Actual Space Camp NASA would be a sufficient experience for most
right...exactly my point...it's "sufficient" for what we do now in space...jack shit...It is woefully inefficient to train astronauts to mine the moon and colonize Mars.
the 'middle ground' fallacy is in play here...the middle ground isn't by default the right way...
We need an evolutionary step forward in NASA and our concept of space exploration...we're limiting ourselves for absolutely no reason...b/c of the 'middle ground' fallacy.
The DoD spends this on belt buckles & shoelaces. Don't tell me we don't have it.
The money is there...more than enough in the budget...the problem is the GOP of course...Republicans (read: the ppl that fund them) are running the 'divide and conquer' using the federal budget.
I want to see a NASA space camp run in actual space...like at the ISS.
First of all, we should be mining the moon/asteroids and walking on Mars right now (and working towards Jupiter's moons)...basically right now...
I know that's not the case, but we won't ever get there unless we start education programs that make spacefaring a common activity.
I love NASA. If they could get non-political, operational leadership and budget NASA could put this together.
Every gov't agency has training courses and such. FBI has Quantico, etc...NASA has this too it's just not well known.
I say **build it out**....build out NASA's education program to provide challenges worthy of college and graduate-level students...make a pipeline to being the next 'Buzz Aldrin' without having to be in the military.
And make part of the course a short visit to the ISS.
Of course grad students would be going up to do research projects...
It can happen...really this can start tomorrow...it really is just a matter of paperwork!
The 19th century somehow managed to reduce the workweek while increasing the yield of farming. Now we need two people of a household to work and food is expensive.
I love this. I'm going to make a point to remember it and use it.
It succinctly describes what unchecked consumerism has done in ways that are difficult to dodge.
It's a-political...in points out a truth in a way that demands clear action but cannot be easily trolled.
But keep ther 19th century social model though; innovation not wanted there.
you almost have it...19th Century *Business* model.
you're absolutely right the industry doesn't know what 'innovation' is b/c many tech leaders (broadly) got to be in that position not by 'innovation' but by sheer luck, stealing other's work, or by being a lackey.
M$'s government contract aided ascendence is the perfect example. They scaled up from the garage b/c Gates & Co. were willing to do w/e IBM wanted. IBM, of course, had just gotten a huge government to put PC's on every government desk.
Who needs to do R&D and 'innovate' when the government guarantees your company a revenue stream and captive market???
The industry is killing itself from hype...it's like a human eating only SweetTarts candy everyday...it'll kill you eventually
I'm trying here...so I'll give you partial credit. You're definitely begging the question, but it is important to acknowledge that other companies make similar mistakes as M$ (though they are not as bad).
Apple's design flaws are just as annoying as any other design flaw.
The question is, what about Apple's process allowed them to do right what M$ did wrong?
As others have pointed out, Apple is the exact opposite of M$: a successful and popular company. There is no debate on that point worth having.
So what about Apple kept them from screwing up as bad as M$?
> Was it Steve Job's megolomania combined with good design choices and lucky market conditions? Any CEO can pound their fist and force their way, but just by law of averages, when JOb's did it, it had marginally better results in the end product, perhaps?
> Is the answer in the engineering department? like where they actually write the software...,did they quietly refuse to do things like Internet Explorer tried to do in the 90s?
> Lack of the government contracts forcing them to innovate at Apple? See, M$ only exists b/c IBM needed a lackey to put stripped down PC boxes on every government office desk...M$ was the operating system....credit Gates for profiting by leveraging his govt contracts into forcing users to use his product...but...that didnt' really encourage R&D. Apple had to fight to survive
But this time there is some merit to the claim.....new evidence of the correlation and the discovered photos.
I agree there is some good science going on here and there is merit.
But this data isn't nearly as revealing as TFA & most pop-science articles will indicate.
You hit it by mentioning "correlation"
My point is, like the chicken and egg analogy, a larger corpus collosum doesn't make one smarter...reading, thinking, good health, human interaction, challenges, open-mindedness, accepting failures and changing and adapting...THAT makes intelligence...
We know how to make people smart...there are whole academic disciplines and organizations dedicated to the persuit...
This data doesn't tell us what made Einstein 'smart'....it tells us what **this** particular 'smart' person's brain looks like...
I'm not dogging the research per se, I **love** neuroscience...I am advocating for a more sceintificically rigorous way to talk/think about this;)
Microsoft's chickens are coming home to roost and I absolutely love watching it happen...M$ is desperate...this shows how much...
Their OS's are horrible products. From the 80s to now, Windows has been generic level quality at best.
Their business model, since the 80s, has been to bottleneck features and kill interoperability to **force** users to use their software.
This is the result of having that business model. Anyone in business who has the same model (facebook.com, etc) will, with certainty, suffer the same fate eventually.
look, re-read the thread...I blame the responsible party...my language in the post you responded to was actually me quoting another user mocking his enflamed tone
again, I blame the responsible party...whoever that is...what other way is there?
hey, I am new to web development, and I felt like I didn't do a good job explaining why the div element needed to be replaced by HTML5's section elements...
and it actually explains where I'm coming from...look down in the article at the examples...how h1, h2, h3 actually were used as section headings with dangling #footers that could belong to any of the h's...then everything gets wrapped in div's...it was an ugly mess!
look at the development of HTML5...the W3C fought to keep the div like it was their 'precious'...really getting rid of the div nonsense as decribed in the article was absolutely necessary dont you think?
right...I can see you have some web developer experience...i'm with you but your criticisms of HTML5 are definitely not representative...
and don't IMHO warrant your use of language like "madness" at all...its minutia that experienced web dev's would have honest disgreements over, yet you use exaggerated language...
so your i and b point is about presentational/ vs what kind of element? 'in their graves' meaning i and b should be depricated? you seem to value 'backwards compatability' but doing as you say would ruin backwards compatability for those elements
HTML5's sections fixed the div problem for good...despite W3C's efforts...div was being used for everything and it was dumb and everyone knows this...only b/c adobe's market share did the div even survive that long....I just don't understand how a web developer would criticize HTML5' for problems that are caused by legacy of HTML
about headlines and list items...CSS is what contextualizes those elements...that's how it is...not saying its how i'd do it but again it seems your beef is with abstraction choices of HTML itself, not the WHATWG or HTML5 standard
but...that's just my opinion...like I said this is **minutia** and in no way lets the W3C off the hook...in fact, if there were no W3C most of your issues would be solved in newer standards
analogy: we're evaluating a car: you're criticizing the layout of the menu on the stereo for using the cd changer...you say its illogical...maybe...but is that really a salient factor in overall analysis of the car's purchase value?
the utter madness that is HTML5 (produced by the WHATWG morons who have all forgotten what semantic means)
hey thanks for the comment...I agree that the IEEE would do a better job w/ standards
so, I'm a web developer now, and I'm wondering if you can tell me, specifically, what about HTML5 is "madness"?
what particular aspect about the HTML5 standard makes you say that?
also, about "semantic"...
without getting into semanti...um...arguments of definitions of terms...I thought the whole "semantic web" concept had been ditched into the "hype" bin along with "Web 2.0" and other unnecessary recursive abstractions
seriously...I thought "semantic web" went out when "web 2.0" got flushed...
and Tim Behrners-Lee did not "invent" the world wide web (but that's another post for another time...)
The W3C opposed HTML5 every step of the way in its development.
The W3C's standards have not been the industry standard for years...it's all WHATWG
HTML5 would have never been implemented without the WHATWG
You don't have to be a web developer to see what happened. The W3C has clout b/c of CERN, and they have done alot of good stuff...but the W3C consistently has tried to sneak in some sort of DRM or block development if they can't...
That's what happened with HTML5....the W3C's "industry partners" wanted some sort of DRM and the WHATWG had to form to circumvent it and develop HTML5 and get it deployed.
This is DRM, it is evil, and Behners-Lee and the W3C are not on our side in this
Because someone did a 3 or 5 year plan 1-2 years ago...
that's not an answer...'because we had a guy fill out a procurement spreadsheet' is absolutely no justification to give corporatations a blank check
this conversation is a non-starter...you managed to use blockquotes but still are 'Straw Man'-ing me...no, jerk, of course i'm not against all government contracting...I am a government contractor...
everyone who's reading is free to scroll up and read my point...I don't think anything of value has transpired in our conversation because you are simply justifying your cognitive dissonance
In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it is the EXACT opposite
well...I don't 'win' but it's a stalemate for sure...you don't know the meaning of the terms you use
your notions are hilariously reductive...I used to teach High School social studies and a mainstream 10th grader C student has a more complex understanding of these concepts than you exhibit
anyone reading will see what has happened on this thread...that's all I can really hope for constructively from all this
and to top if off, you quote Margaret Thatcher...sir you can eat my ass
I agree. It's a false choice to say require SteamBox to compete w/ Xbox and PS to be considered a 'success'
It's possible for SteamBox to be a roaring success and still not compete on Nintendo/Xbox/PS market's scale!
I think one of the problems is business people do not understand the scale of the gaming audience. You hit on it with identifying there are different audiences for platforms. Sure, EA or Xbox marketing people can throw sales numbers and 'oh yeah, we now how big the market is' but that's a reductive approach.
The pie grew exponentially and also into new markets...but they use the same playbook, dividing up the pie the same way.
I think in some way mainstream gaming companies don't want Steam or Valve to success precisely because it shows how bad they are at their job. If Valve had even a small percentage of EA or Nintendo's resources gaming would be much different.
I'm not a huge Steam/Valve apologist...in fact I'm very critical of them in many...well almost all areas...but that's just b/c I believe they could be better not b/c I dont' think the concept is economically viable.
You want to prove me wrong? Want to win this debate? read on...but first, I don't need your reductive lecture on how procurement works.
I used to be in the Air Force and worked with procurement people. I've been to the contractor trade shows.
It's a free for all corporate giveaway. The **prime** example of government waste that shows the glaring lies of Obama's critics and GOP'ers in general.
To falsify my point, say your ramblings about imaginary and unapplicable replacement cycles is true. Almost all government divisions that have budgets for contractors do exactly as you say. Fine.
In that scenario you are still wrong.
Why? The question is, is this spending justified?
The answer is no...no matter when people spend their budgets on contractors, the problem is the same **IT IS A WASTEFUL GIVEAWAY TO CORPORATIONS FOR NO GAIN TO CITIZENS**
That is the greater point....**we can go line by line, I'm in, but first you have to demonstrate that you are capable of rational discussion**....you are dodging and trolling...and you didn't address at all the hilarious congitive dissonance over budget spending on this issue for consveratives like yourself.
the Federal fiscal year ended on September 30th. Of COURSE the Pentagon's going to spend money like crazy
wrong...you're taking some kind of 'in lab conditions only' perspective and you're dead wrong
this is not a lab or poly sci theory class...this is 21st Century American military spending...it's been fucking anarchy for them since Bush/9/11 and Obama is doing his best to reign them in
want specifics? for starters, these projects are unnecessary and over-budgeted...they are **typical** miliary/industrial complex contract giveawys...Republicans work in lockstep with the leaders of these corps
you're turning a blind eye to how far out these interests I speak of have gamed the system
-just about every purchasing department in the Federal Government waits until the very last day to fill out their orders.
this is just flat untrue...there is absolutely no reason waiting in this manner would help at all...
look, accept it...these contracts were **WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY**
the congnitive dissonance on this is off the charts for conservatives, GOPers, and "libertarians"...they never shut up about 'budget crisis' and 'deficit reduction' but they always, always, always bend over and take whatever the military/industrial complex asks
*Corporations* always want free shit. *Corporations* always want other people to pay for their shit. *Corporations* always want to borrow money from China, leave the debt to **our** kids, and enjoy an inflated lifestyle.
Which is why the US is a Oligarchy, not a Democracy. The greedy bastards outnumber the normal people now, so of course "the people" demand economic justice. A spoonfull of GREED can corrupt a whole sea of democracy as soon as *Corporations* figure out they can bribe politicians to get legislation passed no matter how it effects the citizenry.
One day, you'll run out of people willing put up with BULLSHIT REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS
Slashdot Mirror
right...exactly my point...it's "sufficient" for what we do now in space...jack shit...It is woefully inefficient to train astronauts to mine the moon and colonize Mars.
the 'middle ground' fallacy is in play here...the middle ground isn't by default the right way...
We need an evolutionary step forward in NASA and our concept of space exploration...we're limiting ourselves for absolutely no reason...b/c of the 'middle ground' fallacy.
The DoD spends this on belt buckles & shoelaces. Don't tell me we don't have it.
The money is there...more than enough in the budget...the problem is the GOP of course...Republicans (read: the ppl that fund them) are running the 'divide and conquer' using the federal budget.
I want to see a NASA space camp run in actual space...like at the ISS.
First of all, we should be mining the moon/asteroids and walking on Mars right now (and working towards Jupiter's moons)...basically right now...
I know that's not the case, but we won't ever get there unless we start education programs that make spacefaring a common activity.
I love NASA. If they could get non-political, operational leadership and budget NASA could put this together.
Every gov't agency has training courses and such. FBI has Quantico, etc...NASA has this too it's just not well known.
I say **build it out**....build out NASA's education program to provide challenges worthy of college and graduate-level students...make a pipeline to being the next 'Buzz Aldrin' without having to be in the military.
And make part of the course a short visit to the ISS.
Of course grad students would be going up to do research projects...
It can happen...really this can start tomorrow...it really is just a matter of paperwork!
We could do it...
I love this. I'm going to make a point to remember it and use it.
It succinctly describes what unchecked consumerism has done in ways that are difficult to dodge.
It's a-political...in points out a truth in a way that demands clear action but cannot be easily trolled.
you almost have it...19th Century *Business* model.
you're absolutely right the industry doesn't know what 'innovation' is b/c many tech leaders (broadly) got to be in that position not by 'innovation' but by sheer luck, stealing other's work, or by being a lackey.
M$'s government contract aided ascendence is the perfect example. They scaled up from the garage b/c Gates & Co. were willing to do w/e IBM wanted. IBM, of course, had just gotten a huge government to put PC's on every government desk.
Who needs to do R&D and 'innovate' when the government guarantees your company a revenue stream and captive market???
The industry is killing itself from hype...it's like a human eating only SweetTarts candy everyday...it'll kill you eventually
I just thought of this, but an attacker could just cut off your finger...
it's obvious...but not really discussed in this context...
I see fingerprints being used in mostly specific high-value cases...briefcase, door entry, pricey gagets...
It just seems that having a small device that just needs your finger to crack encourages finger-chopping or more likely personal physical cooercion
I'm trying here...so I'll give you partial credit. You're definitely begging the question, but it is important to acknowledge that other companies make similar mistakes as M$ (though they are not as bad).
Apple's design flaws are just as annoying as any other design flaw.
The question is, what about Apple's process allowed them to do right what M$ did wrong?
As others have pointed out, Apple is the exact opposite of M$: a successful and popular company. There is no debate on that point worth having.
So what about Apple kept them from screwing up as bad as M$?
> Was it Steve Job's megolomania combined with good design choices and lucky market conditions? Any CEO can pound their fist and force their way, but just by law of averages, when JOb's did it, it had marginally better results in the end product, perhaps?
> Is the answer in the engineering department? like where they actually write the software...,did they quietly refuse to do things like Internet Explorer tried to do in the 90s?
> Lack of the government contracts forcing them to innovate at Apple? See, M$ only exists b/c IBM needed a lackey to put stripped down PC boxes on every government office desk...M$ was the operating system....credit Gates for profiting by leveraging his govt contracts into forcing users to use his product...but...that didnt' really encourage R&D. Apple had to fight to survive
I agree there is some good science going on here and there is merit.
But this data isn't nearly as revealing as TFA & most pop-science articles will indicate.
You hit it by mentioning "correlation"
My point is, like the chicken and egg analogy, a larger corpus collosum doesn't make one smarter...reading, thinking, good health, human interaction, challenges, open-mindedness, accepting failures and changing and adapting...THAT makes intelligence...
We know how to make people smart...there are whole academic disciplines and organizations dedicated to the persuit...
This data doesn't tell us what made Einstein 'smart'....it tells us what **this** particular 'smart' person's brain looks like...
I'm not dogging the research per se, I **love** neuroscience...I am advocating for a more sceintificically rigorous way to talk/think about this ;)
Microsoft's chickens are coming home to roost and I absolutely love watching it happen...M$ is desperate...this shows how much...
Their OS's are horrible products. From the 80s to now, Windows has been generic level quality at best.
Their business model, since the 80s, has been to bottleneck features and kill interoperability to **force** users to use their software.
This is the result of having that business model. Anyone in business who has the same model (facebook.com, etc) will, with certainty, suffer the same fate eventually.
Microsoft is now a digital beggar of a company...
now you're showing your ignorance...
essentially, you're criticizing HTML5 from the perspective of a person who is biased towards the W3C
you're biased...otherwise you'd never say this:
HTML 4 was a competing standard to HTML 5....HTML5 and common sense prevailed...
no...i & b are not 'depricated' in the current version of HTML5
also, your counterpoint to the div fix makes no sense...its an inherently different way to layout the entire page
don't respond...I'm done with this...you're biased and you're trolling and you obviously are NOT AN ACTIVE WEB DEVELOPER
look, re-read the thread...I blame the responsible party...my language in the post you responded to was actually me quoting another user mocking his enflamed tone
again, I blame the responsible party...whoever that is...what other way is there?
do you have a point to make?
i won't respond to GOP talking points
hey, I am new to web development, and I felt like I didn't do a good job explaining why the div element needed to be replaced by HTML5's section elements...
I found this article: http://coding.smashingmagazine.com/2013/01/18/the-importance-of-sections/
and it actually explains where I'm coming from...look down in the article at the examples...how h1, h2, h3 actually were used as section headings with dangling #footers that could belong to any of the h's...then everything gets wrapped in div's...it was an ugly mess!
look at the development of HTML5...the W3C fought to keep the div like it was their 'precious'...really getting rid of the div nonsense as decribed in the article was absolutely necessary dont you think?
right...I can see you have some web developer experience...i'm with you but your criticisms of HTML5 are definitely not representative...
and don't IMHO warrant your use of language like "madness" at all...its minutia that experienced web dev's would have honest disgreements over, yet you use exaggerated language...
so your i and b point is about presentational/ vs what kind of element? 'in their graves' meaning i and b should be depricated? you seem to value 'backwards compatability' but doing as you say would ruin backwards compatability for those elements
HTML5's sections fixed the div problem for good...despite W3C's efforts...div was being used for everything and it was dumb and everyone knows this...only b/c adobe's market share did the div even survive that long....I just don't understand how a web developer would criticize HTML5' for problems that are caused by legacy of HTML
about headlines and list items...CSS is what contextualizes those elements...that's how it is...not saying its how i'd do it but again it seems your beef is with abstraction choices of HTML itself, not the WHATWG or HTML5 standard
but...that's just my opinion...like I said this is **minutia** and in no way lets the W3C off the hook...in fact, if there were no W3C most of your issues would be solved in newer standards
analogy: we're evaluating a car: you're criticizing the layout of the menu on the stereo for using the cd changer...you say its illogical...maybe...but is that really a salient factor in overall analysis of the car's purchase value?
hey thanks for the comment...I agree that the IEEE would do a better job w/ standards
so, I'm a web developer now, and I'm wondering if you can tell me, specifically, what about HTML5 is "madness"?
what particular aspect about the HTML5 standard makes you say that?
also, about "semantic"...
without getting into semanti...um...arguments of definitions of terms...I thought the whole "semantic web" concept had been ditched into the "hype" bin along with "Web 2.0" and other unnecessary recursive abstractions
seriously...I thought "semantic web" went out when "web 2.0" got flushed...
and Tim Behrners-Lee did not "invent" the world wide web (but that's another post for another time...)
The W3C opposed HTML5 every step of the way in its development.
The W3C's standards have not been the industry standard for years...it's all WHATWG
HTML5 would have never been implemented without the WHATWG
You don't have to be a web developer to see what happened. The W3C has clout b/c of CERN, and they have done alot of good stuff...but the W3C consistently has tried to sneak in some sort of DRM or block development if they can't...
That's what happened with HTML5....the W3C's "industry partners" wanted some sort of DRM and the WHATWG had to form to circumvent it and develop HTML5 and get it deployed.
This is DRM, it is evil, and Behners-Lee and the W3C are not on our side in this
I call B.S. on your post, AC...
you took the time to type that out when you could have made a contribution to the discussion...
What does that make you?
Like I said, this thread is here for anyone to read from the beginning and I'm fine with letting /. judge
yeah...Social Studies...
the subject where you learn what 'Capitalism' and 'Communism' mean
you obviously didn't take it, b/c in your last post, you said this:
gandhi_2 or gandhi_2 is an idiot...
or the EXACT opposite
one or the other is true
that's not an answer...'because we had a guy fill out a procurement spreadsheet' is absolutely no justification to give corporatations a blank check
this conversation is a non-starter...you managed to use blockquotes but still are 'Straw Man'-ing me...no, jerk, of course i'm not against all government contracting...I am a government contractor...
everyone who's reading is free to scroll up and read my point...I don't think anything of value has transpired in our conversation because you are simply justifying your cognitive dissonance
well...I don't 'win' but it's a stalemate for sure...you don't know the meaning of the terms you use
your notions are hilariously reductive...I used to teach High School social studies and a mainstream 10th grader C student has a more complex understanding of these concepts than you exhibit
anyone reading will see what has happened on this thread...that's all I can really hope for constructively from all this
and to top if off, you quote Margaret Thatcher...sir you can eat my ass
I agree. It's a false choice to say require SteamBox to compete w/ Xbox and PS to be considered a 'success'
It's possible for SteamBox to be a roaring success and still not compete on Nintendo/Xbox/PS market's scale!
I think one of the problems is business people do not understand the scale of the gaming audience. You hit on it with identifying there are different audiences for platforms. Sure, EA or Xbox marketing people can throw sales numbers and 'oh yeah, we now how big the market is' but that's a reductive approach.
The pie grew exponentially and also into new markets...but they use the same playbook, dividing up the pie the same way.
I think in some way mainstream gaming companies don't want Steam or Valve to success precisely because it shows how bad they are at their job. If Valve had even a small percentage of EA or Nintendo's resources gaming would be much different.
I'm not a huge Steam/Valve apologist...in fact I'm very critical of them in many...well almost all areas...but that's just b/c I believe they could be better not b/c I dont' think the concept is economically viable.
You want to prove me wrong? Want to win this debate? read on...but first, I don't need your reductive lecture on how procurement works.
I used to be in the Air Force and worked with procurement people. I've been to the contractor trade shows.
It's a free for all corporate giveaway. The **prime** example of government waste that shows the glaring lies of Obama's critics and GOP'ers in general.
To falsify my point, say your ramblings about imaginary and unapplicable replacement cycles is true. Almost all government divisions that have budgets for contractors do exactly as you say. Fine.
In that scenario you are still wrong.
Why? The question is, is this spending justified?
The answer is no...no matter when people spend their budgets on contractors, the problem is the same **IT IS A WASTEFUL GIVEAWAY TO CORPORATIONS FOR NO GAIN TO CITIZENS**
That is the greater point....**we can go line by line, I'm in, but first you have to demonstrate that you are capable of rational discussion** ....you are dodging and trolling...and you didn't address at all the hilarious congitive dissonance over budget spending on this issue for consveratives like yourself.
wrong...you're taking some kind of 'in lab conditions only' perspective and you're dead wrong
this is not a lab or poly sci theory class...this is 21st Century American military spending...it's been fucking anarchy for them since Bush/9/11 and Obama is doing his best to reign them in
want specifics? for starters, these projects are unnecessary and over-budgeted...they are **typical** miliary/industrial complex contract giveawys...Republicans work in lockstep with the leaders of these corps
you're turning a blind eye to how far out these interests I speak of have gamed the system
this is just flat untrue...there is absolutely no reason waiting in this manner would help at all...
look, accept it...these contracts were **WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY**
the congnitive dissonance on this is off the charts for conservatives, GOPers, and "libertarians"...they never shut up about 'budget crisis' and 'deficit reduction' but they always, always, always bend over and take whatever the military/industrial complex asks
its a corporate giveaway...that's what this is!
i'll keep going Huckleberry/troll
go ahead, make one coherent point...preferrablly with evidence (and not BS GOP talking points about 'debt crisis' voodoo)...
if you are **so sure** you are right then a link should be easy to find to bolster your point
#2 use quotations of what point you are countering from my comment....like this:
editorializations aside, the core of that fragment is correct
if you think you can stop trolling and actually *WIN* this debate using logic, facts, evidence by directly clashing my points then bring it on fuckwad
*Corporations* always want free shit. *Corporations* always want other people to pay for their shit. *Corporations* always want to borrow money from China, leave the debt to **our** kids, and enjoy an inflated lifestyle.
Which is why the US is a Oligarchy , not a Democracy. The greedy bastards outnumber the normal people now, so of course "the people" demand economic justice. A spoonfull of GREED can corrupt a whole sea of democracy as soon as *Corporations* figure out they can bribe politicians to get legislation passed no matter how it effects the citizenry.
One day, you'll run out of people willing put up with BULLSHIT REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS
don't come here on this thread talking that same, tired old bullshit argument about 'spending' and 'budget crisis'
it's bunk...our country is the **richest the world has ever known**
your whole "Repub's do THIS" while "Dem's do THAT" is reductive and stupid...
you have an infantile understanding of 'debt' and macroeconmics...read up and maybe you can participate in this discussion