Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI)
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 1
It's a pity you resort to namecalling and profanity to further what looked to be an interesting debate. It makes you look rather unprofessional for someone wanting to debate the subject.
Do I give a shit what an arrogant bastard like you thinks? Not in this lifetime, pal.
Your argument that success is luck-derived is specious at best and demeans those who strive and toil, dealing with failure after failure, never giving up. Those are the people who ultimately succeed.
It's amazing just how much of an idiot you actually are. Yes, undoubtedly you deserve everything you obtained; I'm certain luck had nothing to do with it. Those who didn't make it obvious aren't as smart as you or as hard-working as you. I mean, if they were, they'd be the ones on top and you'd be the lower-class scumbag toiling for a living wage!
And freedom of movement could also result in the pursuit of criminal activities...freedom of speech can be used to plan criminal activities, or incite others to enact them...
Guess we should just ban all these things, or at least monitor them on the off-chance that they *might* be used to break the law.
And really, so what? "IRC bad"? Ooooh, yeah, guess we have to ban it, or monitor it, or make people easier to track because it *might* be abused by certain individuals.
This sort of logic is the haven for control freaks, the sort who equate anonymity with illegality. Next thing you know some moron will decide we all need to be implanted with a chip because freedom of movement without observation *might* be used to pursue criminal activities....
Have you ever tried to make it better? I did and all I got was grief - after my ideas were stolen and implemented by others, who took credit for everything I did or thought of for themselves.
Government isn't kind to folks who want to change things for the better. Government is especially unkind to those who're brighter than their managers (and thus are a threat to them), or who suggest that perhaps current policy isn't best serving the public. Government gets downright ugly if you discover management engaged in illegal or unethical practices and have the gall to speak out against these things.
Go ahead and try to make a difference. I did. I have nothing to show for it but years of wasted labor and a bitterness over public service that goes right to the bone.
4) management that sucks even worse than that encountered in the private industry. Incompetence in management is par for the course, and since poor performance won't get a manager fired in government service this tends to result in the promotion of other poor performers so that the current management isn't threatened or embarrassed by new additions to the administrative team.
Sociology has been working to predict group behavior since its inception. It's much like meteorology in that during the infancy of the science nobody had a freaking clue and most of the theories proposed were hogwash. But over time the models have been refined, and while not anywhere close to perfect weatherman have been handing out more accurate long range reports as time goes by.
When I was a kid living in the Northwest, it was an astounding feat if a weatherman could deliver an accurate report for the next day (other than saying 'it'll probably rain', which anyone could state with a fair chance of being right). Nowadays weathermen are regularly accurate a week in advance, and for individual days within that week. That says something if you live in Oregon or Washington.
Sociologists are treading much the same path. They've discarded most of the crap after spending the first 95% of their history examining mountains of data and trying to draw conclusions from it; now they're forming models and seeing how well they test for predictive value. Sure, the models will be wrong alot, especially at the beginning, but they *will* get better over time as refinement occurs. There's no reason to believe otherwise, as certain narrowly predictive models for large groups (e.g., insurance policies) are insanely accurate right now.
No doubt some people will whine and moan that humans just aren't predictable (in an effort to convince themselves that they make their own destiny apart from the influences of society) but this is just spitting into the wind. Human groups are predictable; it's just a matter of finding the right models and correcting them over time.
This is old, old news to psychologists and sociologists. Asimov's psychohistory stems from the research being done by the sociologists of his time working to predict large group behavior and finding that the larger the group, the more predictable it became.
I remember Asimov himself saying this during an interview, although it was so long ago I couldn't begin to tell you where to find it. He stated that he merely took 'modern' sociology (during the time he wrote the books) and extended it to it's logical conclusion.
Oh, right, it's already caught on. Which is why I've seen so many.NET-oriented Windows and Linux programs lately. And the emperor's new clothes look just fine too, don't they?
Max
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI)
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You cannot dispute this fact -- it is true.
Sure I can dispute it. The fuckwits who claim that only hard work and their own superior intelligence got them to where they are today are also saying that they're more hardworking and more intelligent than everyone else lower down on the social food chain. This is complete, self-serving bullshit readily apparent to even the casual observer, not to mention incredibly arrogant.
Hard work and intelligence are good starting points, but by far the biggest determinants of where you are going to end up are a) what social circle you were born into, and b) luck - lots and lots of luck. Fact is, your hard work and intelligence might have helped you get where you are, but plain dumb luck put you there ahead of everyone else who works harder than you and is more intelligent than you - and is still not making it. Because no matter what you claim, there are *millions* of people smarter, more determined, and more hard-working than you are and yet aren't making as much as you do, or have the kind of money that you have, or wield the kind of power that you do.
Modern social darwinists - the laughingstock byproducts of a bygone era - assert that luck has nothing to do with it and that everyone who doesn't make it just doesn't have 'what it takes'. Which presumes that they do, and the millions who're fucked are somehow less worthy than they themselves are. This is nothing more than the 'nobility by birth' argument in different clothing that ruled the upper classes prior to the industrial revolution.
End result: your argument is a crock. No one except these freaks takes social darwinism seriously. If you have a burning desire to factor chance out of your success so you can bolster your own ego, kindly spew the megalomania in a different direction.
If the robot is a cross between the Honda creation and a Real Doll, then yeah, I'm pretty damned sure this thing would make me right happy in my old age....
And an easy way to track every web site I visit that requires a sign-in. No thanks. But wait! I could just use the same login and password at every site, right now, and accomplish the same thing! Without a single company knowing everywhere I go!
I'd love to have my own wish-list for books that I can use at a variety of on-line stores.
And once again have a single company know my reading preferences, available to be sold to third parties or given away to a government looking for 'troublemakers'. But wait! I could keep such a list in a...text file! And simply open it whenever I wish to see it while doing some online shopping!
I'd love to be able to have a standard way to share schedules and calendars and set up meetings, parties, etc.
And once again have a single company knowing everywhere I go, who I'm going to meet, who my associates are, how I spend my free time, and so forth. But lo! Check it out! I *already have* such a calendar on my computer, and I can use this thing called 'email' - or even the archaic device known as the 'phone' - to do this very same thing!
Zounds Batman! Looks like Hailstorm doesn't do anything I can't duplicate myself already! And far less intrusively!
What they'll offer is Office2004, only available via a monthly subscription over the internet. Along with Messenger2004 (only $5/month!) and Media Player 2004 (exclusive mp3s from your favorite bands!) and....
While an interesting idea - being able to code in any language and then run it through.NET - I really don't see how the service function is any different from Java. The convenience alone doesn't strike me as terribly impressive, especially given that Java isn't that difficult to learn if you already have a command of C, C++, or Perl.
Surely I must've missed something along the way reading the technical specs. Apart from catering to folks who don't want to learn Java, what exactly does the.NET framework do that *can't* already be duplicated through other means?
This is assuming that MS doesn't decide to do some 'embracing and extending' which excludes Linux at some point in the future. Given their track record I woudn't be surprised if they found a way to lock out Linux once.NET caught on on Windows platforms.
Max
Re:Lots of Fun 'til It's Used on You
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 1
But then it'll be time for -
Crusader: No Remorse!
Woohoo!
Max
Re:Satellites are one of many redundant networks.
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 1
Taking out satellites isn't a cakewalk either (it only takes a box of nails, but the box has to be very high up and positioned to within a few metres).
Make that *carefully* positioned and *exactly* timed, as the resulting debris cloud could very well knock out a few other satellites that cross its expanding path - including one of your own.
Max
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI)
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 2
We can already decide exactly what can get off the ground, at any time, by threatening to fucking nuke anyone who doesn't do what we tell them to. Only the Russians have any real ability to mount a counter-threat and they aren't interested; the Cold War is over and done with, and good riddance so far as they're concerned.
But notice: we don't do this. We have the power and we don't exercise it. No global threats, no world domination by conquest, nothing of the sort. Sure, we kick the shit out of random Third World countries so our presidents can pretend they have bigger dicks than what's actually in their shorts, but a conquest that is not. We *could* conquer if we felt like it and we don't.
Some will argue that we 'conquer' through economic domination. Fuck them; if they can't compete they can always hide behind prohibitive tariffs or other forms of legislation to ban U.S. goods and services. They're welcome to try it and see how their citizens enjoy the new insular state.
As for the moon, that 'universal commons' crap is so much bullshit. First come, first served, I say. To hell with anyone who objects. Don't like it, go to the moon and stake your own claim. Too small and poor to mount a space program? Partner with someone bigger, or with *alot* of smaller nations and play catch-up. It's not our problem, or our obligation, to gift you with the technology required to level the playing field. Or to cut you in for a piece of the pie if we do all the baking.
Exploiting space is a good thing. Pseudo-liberal claptrap about 'everyone' owning every chunk of the solar system makes me ill. Let them whine, bitch and moan while we mine the shit out of the asteroid belt.
Max
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI)
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 2
Darwinism forces us to survive by whatever means possible
Biological darwinism, otherwise known as 'evolution', doesn't 'force' us to do anything. Biological darwinism is inconsequential in the short time frame of human civilization.
Social darwinism, which is what you're referring to, is a 19th-century crock that was laughed out of serious academic circles more than a century ago. Only crackpots refer to social darwinism in any sort of serious way.
While it's certainly a victory *for* the people, it isn't a victory *of* the people. The tech industry - primarily hardware manufacturers - were opposed to the bill. They have *alot* more money than the RIAA and MPAA and therefore a greater amount of clout with our politicians.
The problem is that voting, even if presented with a decent candidate (which I haven't had in years), rarely changes anything. Why? Because the underlying bureaucracy is fundamentally invested in making sure that things work just the way they do right now, leaving the real power in the hands of unelected officials.
I'm not speaking as a typical slashdot ranter here (I do that elsewhere), but one who (unfortunately) has worked for government at various levels in the past. The administration - meaning the bureaucracy the politicians are supposed to direct and control - is actually in charge of the system. They can, and often do, ignore the directives of elected officials, convincing said officials that they actually are doing as they're told to the best of their ability. At every level of government I worked in upper, non-elected management had nothing but contempt for elected officials and openly plotted (yes, I use the word 'plotted') ways to get around directives or ignore them altogether. And, since 99% of the information available to politicians *comes from these very same departments* they were able to present a convincing case that 'thing x' couldn't be done, or could be done only by 'process y', while at the same time deriding public opposition as being from cranks for folks who 'just didn't understand the realities of the situation'. Elected officials, who generally aren't the brightest bulbs by any standards, are just as easily snowed by 500-page reports full of tables and statistics as anyone else is, no matter how bogus the numbers might be.
This situation is exacerbated by the fact that these bureaucracies - at all levels, check your city code if you think otherwise - have the unconstitutional power to pass laws without the permission of elected officials (they're called 'administrative rules', but they have the same force as any law) and to raise taxes as well (these are called 'administrative fees'). The ability to legislate and tax at the whim of unelected bureaucrats without having to answer to whatever legislature is in charge at that level of government allows the system to do as it pleases while paying lip-service to the politicians.
So what do these management-types occupy themselves with? Primarily in contesting with other management-types to increase their own power while diminishing that of rivals. This is done mostly through trying to get the biggest cut of the budget pie and through employing as many people in that division as possible. It's a rather 20th century version of feudal dukedoms hashing it out for the most 'territory' and 'serfs'. There is no 'ultimate end' to this contest; only the contest itself, and the self-worth it generates for these management folks if they score a 'win' at the expense of someone else's 'loss', counts.
You'd think that the whole damn system was run by a bunch of overgrown frat boys.
This also explains why government is so bloody wasteful (apart from people taking every opportunity to pad their own pockets, or those of relatives and friends). Enormous resources are thrown towards improving one's place in the contest, without regard as to whether or not it's a wise use of tax dollars. Not that this presents a moral problem; the 'fuck the taxpayer' attitude is also common in management, especially when the taxpayer dares to question the decisions of said management.
The end result is that you not only have elections where the race boils down to 'six of one, half a dozen of the other' corporate sluts, but a bureaucracy which will do anything in it's power to emasculate a candidate who actually seems interested in serving the common citizen and isn't snowed by internal reports. So even when an election doesn't present you with two versions of the same corporate whore, the system is sure to sabotage the honest guy you vote into office.
At all levels, the system is fundamentally broken. What to do about it is something I haven't settled on, but I do know that just voting in a decent candidate here or there won't make a damn bit of difference. If you have a decent candidate, that is.
I dunno about Brin. All that pseudo-liberal clap-trap worming its way through his books, especially "Earth" - ye gods, but that novel just plain sucked.
Worse, in an interview the guy actually said he believed his "Earth" to be the direction that modern society was heading - and that this was a good thing! When I read the novel I thought "so this is the 21st century version of hell, hand-made by liberals...."
Slashdot Mirror
It's a pity you resort to namecalling and profanity to further what looked to be an interesting debate. It makes you look rather unprofessional for someone wanting to debate the subject.
Do I give a shit what an arrogant bastard like you thinks? Not in this lifetime, pal.
Your argument that success is luck-derived is specious at best and demeans those who strive and toil, dealing with failure after failure, never giving up. Those are the people who ultimately succeed.
It's amazing just how much of an idiot you actually are. Yes, undoubtedly you deserve everything you obtained; I'm certain luck had nothing to do with it. Those who didn't make it obvious aren't as smart as you or as hard-working as you. I mean, if they were, they'd be the ones on top and you'd be the lower-class scumbag toiling for a living wage!
Prick
Max
All of them! Our government tells us so!
Max
So we should ban or monitor IRC because of this?
Max
And freedom of movement could also result in the pursuit of criminal activities...freedom of speech can be used to plan criminal activities, or incite others to enact them...
Guess we should just ban all these things, or at least monitor them on the off-chance that they *might* be used to break the law.
Max
And really, so what? "IRC bad"? Ooooh, yeah, guess we have to ban it, or monitor it, or make people easier to track because it *might* be abused by certain individuals.
This sort of logic is the haven for control freaks, the sort who equate anonymity with illegality. Next thing you know some moron will decide we all need to be implanted with a chip because freedom of movement without observation *might* be used to pursue criminal activities....
Max
Have you ever tried to make it better? I did and all I got was grief - after my ideas were stolen and implemented by others, who took credit for everything I did or thought of for themselves.
Government isn't kind to folks who want to change things for the better. Government is especially unkind to those who're brighter than their managers (and thus are a threat to them), or who suggest that perhaps current policy isn't best serving the public. Government gets downright ugly if you discover management engaged in illegal or unethical practices and have the gall to speak out against these things.
Go ahead and try to make a difference. I did. I have nothing to show for it but years of wasted labor and a bitterness over public service that goes right to the bone.
Max
Don't forget:
4) management that sucks even worse than that encountered in the private industry. Incompetence in management is par for the course, and since poor performance won't get a manager fired in government service this tends to result in the promotion of other poor performers so that the current management isn't threatened or embarrassed by new additions to the administrative team.
Max
Sociology has been working to predict group behavior since its inception. It's much like meteorology in that during the infancy of the science nobody had a freaking clue and most of the theories proposed were hogwash. But over time the models have been refined, and while not anywhere close to perfect weatherman have been handing out more accurate long range reports as time goes by.
When I was a kid living in the Northwest, it was an astounding feat if a weatherman could deliver an accurate report for the next day (other than saying 'it'll probably rain', which anyone could state with a fair chance of being right). Nowadays weathermen are regularly accurate a week in advance, and for individual days within that week. That says something if you live in Oregon or Washington.
Sociologists are treading much the same path. They've discarded most of the crap after spending the first 95% of their history examining mountains of data and trying to draw conclusions from it; now they're forming models and seeing how well they test for predictive value. Sure, the models will be wrong alot, especially at the beginning, but they *will* get better over time as refinement occurs. There's no reason to believe otherwise, as certain narrowly predictive models for large groups (e.g., insurance policies) are insanely accurate right now.
No doubt some people will whine and moan that humans just aren't predictable (in an effort to convince themselves that they make their own destiny apart from the influences of society) but this is just spitting into the wind. Human groups are predictable; it's just a matter of finding the right models and correcting them over time.
Max
This is old, old news to psychologists and sociologists. Asimov's psychohistory stems from the research being done by the sociologists of his time working to predict large group behavior and finding that the larger the group, the more predictable it became.
I remember Asimov himself saying this during an interview, although it was so long ago I couldn't begin to tell you where to find it. He stated that he merely took 'modern' sociology (during the time he wrote the books) and extended it to it's logical conclusion.
Max
Oh, right, it's already caught on. Which is why I've seen so many .NET-oriented Windows and Linux programs lately. And the emperor's new clothes look just fine too, don't they?
Max
You cannot dispute this fact -- it is true.
Sure I can dispute it. The fuckwits who claim that only hard work and their own superior intelligence got them to where they are today are also saying that they're more hardworking and more intelligent than everyone else lower down on the social food chain. This is complete, self-serving bullshit readily apparent to even the casual observer, not to mention incredibly arrogant.
Hard work and intelligence are good starting points, but by far the biggest determinants of where you are going to end up are a) what social circle you were born into, and b) luck - lots and lots of luck. Fact is, your hard work and intelligence might have helped you get where you are, but plain dumb luck put you there ahead of everyone else who works harder than you and is more intelligent than you - and is still not making it. Because no matter what you claim, there are *millions* of people smarter, more determined, and more hard-working than you are and yet aren't making as much as you do, or have the kind of money that you have, or wield the kind of power that you do.
Modern social darwinists - the laughingstock byproducts of a bygone era - assert that luck has nothing to do with it and that everyone who doesn't make it just doesn't have 'what it takes'. Which presumes that they do, and the millions who're fucked are somehow less worthy than they themselves are. This is nothing more than the 'nobility by birth' argument in different clothing that ruled the upper classes prior to the industrial revolution.
End result: your argument is a crock. No one except these freaks takes social darwinism seriously. If you have a burning desire to factor chance out of your success so you can bolster your own ego, kindly spew the megalomania in a different direction.
Max
If the robot is a cross between the Honda creation and a Real Doll, then yeah, I'm pretty damned sure this thing would make me right happy in my old age....
Max
I'd love to have a single sign-in for web sites.
And an easy way to track every web site I visit that requires a sign-in. No thanks. But wait! I could just use the same login and password at every site, right now, and accomplish the same thing! Without a single company knowing everywhere I go!
I'd love to have my own wish-list for books that I can use at a variety of on-line stores.
And once again have a single company know my reading preferences, available to be sold to third parties or given away to a government looking for 'troublemakers'. But wait! I could keep such a list in a...text file! And simply open it whenever I wish to see it while doing some online shopping!
I'd love to be able to have a standard way to share schedules and calendars and set up meetings, parties, etc.
And once again have a single company knowing everywhere I go, who I'm going to meet, who my associates are, how I spend my free time, and so forth. But lo! Check it out! I *already have* such a calendar on my computer, and I can use this thing called 'email' - or even the archaic device known as the 'phone' - to do this very same thing!
Zounds Batman! Looks like Hailstorm doesn't do anything I can't duplicate myself already! And far less intrusively!
Max
What they'll offer is Office2004, only available via a monthly subscription over the internet. Along with Messenger2004 (only $5/month!) and Media Player 2004 (exclusive mp3s from your favorite bands!) and....
Max
Now if we could only get some government regulation to root out and castrate the 'Billy-boy bj crowd'.
Oh, wait, these folks are emasculated enough as it is....
Max
While an interesting idea - being able to code in any language and then run it through .NET - I really don't see how the service function is any different from Java. The convenience alone doesn't strike me as terribly impressive, especially given that Java isn't that difficult to learn if you already have a command of C, C++, or Perl.
.NET framework do that *can't* already be duplicated through other means?
Surely I must've missed something along the way reading the technical specs. Apart from catering to folks who don't want to learn Java, what exactly does the
Max
This is assuming that MS doesn't decide to do some 'embracing and extending' which excludes Linux at some point in the future. Given their track record I woudn't be surprised if they found a way to lock out Linux once .NET caught on on Windows platforms.
Max
But then it'll be time for -
Crusader: No Remorse!
Woohoo!
Max
Taking out satellites isn't a cakewalk either (it only takes a box of nails, but the box has to be very high up and positioned to within a few metres).
Make that *carefully* positioned and *exactly* timed, as the resulting debris cloud could very well knock out a few other satellites that cross its expanding path - including one of your own.
Max
We can already decide exactly what can get off the ground, at any time, by threatening to fucking nuke anyone who doesn't do what we tell them to. Only the Russians have any real ability to mount a counter-threat and they aren't interested; the Cold War is over and done with, and good riddance so far as they're concerned.
But notice: we don't do this. We have the power and we don't exercise it. No global threats, no world domination by conquest, nothing of the sort. Sure, we kick the shit out of random Third World countries so our presidents can pretend they have bigger dicks than what's actually in their shorts, but a conquest that is not. We *could* conquer if we felt like it and we don't.
Some will argue that we 'conquer' through economic domination. Fuck them; if they can't compete they can always hide behind prohibitive tariffs or other forms of legislation to ban U.S. goods and services. They're welcome to try it and see how their citizens enjoy the new insular state.
As for the moon, that 'universal commons' crap is so much bullshit. First come, first served, I say. To hell with anyone who objects. Don't like it, go to the moon and stake your own claim. Too small and poor to mount a space program? Partner with someone bigger, or with *alot* of smaller nations and play catch-up. It's not our problem, or our obligation, to gift you with the technology required to level the playing field. Or to cut you in for a piece of the pie if we do all the baking.
Exploiting space is a good thing. Pseudo-liberal claptrap about 'everyone' owning every chunk of the solar system makes me ill. Let them whine, bitch and moan while we mine the shit out of the asteroid belt.
Max
Darwinism forces us to survive by whatever means possible
Biological darwinism, otherwise known as 'evolution', doesn't 'force' us to do anything. Biological darwinism is inconsequential in the short time frame of human civilization.
Social darwinism, which is what you're referring to, is a 19th-century crock that was laughed out of serious academic circles more than a century ago. Only crackpots refer to social darwinism in any sort of serious way.
Max
While it's certainly a victory *for* the people, it isn't a victory *of* the people. The tech industry - primarily hardware manufacturers - were opposed to the bill. They have *alot* more money than the RIAA and MPAA and therefore a greater amount of clout with our politicians.
The side with the most money won. As usual.
Max
Jesus, I see another frat boy logged on after a beer or two. Can't wait to see you tough it out in the real world after graduation, kid.
Max
The problem is that voting, even if presented with a decent candidate (which I haven't had in years), rarely changes anything. Why? Because the underlying bureaucracy is fundamentally invested in making sure that things work just the way they do right now, leaving the real power in the hands of unelected officials.
I'm not speaking as a typical slashdot ranter here (I do that elsewhere), but one who (unfortunately) has worked for government at various levels in the past. The administration - meaning the bureaucracy the politicians are supposed to direct and control - is actually in charge of the system. They can, and often do, ignore the directives of elected officials, convincing said officials that they actually are doing as they're told to the best of their ability. At every level of government I worked in upper, non-elected management had nothing but contempt for elected officials and openly plotted (yes, I use the word 'plotted') ways to get around directives or ignore them altogether. And, since 99% of the information available to politicians *comes from these very same departments* they were able to present a convincing case that 'thing x' couldn't be done, or could be done only by 'process y', while at the same time deriding public opposition as being from cranks for folks who 'just didn't understand the realities of the situation'. Elected officials, who generally aren't the brightest bulbs by any standards, are just as easily snowed by 500-page reports full of tables and statistics as anyone else is, no matter how bogus the numbers might be.
This situation is exacerbated by the fact that these bureaucracies - at all levels, check your city code if you think otherwise - have the unconstitutional power to pass laws without the permission of elected officials (they're called 'administrative rules', but they have the same force as any law) and to raise taxes as well (these are called 'administrative fees'). The ability to legislate and tax at the whim of unelected bureaucrats without having to answer to whatever legislature is in charge at that level of government allows the system to do as it pleases while paying lip-service to the politicians.
So what do these management-types occupy themselves with? Primarily in contesting with other management-types to increase their own power while diminishing that of rivals. This is done mostly through trying to get the biggest cut of the budget pie and through employing as many people in that division as possible. It's a rather 20th century version of feudal dukedoms hashing it out for the most 'territory' and 'serfs'. There is no 'ultimate end' to this contest; only the contest itself, and the self-worth it generates for these management folks if they score a 'win' at the expense of someone else's 'loss', counts.
You'd think that the whole damn system was run by a bunch of overgrown frat boys.
This also explains why government is so bloody wasteful (apart from people taking every opportunity to pad their own pockets, or those of relatives and friends). Enormous resources are thrown towards improving one's place in the contest, without regard as to whether or not it's a wise use of tax dollars. Not that this presents a moral problem; the 'fuck the taxpayer' attitude is also common in management, especially when the taxpayer dares to question the decisions of said management.
The end result is that you not only have elections where the race boils down to 'six of one, half a dozen of the other' corporate sluts, but a bureaucracy which will do anything in it's power to emasculate a candidate who actually seems interested in serving the common citizen and isn't snowed by internal reports. So even when an election doesn't present you with two versions of the same corporate whore, the system is sure to sabotage the honest guy you vote into office.
At all levels, the system is fundamentally broken. What to do about it is something I haven't settled on, but I do know that just voting in a decent candidate here or there won't make a damn bit of difference. If you have a decent candidate, that is.
Max
I dunno about Brin. All that pseudo-liberal clap-trap worming its way through his books, especially "Earth" - ye gods, but that novel just plain sucked.
Worse, in an interview the guy actually said he believed his "Earth" to be the direction that modern society was heading - and that this was a good thing! When I read the novel I thought "so this is the 21st century version of hell, hand-made by liberals...."
Max