What do you think, would be easier -- get rid of morons in fifty state governments or in one federal government?
Americans never bothered trying to fix either because every time it becomes apparent that government has to be fixed, all government has to do is to produce more of its own "govenment is evil!" propaganda. Then people become afraid of trying to fix such an evil institution, and government can continue screwing everyone while screaming "look at us! we are evil! evil!!!".
In USSR, all citizens were supposed to carry their passports at all times, and show them to the police and other authorities whenever they demanded to see it, or face detention. It's like having to have a driver's license while driving, only for just being there.
No. Who told you that?
For example, my friends who chose to wear their hair long learned to never forget their passport at home.
Your "friends" lived in USSR in early 60's when things like that still bothered cops? Then passports wouldn't help them.
In major cities like Moscow, your passport had to have a stamp permitting you to live in that city, or you had to have papers showing that you are there on business. You could not just come to Moscow and live there, you needed a permission and that stamp.
That's propiska, residence registration, you moron. It means that you have an apartment or house in the city. Government provided apartments for token rent, so when you moved to another city you had to go through official channel exchanging apartments, buying a house or getting employer/school-sponsored one. People didn't have to spend anything significant on rent -- having a place to live was considered a basic right, however having it in, say, center of Moscow, obviously was not.
Remember the fear of being asked for "Your papers?" in the old USSR?
No. And I lived there. USSR had single document -- passport -- serving as the primary ID for everything. "Your papers?" stuff was from Nazi Germany, where government was extremely concerned about losing track of ethnic minorities, what seems to be the exact equivalent of this "effort" in US.
This is even worse than purpose of typical DRM. DRM is supposed to prevent people who can read the data from copying it somewhere else.
This "problem" is how to prevent people WHO CAN WRITE AND COPY DATA from copying it in some specific way (into documents that are sent to other customers).
The amount of draconian control over simple operations such as cut/paste, email and conversion of formats will make any useful work absolutely impossible long before the system will become sufficiently restrictive to fulfill its purpose.
It also sounds like you have a highly toxic work environment already, so maybe you will be better off finding another company to work for. Unless, of course, you are yet another Microsoft astroturfer trying to promote Sharepoint and other related crap.
That's not "protection", that's opportunity for retaliation -- and being a whistleblower doesn't really matter because just as well they can fire and sue you if you don't do anything at all.
However it's merely strengthens my point -- investigation and prosecution of crimes is a job for the government, not individual victims and vigilantes. The problem is, your government sucks donkey balls and can't perform its most basic functions, so victims and random whistleblowers do more than police, FBI, SEC and other agencies that are supposed to protect the public from this.
One of the measures that would help is abolishing capital gains. Another is freeing up the capital markets to make it easier for small businesses to sell shares publicly. An even better one would be abolishing the estate tax, so that smaller companies don't have to be sold to bigger ones when their founders die.
You realize that it's the same State's rights that allows you to pick a state that fits your ideals the best, right?
No. All states would suck less if they didn't leave important policy decisions to clowns in state governments. My choice of place to live has very little to do with degree of craziness of local politicians -- every time I moved between them, it was for a new job.
You really don't know how things work in the US, do you? Your arguments read like you never made it beyond a 5th grade civics class or something.
Actually it's Americans who invent massive and convoluted ways to "explain" how things are supposed to work in their government. The truth is, YES, IT IS AS STUPID AS IT LOOKS.
California gets to set it's own emission standards for cars, and they require annual testing, yes? Michigan does not. That's federalism in action.
No, that's corruption in action. Car emissions are a public health issue. The idea that what is healthy in Michigan is deadly in California is idiotic -- if US wasn't hopelessly broken, EPA on behalf of the people of the whole country would comission a scientific study, and use its results to enforce the same standard everywhere, just like FDA does with food. But since it's possible to pretend that this is somehow "local" issue, Michigan makes it easier for local industry to poison people while California pretends to care about public health so people don't bother local politicians about their other wrongdoings. Neither actually wants to find out if their actions are justified.
I've got a permit to carry a pistol in Michigan. California does not honor this permit, so I can't carry a gun around California. That's federalism in action.
No, that's greed in action. Every state wants to charge people multiple times for the same thing as long as they can get away with it.
California did, and will again once Prop 8 is rightfully struck down by the courts, honor homosexual marriages. Michigan does not. That's federalism in action.
No, that's dumb rednecks and political maneuvering in action. Discrimination of homosexuals is wrong everywhere, and there was absolutely no reason to propose a law about it except as a futile attempt to rally Social Conservatives to vote for McCain on the same day.
As a Californian that's obviously in favor of large governments and central planning I find it highly doubtful that you'd like to see that whole "states rights" issues simple fade from existence. Your world would change, and you'd suffer, for lack of a better term, to the whims of us cousin humping rednecks clinging to our guns and religion in fly-over country.
If not for "states rights", progressives would smother the "fly-over country" by obtaining wider-reaching political power. "States rights" are the reason why Social Conservatives have safe refuge in various "red" states' institutions, no matter how much their policies fail on the national scale.
You do realize that many of our states are the size of and have the population of most other countries?
It does not mean that those states can dedicate comparable amount of resources to develop their educational systems. At least experience shows that they never do.
You do realize how terrible the Federal government is here?
Yes, however States are even worse.
I'm guessing no, since you don't understand our system of federalism or that we're a constitutional republic or how our Constitution (with amendments) prevents states from reinstating slavery while still severely limiting the Feds' powers.
Your system of federalism works to create an impression that stupid rednecks from the South will eventually get their ancestors' slaves back.
The rest is fluff.
Nope, you're a Russian in California. You have no idea how our (currently very broken) system of federal government is supposed to work, or how to get it back to a working state.
Sacrificing financial companies and speculators, and re-industrialization of US economy. Anything else would be merely a way to organize a fire sale, so the richest few will safely get out.
Actually the fact that individual state governments handle public school is the root of the problem. No other civilized country runs its public school system by provincial governments (what States truly are -- if you disagree, I wish you good luck trying to reinstate slavery), and this is why US has the worst public school system among all developed countries.
Fraud is a crime. Contracts can't provide immunity against prosecution for criminal ofenses, so it's a moot point -- all you have to do is to make sure that government prosecutes it.
What, of course, is the root of the issue -- government acts as if prosecution of crimes is some kind of optional activity, and would rather throw billions at some military adventure half a globe away, or give someone ten life sentences for smoking weed.
In a java web applications nowadays, at least in my experience, a large part of the code is generated, and to implement the business logic you have to strictly follow sequence diagrams: there's no space left for creativity there.
A lot of people TRY, PRETEND or BELIEVE that this produces usable software, however I have yet to encounter a single instance where it actually works for anything but demos or cookie-cutter clones of the same application.
For which devices Linux drivers are slower than Windows counterparts?
Broadcom (and pretty much only Broadcom -- the company that seems to be hell-bent on releasing Windows-only products) wireless card running with ndiswrapper will be less reliable and break laptops' power management, but it won't be any slower. Anything that is not wireless, is likely to be fully supported on Linux (even if it's Broadcom).
If you don't know that, you shouldn't talk about Linux at all.
Programmers *are* software designers now. Anyone who tells you that he designs software for others to implement is actually a manager who does neither.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you think, would be easier -- get rid of morons in fifty state governments or in one federal government?
Americans never bothered trying to fix either because every time it becomes apparent that government has to be fixed, all government has to do is to produce more of its own "govenment is evil!" propaganda. Then people become afraid of trying to fix such an evil institution, and government can continue screwing everyone while screaming "look at us! we are evil! evil!!!".
In USSR, all citizens were supposed to carry their passports at all times, and show them to the police and other authorities whenever they demanded to see it, or face detention. It's like having to have a driver's license while driving, only for just being there.
No. Who told you that?
For example, my friends who chose to wear their hair long learned to never forget their passport at home.
Your "friends" lived in USSR in early 60's when things like that still bothered cops? Then passports wouldn't help them.
In major cities like Moscow, your passport had to have a stamp permitting you to live in that city, or you had to have papers showing that you are there on business. You could not just come to Moscow and live there, you needed a permission and that stamp.
That's propiska, residence registration, you moron. It means that you have an apartment or house in the city. Government provided apartments for token rent, so when you moved to another city you had to go through official channel exchanging apartments, buying a house or getting employer/school-sponsored one. People didn't have to spend anything significant on rent -- having a place to live was considered a basic right, however having it in, say, center of Moscow, obviously was not.
Remember the fear of being asked for "Your papers?" in the old USSR?
No. And I lived there. USSR had single document -- passport -- serving as the primary ID for everything. "Your papers?" stuff was from Nazi Germany, where government was extremely concerned about losing track of ethnic minorities, what seems to be the exact equivalent of this "effort" in US.
This is even worse than purpose of typical DRM. DRM is supposed to prevent people who can read the data from copying it somewhere else.
This "problem" is how to prevent people WHO CAN WRITE AND COPY DATA from copying it in some specific way (into documents that are sent to other customers).
The amount of draconian control over simple operations such as cut/paste, email and conversion of formats will make any useful work absolutely impossible long before the system will become sufficiently restrictive to fulfill its purpose.
It also sounds like you have a highly toxic work environment already, so maybe you will be better off finding another company to work for. Unless, of course, you are yet another Microsoft astroturfer trying to promote Sharepoint and other related crap.
That's not "protection", that's opportunity for retaliation -- and being a whistleblower doesn't really matter because just as well they can fire and sue you if you don't do anything at all.
However it's merely strengthens my point -- investigation and prosecution of crimes is a job for the government, not individual victims and vigilantes. The problem is, your government sucks donkey balls and can't perform its most basic functions, so victims and random whistleblowers do more than police, FBI, SEC and other agencies that are supposed to protect the public from this.
One of the measures that would help is abolishing capital gains. Another is freeing up the capital markets to make it easier for small businesses to sell shares publicly. An even better one would be abolishing the estate tax, so that smaller companies don't have to be sold to bigger ones when their founders die.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
No, really...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
You realize that it's the same State's rights that allows you to pick a state that fits your ideals the best, right?
No. All states would suck less if they didn't leave important policy decisions to clowns in state governments. My choice of place to live has very little to do with degree of craziness of local politicians -- every time I moved between them, it was for a new job.
You really don't know how things work in the US, do you? Your arguments read like you never made it beyond a 5th grade civics class or something.
Actually it's Americans who invent massive and convoluted ways to "explain" how things are supposed to work in their government. The truth is, YES, IT IS AS STUPID AS IT LOOKS.
California gets to set it's own emission standards for cars, and they require annual testing, yes? Michigan does not. That's federalism in action.
No, that's corruption in action. Car emissions are a public health issue. The idea that what is healthy in Michigan is deadly in California is idiotic -- if US wasn't hopelessly broken, EPA on behalf of the people of the whole country would comission a scientific study, and use its results to enforce the same standard everywhere, just like FDA does with food. But since it's possible to pretend that this is somehow "local" issue, Michigan makes it easier for local industry to poison people while California pretends to care about public health so people don't bother local politicians about their other wrongdoings. Neither actually wants to find out if their actions are justified.
I've got a permit to carry a pistol in Michigan. California does not honor this permit, so I can't carry a gun around California. That's federalism in action.
No, that's greed in action. Every state wants to charge people multiple times for the same thing as long as they can get away with it.
California did, and will again once Prop 8 is rightfully struck down by the courts, honor homosexual marriages. Michigan does not. That's federalism in action.
No, that's dumb rednecks and political maneuvering in action. Discrimination of homosexuals is wrong everywhere, and there was absolutely no reason to propose a law about it except as a futile attempt to rally Social Conservatives to vote for McCain on the same day.
As a Californian that's obviously in favor of large governments and central planning I find it highly doubtful that you'd like to see that whole "states rights" issues simple fade from existence. Your world would change, and you'd suffer, for lack of a better term, to the whims of us cousin humping rednecks clinging to our guns and religion in fly-over country.
If not for "states rights", progressives would smother the "fly-over country" by obtaining wider-reaching political power. "States rights" are the reason why Social Conservatives have safe refuge in various "red" states' institutions, no matter how much their policies fail on the national scale.
You do realize that many of our states are the size of and have the population of most other countries?
It does not mean that those states can dedicate comparable amount of resources to develop their educational systems. At least experience shows that they never do.
You do realize how terrible the Federal government is here?
Yes, however States are even worse.
I'm guessing no, since you don't understand our system of federalism or that we're a constitutional republic or how our Constitution (with amendments) prevents states from reinstating slavery while still severely limiting the Feds' powers.
Your system of federalism works to create an impression that stupid rednecks from the South will eventually get their ancestors' slaves back.
The rest is fluff.
Nope, you're a Russian in California. You have no idea how our (currently very broken) system of federal government is supposed to work, or how to get it back to a working state.
Last time it worked, you had a Civil War.
You have to be an atheist to achieve enough cynicism to become US President, so I would guess, most of them were.
To sit on some state's board of education one just has to drink a lot.
Sacrificing financial companies and speculators, and re-industrialization of US economy. Anything else would be merely a way to organize a fire sale, so the richest few will safely get out.
Challenge your boss to a crack smoking contest!
Schools should be accountable to local communities
Aka religious cults in >>90% of US.
and parents
Aka inbred rednecks in >>90% of US.
Good luck getting your society fixed with those ideas, idiots.
Actually the fact that individual state governments handle public school is the root of the problem. No other civilized country runs its public school system by provincial governments (what States truly are -- if you disagree, I wish you good luck trying to reinstate slavery), and this is why US has the worst public school system among all developed countries.
Not that trickle down crap again...
Now I know how to defeat /b/
With Ferengi! Let /b/tards troll a fictitious race that seems to consist entirely of greedy, self-centered, humorless assholes.
(HOLOSUITE IS CLOSED)
Fraud is a crime. Contracts can't provide immunity against prosecution for criminal ofenses, so it's a moot point -- all you have to do is to make sure that government prosecutes it.
What, of course, is the root of the issue -- government acts as if prosecution of crimes is some kind of optional activity, and would rather throw billions at some military adventure half a globe away, or give someone ten life sentences for smoking weed.
I don't use Windows, ICA server only works on Windows, and Linux version of ICA client is horrible.
iPhone screen resolution is 320x480 pixels.
Citrix?
The guys that sell proprietary, incompatible, inferior OpenVPN replacement and proprietary, incompatible, inferior VNC replacement?
In a java web applications nowadays, at least in my experience, a large part of the code is generated, and to implement the business logic you have to strictly follow sequence diagrams: there's no space left for creativity there.
A lot of people TRY, PRETEND or BELIEVE that this produces usable software, however I have yet to encounter a single instance where it actually works for anything but demos or cookie-cutter clones of the same application.
For which devices Linux drivers are slower than Windows counterparts?
Broadcom (and pretty much only Broadcom -- the company that seems to be hell-bent on releasing Windows-only products) wireless card running with ndiswrapper will be less reliable and break laptops' power management, but it won't be any slower. Anything that is not wireless, is likely to be fully supported on Linux (even if it's Broadcom).
If you don't know that, you shouldn't talk about Linux at all.
Yeah, Linux makes their Comcast cable modem slow.
seriously
Programmers *are* software designers now. Anyone who tells you that he designs software for others to implement is actually a manager who does neither.