Sometimes I don't even like my own code if I'm coming back to it a year later. It's just the nature of the game. What looks 'good' and 'right' to you changes based on what you know about coding, what problems you've encountered, what you know about the project, what you know about the budget, etc, etc.
I sometimes have the opposite experience. I've looked at some of my old code and thought, "Wow, that is so freaking elegant and insightful. I must have been a genius back then."
You get your bitcoins scammed or stolen? Your recourse is...what?
"You get your USD scammed or stolen? Your recourse is...what?" - If you're stupid with your money, that's your own damn fault. No one said you must convert your entire life-savings into bitcoins. But if no one participates with small amounts, the institutions that run the bitcoin exchanges will never get equal protection under law. So quit being a douche, and at least participate with small amounts so that Bitcoins can take off. Bitcoin institutions may not have the same legal protections under law and they never will unless "non-gullible" people like you take a tiny leap.
Wait, anybody who doesn't buy into bitcoins is a douche? Wow, that's a great slogan for getting people to join. And it sounds like the same slogan you'd use to get someone to join a pyramid scheme.
They shouldn't be doing it for HTTPS traffic, though. That's straight-up a MITM attack that allows gathering of info (credentials, bank info, HIPAA info etc.), that should not be viewable to anyone outside of the user and the site he's connecting to. Despite Nokia's TOS, they could be in trouble legally here.
No, it's not a MITM attack. From the sound of it, that's exactly how the browser was always intended to work. I haven't used the Nokia browser, but the Opera Mini "browser" isn't actually a browser properly speaking, it downloads everything onto Opera's servers, renders it, compresses it to an image file, and sends it to the phone (reduces bandwidth and CPU costs). It does this to HTTPS and HTTP connections alike (couldn't use HTTPS without it at all). I'm guessing that is exactly what the Nokia browser is doing too. There's no legal trouble with doing that, at least if they aren't recording the data (Opera doesn't, I'd assume Nokia doesn't either). FFS, Wikipedia lists the damned browser as a proxy-based one, as does Nokia's website. It's like being surprised your browser can see the passwords you type into a website. Can't be an "attack'" if they publicly inform you that's how the thing works.
And yet, if this were Apple doing it, the flames of hate would be enormous.
Juicy. Of course, if you want to play "what if" and hold suppositions as hard evidence, we could also say that the only reason Democrats did as well as they did this last cycle was because they are so successful at class warfare.
Successful class warfare? So nudging upper tax brackets barely above their historic lows is successful class warfare? Successful class warfare is having a salary cap on FICA tax, little or no tax on capital gains, historic-low tax rates, increasing the retirement age, record-high executive pay, bank bailouts on stupid loans, sole-source wartime contracting, pay freezes for civil servants and teachers, etc.
If you're agreeing, you're being a tool. The tags don't magically fail to work off campus. If I figure out what brand/model of reader or what protocol the tags use, I can read them OFF campus. If I'm not caring about FCC regs, I can greatly extend the range of the reader.
They're pathetically stupid, lying, or worse, both.
To think that it's an empty inflamatory remark without basis is being ignorant.
Bullshit. At worst, it is ill-informed, not perjury. The plaintiff's objection is the ability of school staff to track them. School staff does not have off-site readers. "Perjury" is clearly used here to inflame.
From wikipedia: Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding.[1][A] That is, the witness falsely promises to tell the truth about matters which affect the outcome of the case. For example, it is not considered perjury to lie about one's age unless age is a factor in determining the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits.
No, you're the one avoiding the issue. IF they believe what they said is true then they have been trained properly and have no business administrating the entire system. I doubt that, and would lean to being trained to lie in court by district mandate.
Take the advice of the OP's comment title and Read the PDF. It clearly shows the isolated quote is not perjury, IMHO.
The plaintiff's objection is that the RFID chip is "the mark of the beast" and that having to wear it or a badge that looks like the RFID badge is compelled speech supporting the "mark of the beast".
Yeah, the RFID chip is the mark of the beast, but the badge without RFID is not the mark of the beast? Riiiiight.
If you're agreeing, you're being a tool. The tags don't magically fail to work off campus. If I figure out what brand/model of reader or what protocol the tags use, I can read them OFF campus. If I'm not caring about FCC regs, I can greatly extend the range of the reader.
They're pathetically stupid, lying, or worse, both.
To think that it's an empty inflamatory remark without basis is being ignorant.
Bullshit. At worst, it is ill-informed, not perjury. The plaintiff's objection is the ability of school staff to track them. School staff does not have off-site readers. "Perjury" is clearly used here to inflame.
From wikipedia: Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding.[1][A] That is, the witness falsely promises to tell the truth about matters which affect the outcome of the case. For example, it is not considered perjury to lie about one's age unless age is a factor in determining the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits.
I think it is fairly clear that it is the ability of staff to track students location that only works when the student is on campus. Of course it would have been better to qualify that with a statement that the card will still respond to other readers:
...the chip in the Smart ID
badge also enables school staff to locate a student on a campus with a very large student population.16
The campus is equipped with sensors to read the card and school staff can determine the general
whereabouts of the student carrying the card.17 The sensors do not give an exact reading or pinpoint
the precise location of a student (e.g. a specific classroom), but it would show whether the student is
in a certain wing of the school.18 The Smart ID badges work only within the school campus that has
been equipped with sensors to read them.19 The badges do not work off campus.
I agree. I think the "perjury" comment was there just for inflammatory purposes.
Microsoft and Nintendo have historically been even stricter than Apple.
My point is there are other places, not which are suitable. They can develop their own platform, if that's what it takes. Fact is, this is not a 1st Amendment issue.
App success is PRIMARILY based on NOT getting rejected by Apple first.
After that, it's totally quality and marketing.
App rejection is overplayed, mostly by (1) Those that have been rejected for obvious violations that Apple lets you know about in advance, and (2) Fandroids who celebrate every rejection as a repudiation of Apple. I currently have 5 apps selling, only one of which got an initial rejection, but was cleared with a little email exchange with Apple.
Congress is not preventing the dissemination of the information
Really? Then, what happened here, when 2600 magazine was prosecuted for publishing links to deCSS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_v._Reimerdes
If you are wondering why Fedora will provide information on its website about RPMFusion but not Livna (where libdvdcss packages are), you have your answer: it is illegal to even publish that information in the United States. So much for the first amendment, so much for freedom of speech.
I was referring to the fact that Apple's refusal to publish the app is not a violation of the First Amendment. I didn't say that no First Amendment violations have ever occurred.
The "information" can be published somewhere else.
In the case of Endgame:Syria, where should this information have been published?
It's not a matter of "should" but "can." They don't have to make the game an iOS game. They can make it a PC game, an XBox game, or a Wii game. If I publish a novel in the format for the Kindle, should Amazon be forced to sell it? If I print my own books, should B&N be forced to sell it. The answer is no in all cases.
Why are people still stupid enough to trust Apple enough to sink money and development time into their silly, arbitrary little prison-platform?
For the same reason a business does anything: it has historically had an attractive return on investment. Into what platform should companies sink development time instead?
Yeah, the Powerball has a great return on investment too. You just pay a dollar and get millions.
There are some Zynga's on the app store making mad cash. And for every hit like "Angry Birds", there are literally thousands of apps that don't sell at all. It's a bit like playing the lottery. You might be the next iFart. Odds are you've wasted lots of time and money for nothing.
But Powerball is based on luck. App success is based on quality and marketing. Huge difference.
If Congress has made no law restricting the publication of a particular kind of work in a particular medium, then what's the anticircumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? There's a DMCA exemption to jailbreak phones but not to jailbreak tablets like the iPad.
Totally irrelevant. The "information" can be published somewhere else. Congress is not preventing the dissemination of the information. That is what the 1st Amendment is for. A corporation (aka a "person") can choose not to publish it as they wish. Random House need not publish every novel of fan fiction. It does not violate the 1st Amendment.
Don't pay the fee and they take down your application.
Citation needed. I believe they just don't allow you to upload new apps or updates. Also, for that $99 fee you get two developer support events. That means Apple engineers are looking at your code and helping you.
You're retarded. >95% of iOS developers don't get any of the 7Billion. iOS development is a fool's lottery designed to suck time and resources away from morons like you... in fact most app store devs are in this boat and don't even know it.
I guess you need to go to civics class. His description is precisely the process. Admittedly, the scenario is not likely to happen, but that is the process.
Subject, of course, to the 9th Amendment, which provides for rights "retained by the people", and the 10th Amendment, which provides for rights "reserved to the people", both of which all legislators and judges swear oaths to uphold.
Usually left out of civics classes, perhaps because because these particular amendments, which could be used to assert all manner of fundamental rights not explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights, are rather inconvenient to certain parties.
By definition, rights retained by the people are, well, retained by the people. It is not within the legal authority of the Supreme Court to refuse to recognize such rights, and if they were to make a ruling that did this (arguably, many such rulings have been made throughout the history of the court), then the People would have every right to consider this oath-breaking and the ruling invalid (essentially what happened in the anti-slavery movement, and then, later, in the civil rights movement). Also a point missed in many civics classes, which often cover the history without discussing the deeper meaning of events.
Another thing to think about: the essence of the Nuremberg Precedent is a recognition that laws passed by governments, and even affirmed by the high courts in those governments, can still be determined to be in violation of fundamental human rights and thus be illegal laws. This gives further justification for recognizing limits to what the government can do.
Telling people to move somewhere else if they are unhappy with the illegal abuse of government power shows a remarkable lack of education. It's the sort of thing a person might say who either had a really bad civics class, or slept through most of the lectures.
You are now the wikipedia example of Ad Hominem. I pointed out that it is the process. He has an option to move if he would prefer I different process, or to stay and live with it, or try to change it. You said I was terribly wrong; I am not. It is the process. I never claimed it was perfect. It can be abused, no doubt, and people can rise up against it. Yet, it remains the process. I remain correct.
As to Alaska, they are a welfare state, receiving $1.84 in federal money for every $1.00 they send.
While these sorts of comparisons are popular with some folks (primarily as a form of propaganda by groups with a particular political agenda and a lack of scruples)
Ad hominem
simple comparisons between federal money spent in a state versus the taxes paid by the residents of that state are meaningless. Sophisticated comparisons can have value, but the simple ones do not.
The reason for this has to do with the fact that Federal money supports many things, which often benefit multiple states. There is no reason why the taxpayer's of a given state should be expected to pay for things that have to be done in their state, but which provide primary benefit to other states. Without careful and detailed research, it is impossible to disentangle Federal spending, tax dollars generated, and the benefits obtained by different groups or populations.
For example, the federal government pays to maintain roads: the roads that carry traffic across a low-population state to a high population one may require a disproportionate amount of money to be spent in the low-population state, but can benefit the high population state far more than the low population state.
There are many resources that are frequently shipped long distances, such as food, water, wood, metals, gas, oil (particularly important for the Alaska example), and so forth. Federal funds are often spent on things like all the infrastructure needed to make development and transportation of these resources practical (or to reduce the cost), such as the interstate highway system and the various coastal waterways.
The locations where these resources are found, grown, or mined are often sparsely populated locations with difficult terrain and low populations, which means the infrastructure expenses can be surprisingly high (far higher than most city dweller can even begin to imagine, one of the reasons why the economic perspectives of folks who live their whole lives in urban environments tend to be badly skewed).
Of course, the federal government could simply let the free market handle all these expenses, but then the people in highly populated areas would be paying a lot more for everything.
Similarly, a lot of money may be spent in a particular location merely because that location has characteristics of value to the federal government, such as the large expanses of remote, mostly-empty land needed for the military. A place like this will tend to not generate much in the way of tax income, but will soak up a lot of federal dollars.
And for these reasons you outline, Alaska cannot AFFORD to secede, which was my point in talking about the $1.84/$1.00 (arguing against another poster's claim they might). It was not propaganda, to support an agenda, or evidence of lack of scruples.
First, ten years is a whole different story, though I still have serious doubts.
Second, you quote Rick Perry? Right after Obama was elected the first time and Perry was in front of teabaggers, and eying a reelection, then a Pres run? Ha ha!
Third, you quote 1/2-term governor Palin? Ha ha ha ha!
eg. he grew up under communism but voted straight Democrat... WHAT?!
Maybe you should ask yourself this very question. For example, ponder whether, perhaps, your understanding of what communism is, and how it relates to the platform of the Democratic Party, is deeply flawed.
Said by an obvious right-wing conspiracy nut. The Democratic Party is nothing like communism. Shut off your Faux Noise.
Quite right. That is how our constitution set things up. Don't like it? Move.
You are terribly wrong.
I guess you need to go to civics class. His description is precisely the process. Admittedly, the scenario is not likely to happen, but that is the process.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes I don't even like my own code if I'm coming back to it a year later. It's just the nature of the game. What looks 'good' and 'right' to you changes based on what you know about coding, what problems you've encountered, what you know about the project, what you know about the budget, etc, etc.
I sometimes have the opposite experience. I've looked at some of my old code and thought, "Wow, that is so freaking elegant and insightful. I must have been a genius back then."
You get your bitcoins scammed or stolen? Your recourse is...what?
"You get your USD scammed or stolen? Your recourse is...what?" - If you're stupid with your money, that's your own damn fault. No one said you must convert your entire life-savings into bitcoins. But if no one participates with small amounts, the institutions that run the bitcoin exchanges will never get equal protection under law. So quit being a douche, and at least participate with small amounts so that Bitcoins can take off. Bitcoin institutions may not have the same legal protections under law and they never will unless "non-gullible" people like you take a tiny leap.
Wait, anybody who doesn't buy into bitcoins is a douche? Wow, that's a great slogan for getting people to join. And it sounds like the same slogan you'd use to get someone to join a pyramid scheme.
They shouldn't be doing it for HTTPS traffic, though. That's straight-up a MITM attack that allows gathering of info (credentials, bank info, HIPAA info etc.), that should not be viewable to anyone outside of the user and the site he's connecting to. Despite Nokia's TOS, they could be in trouble legally here.
No, it's not a MITM attack. From the sound of it, that's exactly how the browser was always intended to work. I haven't used the Nokia browser, but the Opera Mini "browser" isn't actually a browser properly speaking, it downloads everything onto Opera's servers, renders it, compresses it to an image file, and sends it to the phone (reduces bandwidth and CPU costs). It does this to HTTPS and HTTP connections alike (couldn't use HTTPS without it at all). I'm guessing that is exactly what the Nokia browser is doing too. There's no legal trouble with doing that, at least if they aren't recording the data (Opera doesn't, I'd assume Nokia doesn't either). FFS, Wikipedia lists the damned browser as a proxy-based one, as does Nokia's website. It's like being surprised your browser can see the passwords you type into a website. Can't be an "attack'" if they publicly inform you that's how the thing works.
And yet, if this were Apple doing it, the flames of hate would be enormous.
Juicy. Of course, if you want to play "what if" and hold suppositions as hard evidence, we could also say that the only reason Democrats did as well as they did this last cycle was because they are so successful at class warfare.
Successful class warfare? So nudging upper tax brackets barely above their historic lows is successful class warfare? Successful class warfare is having a salary cap on FICA tax, little or no tax on capital gains, historic-low tax rates, increasing the retirement age, record-high executive pay, bank bailouts on stupid loans, sole-source wartime contracting, pay freezes for civil servants and teachers, etc.
Whooosh!
If you're agreeing, you're being a tool. The tags don't magically fail to work off campus. If I figure out what brand/model of reader or what protocol the tags use, I can read them OFF campus. If I'm not caring about FCC regs, I can greatly extend the range of the reader.
They're pathetically stupid, lying, or worse, both.
To think that it's an empty inflamatory remark without basis is being ignorant.
Bullshit. At worst, it is ill-informed, not perjury. The plaintiff's objection is the ability of school staff to track them. School staff does not have off-site readers. "Perjury" is clearly used here to inflame.
From wikipedia: Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding.[1][A] That is, the witness falsely promises to tell the truth about matters which affect the outcome of the case. For example, it is not considered perjury to lie about one's age unless age is a factor in determining the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits.
No, you're the one avoiding the issue. IF they believe what they said is true then they have been trained properly and have no business administrating the entire system. I doubt that, and would lean to being trained to lie in court by district mandate.
Take the advice of the OP's comment title and Read the PDF. It clearly shows the isolated quote is not perjury, IMHO.
Here, allow me to blow your mind:
"And" at the start of a sentence is not acceptable.
The plaintiff's objection is that the RFID chip is "the mark of the beast" and that having to wear it or a badge that looks like the RFID badge is compelled speech supporting the "mark of the beast".
Yeah, the RFID chip is the mark of the beast, but the badge without RFID is not the mark of the beast? Riiiiight.
If you're agreeing, you're being a tool. The tags don't magically fail to work off campus. If I figure out what brand/model of reader or what protocol the tags use, I can read them OFF campus. If I'm not caring about FCC regs, I can greatly extend the range of the reader.
They're pathetically stupid, lying, or worse, both.
To think that it's an empty inflamatory remark without basis is being ignorant.
Bullshit. At worst, it is ill-informed, not perjury. The plaintiff's objection is the ability of school staff to track them. School staff does not have off-site readers. "Perjury" is clearly used here to inflame.
From wikipedia: Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding.[1][A] That is, the witness falsely promises to tell the truth about matters which affect the outcome of the case. For example, it is not considered perjury to lie about one's age unless age is a factor in determining the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits.
I think it is fairly clear that it is the ability of staff to track students location that only works when the student is on campus. Of course it would have been better to qualify that with a statement that the card will still respond to other readers:
...the chip in the Smart ID badge also enables school staff to locate a student on a campus with a very large student population.16 The campus is equipped with sensors to read the card and school staff can determine the general whereabouts of the student carrying the card.17 The sensors do not give an exact reading or pinpoint the precise location of a student (e.g. a specific classroom), but it would show whether the student is in a certain wing of the school.18 The Smart ID badges work only within the school campus that has been equipped with sensors to read them.19 The badges do not work off campus.
I agree. I think the "perjury" comment was there just for inflammatory purposes.
an XBox game, or a Wii game.
Microsoft and Nintendo have historically been even stricter than Apple.
My point is there are other places, not which are suitable. They can develop their own platform, if that's what it takes. Fact is, this is not a 1st Amendment issue.
App success is PRIMARILY based on NOT getting rejected by Apple first.
After that, it's totally quality and marketing.
App rejection is overplayed, mostly by (1) Those that have been rejected for obvious violations that Apple lets you know about in advance, and (2) Fandroids who celebrate every rejection as a repudiation of Apple. I currently have 5 apps selling, only one of which got an initial rejection, but was cleared with a little email exchange with Apple.
Congress is not preventing the dissemination of the information
Really? Then, what happened here, when 2600 magazine was prosecuted for publishing links to deCSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_v._Reimerdes If you are wondering why Fedora will provide information on its website about RPMFusion but not Livna (where libdvdcss packages are), you have your answer: it is illegal to even publish that information in the United States. So much for the first amendment, so much for freedom of speech.
I was referring to the fact that Apple's refusal to publish the app is not a violation of the First Amendment. I didn't say that no First Amendment violations have ever occurred.
The "information" can be published somewhere else.
In the case of Endgame:Syria, where should this information have been published?
It's not a matter of "should" but "can." They don't have to make the game an iOS game. They can make it a PC game, an XBox game, or a Wii game. If I publish a novel in the format for the Kindle, should Amazon be forced to sell it? If I print my own books, should B&N be forced to sell it. The answer is no in all cases.
Why are people still stupid enough to trust Apple enough to sink money and development time into their silly, arbitrary little prison-platform?
For the same reason a business does anything: it has historically had an attractive return on investment. Into what platform should companies sink development time instead?
Yeah, the Powerball has a great return on investment too. You just pay a dollar and get millions.
There are some Zynga's on the app store making mad cash. And for every hit like "Angry Birds", there are literally thousands of apps that don't sell at all. It's a bit like playing the lottery. You might be the next iFart. Odds are you've wasted lots of time and money for nothing.
But Powerball is based on luck. App success is based on quality and marketing. Huge difference.
If Congress has made no law restricting the publication of a particular kind of work in a particular medium, then what's the anticircumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? There's a DMCA exemption to jailbreak phones but not to jailbreak tablets like the iPad.
Totally irrelevant. The "information" can be published somewhere else. Congress is not preventing the dissemination of the information. That is what the 1st Amendment is for. A corporation (aka a "person") can choose not to publish it as they wish. Random House need not publish every novel of fan fiction. It does not violate the 1st Amendment.
Turning this into a game with the hope of making money is cynical and tasteless.
Maybe, but totally protected under the 1st amendment.
Yup. And Congress has made no law restricting it, just as the 1st Amendment provides for.
Don't pay the fee and they take down your application.
Citation needed. I believe they just don't allow you to upload new apps or updates. Also, for that $99 fee you get two developer support events. That means Apple engineers are looking at your code and helping you.
People tend to overestimate the number of people that are similar to themselves.
Most insightful comment on slashdot ever.
You're retarded. >95% of iOS developers don't get any of the 7Billion. iOS development is a fool's lottery designed to suck time and resources away from morons like you... in fact most app store devs are in this boat and don't even know it.
[Citation needed]
I guess you need to go to civics class. His description is precisely the process. Admittedly, the scenario is not likely to happen, but that is the process.
Subject, of course, to the 9th Amendment, which provides for rights "retained by the people", and the 10th Amendment, which provides for rights "reserved to the people", both of which all legislators and judges swear oaths to uphold.
Usually left out of civics classes, perhaps because because these particular amendments, which could be used to assert all manner of fundamental rights not explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights, are rather inconvenient to certain parties.
By definition, rights retained by the people are, well, retained by the people. It is not within the legal authority of the Supreme Court to refuse to recognize such rights, and if they were to make a ruling that did this (arguably, many such rulings have been made throughout the history of the court), then the People would have every right to consider this oath-breaking and the ruling invalid (essentially what happened in the anti-slavery movement, and then, later, in the civil rights movement). Also a point missed in many civics classes, which often cover the history without discussing the deeper meaning of events.
Another thing to think about: the essence of the Nuremberg Precedent is a recognition that laws passed by governments, and even affirmed by the high courts in those governments, can still be determined to be in violation of fundamental human rights and thus be illegal laws. This gives further justification for recognizing limits to what the government can do.
Telling people to move somewhere else if they are unhappy with the illegal abuse of government power shows a remarkable lack of education. It's the sort of thing a person might say who either had a really bad civics class, or slept through most of the lectures.
You are now the wikipedia example of Ad Hominem. I pointed out that it is the process. He has an option to move if he would prefer I different process, or to stay and live with it, or try to change it. You said I was terribly wrong; I am not. It is the process. I never claimed it was perfect. It can be abused, no doubt, and people can rise up against it. Yet, it remains the process. I remain correct.
As to Alaska, they are a welfare state, receiving $1.84 in federal money for every $1.00 they send.
While these sorts of comparisons are popular with some folks (primarily as a form of propaganda by groups with a particular political agenda and a lack of scruples)
Ad hominem
simple comparisons between federal money spent in a state versus the taxes paid by the residents of that state are meaningless. Sophisticated comparisons can have value, but the simple ones do not.
The reason for this has to do with the fact that Federal money supports many things, which often benefit multiple states. There is no reason why the taxpayer's of a given state should be expected to pay for things that have to be done in their state, but which provide primary benefit to other states. Without careful and detailed research, it is impossible to disentangle Federal spending, tax dollars generated, and the benefits obtained by different groups or populations.
For example, the federal government pays to maintain roads: the roads that carry traffic across a low-population state to a high population one may require a disproportionate amount of money to be spent in the low-population state, but can benefit the high population state far more than the low population state.
There are many resources that are frequently shipped long distances, such as food, water, wood, metals, gas, oil (particularly important for the Alaska example), and so forth. Federal funds are often spent on things like all the infrastructure needed to make development and transportation of these resources practical (or to reduce the cost), such as the interstate highway system and the various coastal waterways.
The locations where these resources are found, grown, or mined are often sparsely populated locations with difficult terrain and low populations, which means the infrastructure expenses can be surprisingly high (far higher than most city dweller can even begin to imagine, one of the reasons why the economic perspectives of folks who live their whole lives in urban environments tend to be badly skewed).
Of course, the federal government could simply let the free market handle all these expenses, but then the people in highly populated areas would be paying a lot more for everything.
Similarly, a lot of money may be spent in a particular location merely because that location has characteristics of value to the federal government, such as the large expanses of remote, mostly-empty land needed for the military. A place like this will tend to not generate much in the way of tax income, but will soak up a lot of federal dollars.
And for these reasons you outline, Alaska cannot AFFORD to secede, which was my point in talking about the $1.84/$1.00 (arguing against another poster's claim they might). It was not propaganda, to support an agenda, or evidence of lack of scruples.
First, ten years is a whole different story, though I still have serious doubts. Second, you quote Rick Perry? Right after Obama was elected the first time and Perry was in front of teabaggers, and eying a reelection, then a Pres run? Ha ha! Third, you quote 1/2-term governor Palin? Ha ha ha ha!
eg. he grew up under communism but voted straight Democrat... WHAT?!
Maybe you should ask yourself this very question. For example, ponder whether, perhaps, your understanding of what communism is, and how it relates to the platform of the Democratic Party, is deeply flawed.
Said by an obvious right-wing conspiracy nut. The Democratic Party is nothing like communism. Shut off your Faux Noise.
Quite right. That is how our constitution set things up. Don't like it? Move.
You are terribly wrong.
I guess you need to go to civics class. His description is precisely the process. Admittedly, the scenario is not likely to happen, but that is the process.