed.
Slashdot Mirror
Normally I would, but Cisco has been proven to be complicit in lying and subterfuge in this case.
Check out the note above about what they did in Canada. They fed a boatload of lies to the DoJ which were then parroted to the Canadians to get him extradited here. The Canadian judge was PISSED when this was found out.
It was seriously evil and twisted. How's this: He is a British citizen traveling on a valid British passport. He sues Cisco. He lives in Switzerland and can't get back into the US legally until he resolves some immigration issues, which he has documentation he's been actively trying to do. So he can't come to the US to make a deposition in the case. Cisco doesn't want to go to Switzerland, so they arrange for Canada. Cisco/DoJ has him arrested and held for extradition in the middle of the deposition.
Here's a fun lie: The justification for this was that he refused to come into the US, so he had to be nabbed in Canada. But there is documentation showing he had been continually trying to come back to the US to run his company. A quick check with DHS would have shown the DoJ that Cisco was lying, but they didn't even bother. The judge in the antitrust case knew about the situation and had approved the Canadian deposition.
If they wanted him that badly, they could have just granted the visa, he would have entered the US, and he could have been arrested.
He's Nigerian by birth, but he had been a British citizen for years, and a successful executive with IBM, AT&T and then Cisco. Cisco brought him to the US on his British passport. Cisco then fed the DoJ a big story about this shady Nigerian who could flee at any moment if not nabbed in Canada and held there. Without checking, the DoJ passed this false story onto the Canadians.
I've read the Canadian court decision. It is downright scary what happened, Cisco colluding with the DoJ and lying to a sovereign country's courts in order to strongarm a person into giving up his antitrust suit.
Cisco employee with valid credentials let's Adekeye log on for a few minutes to get what he needs. IMHO, firing the employee for a violation of policy is about the extent of the redress here.
Check out USC 15, Chapter 1, Section 15.
Those at the extremes tend to be impractical and even dangerous if implemented in real life.
Luckily, Atlas Shrugged hasn't been implemented. But "The Communist Manifesto," "Das Kapital," "What is to be Done?," "Quotations from Chairman Mao," and "Complete Collection of Kim Il Sung's Works" have, with the cost of about 100 million lives in less than one century.
Verizon's wireless division is hurting, the need for their services is shrinking. Yet they want to pretend it's still the gravy days. No, they can't just mix it in one big pool with the profitable wireless division, since that's a joint venture with Vodafone. Aside from that, how would the wireless people feel about their profitable division being drained by the unprofitable wired division? Sorry, no raises for you this year, we had to bail out the wired division.
Here are some desired concessions:
Contribute to their own health care premiums: I've always done that.
Freezing and killing pensions. That does suck, but the other side is an expanded 401k.
Five sick days a year instead of unlimited: When was the last time I got sick days at a company?
Deny raises to sub-performing employees: This can be an issue only for the lazy, which is probably why it's an issue.
She experienced the early Soviet Union first-hand. She saw how the alternative to our capitalistic system actually works in real life.
So she went to the other extreme.
The Army never fields something without figuring how it works with current gear.
This think can be carried like any other grenade ammuniition, and quickly launched from a standard M203 grenade launcher.
Given the standard parts, if it were made in bulk it could cost less than some of the ammunition they currently carry.
Good for you. It happens to be the same choice I make. I much prefer smaller cars.
My problem comes in making the choice for others, meaning you are responsible for their deaths.
Bureaucratic-minded types seem to have no problem playing god. But they never want to volunteer to be one of the unfortunate dead of their decisions.
I was against an anti-US contingent on a military issue, but I got lucky with a rational admin who realized I knew what I was talking about, they didn't. It helped that I used to actually run the hardware in question.
It was simply an inconsistency in Wikipedia. Sourced information in one article said one thing, while another article stated differently without a source. It was a long time ago.
Although in looking back at it now, it appears it was "some say" weasel-worded around the problem. I'm sure putting WP:WW on there would get slapped down fast, but I'm not about to try since I know it is an admin- and cabal-controlled article.
Wait, now I see the sources in the other article are gone, all content regarding it removed, claimed to be NPOV or UNDUE. I guess my rogue admin finally got to that article too. That information had been up there for a rather long time. I guess the PC cleansing hadn't gotten around to it.
Do you volunteer?
No?
Okay then.
For the current crop,
.
Clinton had no diplomatic experience (no, First Lady doesn't count)
Panetta had no defense experience
LaHood's transportation experience was very thin
Napolitano was (and is) pretty clueless on security issues
Obama himself had never held an executive position (the thinnest experience for an elected president in scores of years)
But he does have a few people who I must admit had the background, such as Holder, Rice and Geithner.
Then experience or lack thereof is not necessarily an indicator. Holder is royally screwing everything up, while Panetta has been doing a pretty good job.
It has about as much time invested in story building as gameplay, weaving a very large and intricate story with an extensive history and character development.
You can skip those scenes too.
If(1) you(2) have(3) to(4) cite(5) every(6) single(7) word(8) and(9) punctuation(10),(11) the(12) articles(13) are(14) going(15) to(16) get(17) hard(18) to(19) read(20).(21)
We're dead of we have to recursively cite parentheses.
Long ago I noticed once that the well-sourced facts set out in one Wikipedia article contradicted a claim (not directly sourced) made in a related article. So I naturally edited the claim to correspond to the facts, mentioning the edit was for internal consistency. I hadn't come to edit an article, but I consider it to be a Good Thing to fix small errors as you see them.
Unfortunately for me the claim happened to be in a gay-related article and apparently embodied the PC position towards this incident.
The storm hit. An admin reverted it without comment (against Wikipedia rules). I explained the reasoning in Talk and reverted back. Then he reverted again, no comment. Now I reverted, explaining he was violating the rule about explaining reversions.
Count: Two reverts for me, two for the admin.
The admin reverted again, saying I needed to cite the source outside of Wikipedia (the same source the other article cited). So I re-did the entry and re-posted with the suggestion. I can work with people, and take positive editing suggestions seriously.
Count: Three reverts for me (if you consider a repost to be a revert), three for the admin.
He reverted it AGAIN without comment, blatantly breaking the three revert rule. Then he said if I tried to change it again it would count as a 3RR violation and I would be banned. I checked the admin's personal page, yep, a gay activist.
At no time were the facts in the other related article challenged or changed. At no time did he tell me I was wrong, or that my edit was factually incorrect. He just didn't want the facts to be on that page.
Even if an admin isn't involved, a cabal of supporters can do the same thing, reverting your posts at will. They can get one or two reverts each, winning while you hit your three revert ceiling. There is really no consensus as Wikipedia tries to reach, since a small, organized and dedicated cabal can easily win over the unorganized concensus of many casual editors. If the cause is a liberal one, it is most likely that their cabal will be supported by the admins.
Now I try to stay away from anything relating to PC, but even then it can seep into the most neutral-seeming articles.
Unfortunately, the information that information was previously NOT controlled is controlled.
You can't be mad about what you lost if you don't know you ever had it.
Another party just isn't viable with our system. The federal system and the system in all of the states is set up to favor the two parties. You can even check a box for "straight ticket" voting in many states.
The electoral system with "winner takes all" in most states ensures two-party in presidential elections. Money won't necessarily do it. Ross Perot threw millions into his campaign, got a good chunk of the popular vote, and not one single electoral vote.
The system of the federal and state governments would have to be seriously altered to allow a successful third party.
The tea party doesn't operate in the Republican party. The Republican party aligns more closely with tea party thinking, although not by too much. A tea party activist running as a separate party, independent, Libertarian, or as a new party, wouldn't likely get voted in. The manufactured Democrat message is that tea partiers are evil racists (it's amazing that "racist" label stuck, but their spinners are that good, with the help of a complicit media). So tea partiers tend to run as Republicans.
And this is what I was talking about: changing the party from the inside. The tea party struck a chord among a significant number of Americans, and if the Republicans want their vote they'll have to go in their direction. Right now I bet the Republican leadership is thinking "We made a show of standing up for fiscal responsibility, now maybe we'll get the tea party vote in 2012."
The Democrats can do the same on the other side. Their party pays lip service to supporting the little guy, and somehow they believe them while the party completely panders to corporate interests, especially the MAFIAA. Get a platform, change the party. Kucinich is pretty much going it alone right now. I disagree with almost everything he does, but I'm talking about the principle here.
They came down on her as an idiot even when she was right and they were wrong. Half the people still probably think she said she can see Russia from her house.
Train the locals to kill the warlords, and help them do it.
This was really a somewhat factual joke. But sending food is pointless, since it doesn't help in the long run, and can even serve to help prop up the dictator or warlord who is the source of the starvation. Either he confiscates the food to prop up the regime, the food going to the people allows him to confiscate more local food to prop up the regime, or the people finally being fed can alleviate the dissatisfaction that could cause them to revolt.
In reality, both would be required. Train them and give them food and supplies to be strong enough to take out the warlord.
I can't think of an instance where just sending food ended long-term famine either. They will remain poor and starving until their political situation improves, and in these places that is not likely to happen through peaceful means.
I've seen a lot of government server rooms. Except for older legacy systems, it's mainly Microsoft, with a bit of Sun to run Oracle or the few thin client installations. Mainframes and others make up maybe a percent if that much.
Look at government job listings, or contractor jobs working with government. It's Microsoft and Oracle for the most part, and Cisco if you're doing networking.
It will be a two-sided coin for the foreseeable future.
The only hope is in changing the existing parties. At the very least I would suggest supporting those within their own parties with a strong penchant for fighting against those parties. Not that I like these people, but here are two good examples of the concept.
Dennis Kucinich, someone liberals adore. He is single-minded in his pursuit of his issues even when it doesn't agree with his party. He has no problem speaking out about the hypocrisy in his party.
Sarah Palin, a Republican who built her career on knocking corrupt encumbent Republicans out of office.
Ron Paul: A good disruptor, a thorn in everybody's side.
Obama was not a good example, having voted party line almost every single time. Despite the "maverick" hype, so does McCain (less than Obama, but still 90+%)
Knock off each up-and-coming warlord before he can consolidate his power. In the perpetual confusion at the top, the people at the bottom will be able to organize themselves and begin providing food.
It costs about $30,000 total to deliver a smart bomb. Not a bad deal, much cheaper than just giving food.
And then they'd go back to starving again.
I heard it said once, and it seems true for the most part when describing populations: People don't starve, people are starved.
They are starved by communism (forced farm collectivation), a kleptocracy that keeps everything to the dictator and his supporters, wars that displace people and ruin crops, or they are purposely starved as part of a program by the rulers to suppress a certain demographic.
Donations of food will only temporarily alleviate the problem. A bomb dropped on the dictator's palace might be money better spent.
The use of government force (taxing some to give "considerations" to others) does not justify the further use of government force on others (again taxing some to give "considerations" to others) in order to counter the monopoly. Artificially pumping up competition on taxpayer dollars is wrong.
ALL monopolies eventually fail unless they are perpetually mandated by law as such. Even the Standard Oil monopoly was already starting to crack under market pressures, its market share having shrunk drastically from its height, by the time of the breakup. It wouldn't have lasted much longer anyway.
What we can do to alleviate the situation is prevent the monopolists from taking any further action to use their monopoly position to supress competition. They have already voluntarily involved themselves with government, they partially owe their success to government action, so they can't complain when the government wishes to continue the involvement.
Are you willing to give a break to those who are rich simply because of their talent or hard work? I doubt it. They're rich, so they're evil. They must be punished.
Jeff Bezos was born middle class and founded Amazon. Jack Taylor built Enterprise rentals from scratch, but it was still small by the time his son came long and made it into the multi-billion dollar company. Steven Spielberg got rich making movies people like to see, and his works would still be under copyright according to the copyright terms of over a hundred years ago. John Tu got rich making good computer memory at Kingston. What predatory policies did they leverage?
George Soros made his money in hedge funds, so I guess he would be one of your evil rich based on predatory policies. Oh, wait, he's a big-time Democrat, so he gets a pass, as long as he keeps using his billions to fund liberal causes.
What's fair to you? Shoot them and take all of their money? Hey, we can be the USSR! Exactly what level of wealth gets you that bullet in the back of the head?
I said it was an example, made more extreme so as to be illustrative even for the dumbest and most liberally class-warfare indoctrinated. Apparently not.
Yet you want "prevent the flow of wealth" to those who work to obtain it, instead directing that flow to those who do not. That is the very definition of taxation to achieve "equality."
I'm sure some of it is. For example, ACORN was extremely unethical and corrupt, and used its political connections to siphon money from the rich in order to work against their interests.
I see here the desire to use all of those things in order to leverage the deadly force of government to take more money from those who have worked for it, and give it to others.
The new scroll system is designed to go with touch pads. You no longer need to deal with the metaphor of a scroll bar. You directly manipulate the pad as if it were the document.
Notebooks are the majority of Apple sales, with touch pads in them. Apple also has a touch pad for desktops. This metaphor also works in the touch mouse, although you would use one finger instead of two. So this isn't just a software change, it's a hardware/software change.
I do see a problem in that you don't know if there is anything to scroll at first glance. That needs to be fixed.