At a certain point having a "welfare state" might become cheaper overall. Then most of them won't bother to steal if you provide them with food, shelter and tv/"youtube"/game consoles/parks.
You really think that? I think it would perhaps eliminate a small minority of thieves who really are stealing out of desperation and feel guilt over it. Those people would stop. The vast majority though are doing it because they feel entitled. They get food stamps, for instance but they also want drugs, beer, video games etc. Everyone wants what they haven't got.
Unless you are going to 'equalize' everybody you will always have envy and by extension theft. We know from experience all over the world what happens when you try to 'equalize' everyone, it aint pretty.
I don't that is a good idea. Might be ok for you to do personally at your residence (though still illegal) but if you doing it for a commercial enterprise I would think twice, or at least call the local fire Marshall first and ask what the rules are. I don't know what the federal rules might be but at least where I live there are local laws against storing accelerates and fuels in mislabeled containers.
You can and will get ticketed if your are spotted say pumping K1 into a Gasoline can at the local filling station.
You think so do you. This what I would do if I were a crooked scarp dealer.
I'd take the names and IDs of my legitimate dealers, just as the law requires. I would then simply over state the amount of recoverable material in my 'official' books after processing. I would continue to buy from the meth-head thieves, paying them a lower rate. The overstated recovery on my books conceals the other inventory I am getting under the table. Unless someone takes a very careful audit of my operation or I get really greedy and careless that would very hard to detect; you won't find it with statistics either because all the other scappers will be doing the same thing.
You can't regulate crime like this out of existence. You might be able to curb it somewhat but you will impose costs on the public that more than likely exceed the those of the crime you do prevent.
I agree with you its not worth doing because its not productive not because its wrong. Nobody forced them to take that job.
In your case it would have been wrong to treat you poorly, there was nothing unethical about your processing of warranty claims, well unless you knew your employer was avoiding honoring legitimate claims consistent with the original contract and you were helping them to do that.
These TSA and other Homeland security folks know perfectly well what they are doing is extra-Constitutional. The know the DOJ works tirelessly to make sure the real issues never get heard by the Supreme Court and individual complaints are always decided on narrow tangentially at best related issues; or if they can't be the complainant is shuffled of to disappear someplace like Camp X-ray. They know this and they take these jobs anyway. The are collaborators, morally indistinguishable from the enemy they just lack the class.
That is the problem with Obama and everyone like him right there. He starts from the assumption "something must be done". No the correct thing to do is start from the assumption there is nothing wrong with natural law and the market.
From my perspective, the media industry is highly profitable, and their output is prolific. That to me indicates there is in fact no problem with current situation at all. The onus should always be on those who "want something done" to prove that majority would benefit from it or that it is absolutely a necessity to protect the rights of a minority that is actually experiencing real abuse. To that end most legislation enacted in the past five or six decades and plenty before it is unjust and wrong.
The trouble is we focus on the wrong people. If we don't want to be attacked the place to focus is on the dictators. They are not stupid, they are the rules of their own private hell because they have a little more on the ball than most. They understand world politics. They would be capable of understanding that the pissing of the USA is a good way to lose their cushy situation.
That is why I view Libya as mistake. Gadaffi "got it". He was a son of bitch, but he was our son of a bitch. Sure he was doing terrible things to his people but he was not going to be part of an attack on us. Why because he liked being 'king' of Libya, and after witnessing what Saddam's petulance toward us got him, he knew not to step over the line on bother American interests. By being part of the action against him we sent the message that it really is our way or the highway and their is nothing you can do save yourself. Had we settled for leave us alone and we will leave you alone I suspect we'd get it.
Iraq, we should have gotten out of there when Bush flew the mission accomplished banner, called it the success it was and gone home. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and Syria we should have conduced target hits on the government, and religious leaders advocating attacks on us, used the Army and Air power on larger groups with stated goals of attacking us and left everyone else alone. Let it dawn on these strong men the best way to stay on top is to simply avoid the USA. Don't talk to us, don't threaten us, don't threaten our interests and we will leave you to abuse and torture you population to your hearts content .
Its a nice rosy thought but we really don't have the unlimited energy you speak of; or if we do we haven't the ability to transport it where we need it and concentrate it enough for many of the applications our society has come to depend on. There may be Star Trek like utopia in our future but we don't actually have the tech today. So you end up taking from to give to others. Lenin tried it a century ago and it did not work; it won't work now, but I will cautiously grant you it might work in another 100 years or so if there are major technological break through.
In the mean time I leave you with this quote from Rand's character Kira "Can you sacrifice the few? The few who are the best? Deny the best the right to the top-and you have no best left. What are your masses but millions of dull, shriveled, stagnate, souls that have no thoughts of their own, no dreams of their own, who eat and sleep and chew helplessly the words of others put into their brains? And for those you would sacrifice the few who know life, who are life? I loath your ideals because I know no worse injustice than the giving of the undeserved."
The first thing most people have to do to cope with killing as a matter of business, even for a just cause is to stop thinking of the enemy as people. War is just that its business. We are not talking about defending some property, yourself, or someone you have a personal attachment to; its killing in support of some abstract set of principles and because someone from the government told you to it.
That is simply not the sort of motivation most decent people need to take a life. I do think war is often necessary and all of us back at home need to keep in mind what the military is really for and that is to kill people and break things.
Its no surprise to me so many of our boys and girls are coming home with major damage to their mental state. We keep telling them to think of the people shooting at them as well 'people', who probably are in many ways like them with families back home, hobbies, hopes and dreams. We think we are being humane doing that but what we are doing is fatal to the humanity of our own troops. You can't kill 'people' like you and feel okay about it at the end of the day. Well I don't know personally but I don't think I could. What I think I could do is kill 'they enemy'.
I think I could do that in a dispassionate professional way and not feel like I had to get revenge. I could view them like a dangerous animal or a hazardous machine to work around and just get the job done. Once the threat was removed I could be okay with it. Now if you make them 'people', and tell me I am there trying to help them, I expect I'd find it really allot harder not to take their shooting at me personally.
Really we need to recognize that nation building does not work. We can't just go into a place with a completely different culture and liberate them. We need to choose our missions better. 'Take out Saddam and his government who we think are building weapons of mass destruction that could be used against us or our allies' is (if supported by real evidence) an example of a legitmate mission for America's army. 'Turn IRAQ and Afghanistan into democratic republics' is not.
I understand that perspective. The trouble is the rights of a few people to run a business selling licenses for creative works simply does not trump the rights of them and EVERYONE else to basic things due process, and freedom of speech.
If the only way to police the Internet leaves online publishers (which includes anyone operating a site) with no recourse to defend themselves against improper claims prior to action being taken against them, there is a chilling effect. Its not an acceptable trade off. Frankly IP based business are just going to have to learn to live with a certain amount of crime, and come up with better solution technical and possibly legal to deal with it. Draconian clubs are not the answer though.
Think about this for an analogy. Shop keepers deal with breakins and vandalism all the time. Now I think everyone agrees that the media industry figures which put their losses at $250B ( http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/how-much-do-music-and-movie-piracy-really-hurt-the-u-s-economy/ ) the article further states that is like $800 for every man, woman and child in this nation. Clearly that is not reasonable. So the actual harm must be less, perhaps no so different from what the shop keepers experience. Now we could eliminate much of that physical property crime. All we would need to is impose a curfew and during the hours you are permitted out of your home have a guard on the corner of ever commercial district street demand your papers and you state your business for being there. The thing is nobody wants to live in that society. We don't want or need the Internet to work like that either.
What I don't understand is why antibiotics can't be rotated in and out of use. If these bugs adapt in so few generations and have generations so quickly I'd think they'd lose adaptations for immunities that haven't been needed as quickly as they develop new ones.
So why can't we just put penicillin on the shelf for 20 years, use amoxicillian, and then some others and by the time we go through the list penicillin would be highly effective again?
Windows Core, does remove a little more than just having explorer not running. There are a bunch of other services, and schedule tasks that do not run. It is lighter but you are essentially correct in that GDI, and all the window-station stuff is still there.
I am sure it was a backwards compatibility decision. Nobody would have been able to do anything with a Core install beyond basic ADs / file server / radius / DCHP / WINS / DNS type platform services otherwise, because nothing would be able to run. Everything depends on those libraries, and basic services.
That would practically need that EVERY software on the planet need to be rewritten and made to use client-server structure
No it requires server applications to use a client server architecture, which they do already because they are by definition the server component. It *may* require some server applications to be altered to allow configuration from a client, or to use a more human editable configuration store.
There is really no problem here. Again unless we are talking about the very specific animal that is a terminal server, most people are running things on servers which are already client/server. Stop running windows server on your desk, most likely you don't need to (even you developers).
The program can still have a configuration gui. You just need a remote client running on a client operating system or a web interface, which again you can access from a client platform.
Honestly most 'builtin' windows services can be remotely managed from a client platform machine already. This should be the preferred way. Generally if you as a matter of routine need to use a desktop session on your windows servers barring the ones specifically being used as terminal servers, you are doing it wrong.
Mistakes can happen more easily, and you are potentially exposing the system to attacks.
This is really a message to developers to make sure their server applications have remote management support, and that their main server processes can run on box where some the shell libraries, and some subsystems like GDI may not be present or otherwise not in a useable state.
Sure its like if you had a car and left in a parking lot. Now suppose this car of yours had wireless unlock that did not use strong encryption, or any kinds of DH mutual authentication, rolling code, or time based scheme. Then suppose some guy with some relative simply radio equipment waited for you to unlock it. He can could then use a simply replay attack to unlock it and steal any shit you had in there.
Because that is how they implement the "Music gets louder, when the engine is turning more revs and making noise" feature.
Consumers want wizbang features like stereo's that auto adjust volume, they don't care about security. They might not even really care about safety. Oh they'll demand safety "features" like 60 different airbags, but the idea that a software bug or interconnect problem introduced as a result of the needless complexity in some vehicles could cause their breaks to malfunction just is not real to them. Well its not real to them until they or someone they know slams into something.
Wait wait, I am sorry but you have to be of the sort that excepts those evil Republicans are just obstructionists bit as a matter of faith types.
Lets review: 1. Bush had already signed an agreement to remove the troops at the time Obama ultimately did before he left office. So baring the troops coming home early the president should get no credit. This what happened.
2. Obama was commander and chief, the military goes where he tells the to go, had he said leave IRAQ they would have. Congressional hearings or not the President *could* have order the troops home early.
3. The first two years of Obama's presidency he had a majority of his own party in BOTH houses of Congress. There is simply no way the Republicans could have effectively blocked a troop withdrawal, even though I strongly suspect they might have tried.
4. Members of the Obama administration were negotiating with IRAQ to keep the troops there longer.
So if anyone should get credit for bringing the troops home, its Gorge W. Bush!
They are only bring the troops home because the new Iraqi government ( that we setup ) essentially kicked us out.
They asked us to leave and they basically said we are going to attempt to capture and jail US Soldiers if they violate any of our laws, which naturally most of them probably have to do in order to accomplish anything useful over there.
Nobody in the US government deserves any credit. All our officials were negotiating up until the last to keep the troops there, it was not until those negotiations failed they it turned into "We are keeping our campaign promise to bring the troops home". Its so hollow you'd think it was Sadam's former information minister writing the line.
No they don't because there is the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. In most situations its not going to be reasonable to assume someone testifying on behalf the American Bar Association to the subject of your membership is false testimony. So that would satisfy me that you are not a licensed lawyer, prove to me you were practicing law and I will vote to convict.
If someone from the government on the other hand says you are not on a list well... This nation and I have been lied to by the government so many times they simply are not credible. The higher the rank the less credible they are. I am going need to see some extraordinary evidence before I would accept such testimony. Hell if the they told me the sky is blue I'd demand to go outside and verify nothing has changed for myself.
So if it is a fundamental right and responsibility at the state level why shouldn't it be standardized at the next larger level of government?
Maybe it should it be! You know what though the Constitution has this thing called an amendment process. If you want remove power from the states or people the right way to do it, is with an amendment. The *wrong* way to do is by re-imaging what the wording of the existing powers to be mean something that any honest person knows was never intended.
If you not going to fall the prescription of law you might just as well not have any laws. There are words when a few at the top hold power and just get to do whatever they want, its called Tyranny or Oligarchy and that is what this nation as become.
When the TSA show up at a bus station, and as I am getting off (not on mind you) and subject me to a search without any probably cause, my 4th amendment rights are being violated. When Obama makes recess appointments while congress is not in recess, the Senate's right to "consent" is being violated. We have no laws.
I mean just as the government their is cracking down and blocking their access to dating and singing contest shows, carried on prime time television. Intel rides to the rescue on its white horse to deliver all the 1080p reality tv they can handle right to the palm of their hot little hands.
I mean it sounds like if you "like" a commercial page, you increasing the likelihood you will get ads from them.
Two things pop into my mind. If I have like'd a commercial page, am I really the person their advertising department is trying to reach anymore. I mean I have already basically indicated I know something about the products and services that entity offers and posses a favorable opinion of it. What more can they hope to accomplish by marketing to me?
There is no better advertizement than the testimonial of someone you know and respect the opinion of on a subject. That is what advertisers were getting on FB whenever someone like'd or reshared their stuff. All that persons friends say it on their news feed. That is advertising gold!
So now Facebook is going to be effectively teaching users that like'ing stuff results in spam, assuming the content is remotely spamy and I don't know how it could not be. That creates a disincentive to like' things you might really like! Won't that actually reduce the value of Facebook to prospective advertizes?
I dont think it's that most programmers don't recognize that sales and marketing folks have a difficult job as well or that they think they could do it better. They have a different culture. Programmers don't generally have a sense of entitlement, sales and marketing people usually do. I think the way compensation is often done feeds into it. They all work on commission and they all are usually pitted against each other in some fashion with leader boards etc.
They come to us with that same strong incentive to have it yesterday and done to their satisfaction regardless of the resources needed, few companies manage to account for those costs specifically enough to tie it back to that sales guys margin and they know it.
The only way to stop this bullshit is to mandate that all campaigns be publicly funded... We need to get money out of politics
Wow that might be the *worst* idea I have ever seen. Look how the existing two major parties are enshrined in to law. How do you hold a primary as the third party in most states? answer: you don't. How get on a ballot if your not a GOP or DNC candidate in a national race in most states? answer: only with a great amount of difficulty and run around, its not as simple as having enough signatures most places.
So when the current incumbents are put in charge of writing the legislation that governs who gets those campaign funds and how, what chance do thing outsiders will have for qualifying? answer: little. What does that do to our democracy? answer: Becomes a bigger barrier to new comers and opposition candidates then the current money driven mess ever could.
Slashdot Mirror
At a certain point having a "welfare state" might become cheaper overall. Then most of them won't bother to steal if you provide them with food, shelter and tv/"youtube"/game consoles/parks.
You really think that? I think it would perhaps eliminate a small minority of thieves who really are stealing out of desperation and feel guilt over it. Those people would stop. The vast majority though are doing it because they feel entitled. They get food stamps, for instance but they also want drugs, beer, video games etc. Everyone wants what they haven't got.
Unless you are going to 'equalize' everybody you will always have envy and by extension theft. We know from experience all over the world what happens when you try to 'equalize' everyone, it aint pretty.
I don't that is a good idea. Might be ok for you to do personally at your residence (though still illegal) but if you doing it for a commercial enterprise I would think twice, or at least call the local fire Marshall first and ask what the rules are. I don't know what the federal rules might be but at least where I live there are local laws against storing accelerates and fuels in mislabeled containers.
You can and will get ticketed if your are spotted say pumping K1 into a Gasoline can at the local filling station.
You think so do you. This what I would do if I were a crooked scarp dealer.
I'd take the names and IDs of my legitimate dealers, just as the law requires. I would then simply over state the amount of recoverable material in my 'official' books after processing. I would continue to buy from the meth-head thieves, paying them a lower rate. The overstated recovery on my books conceals the other inventory I am getting under the table. Unless someone takes a very careful audit of my operation or I get really greedy and careless that would very hard to detect; you won't find it with statistics either because all the other scappers will be doing the same thing.
You can't regulate crime like this out of existence. You might be able to curb it somewhat but you will impose costs on the public that more than likely exceed the those of the crime you do prevent.
I agree with you its not worth doing because its not productive not because its wrong. Nobody forced them to take that job.
In your case it would have been wrong to treat you poorly, there was nothing unethical about your processing of warranty claims, well unless you knew your employer was avoiding honoring legitimate claims consistent with the original contract and you were helping them to do that.
These TSA and other Homeland security folks know perfectly well what they are doing is extra-Constitutional. The know the DOJ works tirelessly to make sure the real issues never get heard by the Supreme Court and individual complaints are always decided on narrow tangentially at best related issues; or if they can't be the complainant is shuffled of to disappear someplace like Camp X-ray. They know this and they take these jobs anyway. The are collaborators, morally indistinguishable from the enemy they just lack the class.
That is the problem with Obama and everyone like him right there. He starts from the assumption "something must be done". No the correct thing to do is start from the assumption there is nothing wrong with natural law and the market.
From my perspective, the media industry is highly profitable, and their output is prolific. That to me indicates there is in fact no problem with current situation at all. The onus should always be on those who "want something done" to prove that majority would benefit from it or that it is absolutely a necessity to protect the rights of a minority that is actually experiencing real abuse. To that end most legislation enacted in the past five or six decades and plenty before it is unjust and wrong.
The trouble is we focus on the wrong people. If we don't want to be attacked the place to focus is on the dictators. They are not stupid, they are the rules of their own private hell because they have a little more on the ball than most. They understand world politics. They would be capable of understanding that the pissing of the USA is a good way to lose their cushy situation.
That is why I view Libya as mistake. Gadaffi "got it". He was a son of bitch, but he was our son of a bitch. Sure he was doing terrible things to his people but he was not going to be part of an attack on us. Why because he liked being 'king' of Libya, and after witnessing what Saddam's petulance toward us got him, he knew not to step over the line on bother American interests. By being part of the action against him we sent the message that it really is our way or the highway and their is nothing you can do save yourself. Had we settled for leave us alone and we will leave you alone I suspect we'd get it.
Iraq, we should have gotten out of there when Bush flew the mission accomplished banner, called it the success it was and gone home. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and Syria we should have conduced target hits on the government, and religious leaders advocating attacks on us, used the Army and Air power on larger groups with stated goals of attacking us and left everyone else alone. Let it dawn on these strong men the best way to stay on top is to simply avoid the USA. Don't talk to us, don't threaten us, don't threaten our interests and we will leave you to abuse and torture you population to your hearts content .
Its a nice rosy thought but we really don't have the unlimited energy you speak of; or if we do we haven't the ability to transport it where we need it and concentrate it enough for many of the applications our society has come to depend on. There may be Star Trek like utopia in our future but we don't actually have the tech today. So you end up taking from to give to others. Lenin tried it a century ago and it did not work; it won't work now, but I will cautiously grant you it might work in another 100 years or so if there are major technological break through.
In the mean time I leave you with this quote from Rand's character Kira
"Can you sacrifice the few? The few who are the best? Deny the best the right to the top-and you have no best left. What are your masses but millions of dull, shriveled, stagnate, souls that have no thoughts of their own, no dreams of their own, who eat and sleep and chew helplessly the words of others put into their brains? And for those you would sacrifice the few who know life, who are life? I loath your ideals because I know no worse injustice than the giving of the undeserved."
The first thing most people have to do to cope with killing as a matter of business, even for a just cause is to stop thinking of the enemy as people. War is just that its business. We are not talking about defending some property, yourself, or someone you have a personal attachment to; its killing in support of some abstract set of principles and because someone from the government told you to it.
That is simply not the sort of motivation most decent people need to take a life. I do think war is often necessary and all of us back at home need to keep in mind what the military is really for and that is to kill people and break things.
Its no surprise to me so many of our boys and girls are coming home with major damage to their mental state. We keep telling them to think of the people shooting at them as well 'people', who probably are in many ways like them with families back home, hobbies, hopes and dreams. We think we are being humane doing that but what we are doing is fatal to the humanity of our own troops. You can't kill 'people' like you and feel okay about it at the end of the day. Well I don't know personally but I don't think I could. What I think I could do is kill 'they enemy'.
I think I could do that in a dispassionate professional way and not feel like I had to get revenge. I could view them like a dangerous animal or a hazardous machine to work around and just get the job done. Once the threat was removed I could be okay with it. Now if you make them 'people', and tell me I am there trying to help them, I expect I'd find it really allot harder not to take their shooting at me personally.
Really we need to recognize that nation building does not work. We can't just go into a place with a completely different culture and liberate them. We need to choose our missions better. 'Take out Saddam and his government who we think are building weapons of mass destruction that could be used against us or our allies' is (if supported by real evidence) an example of a legitmate mission for America's army. 'Turn IRAQ and Afghanistan into democratic republics' is not.
I understand that perspective. The trouble is the rights of a few people to run a business selling licenses for creative works simply does not trump the rights of them and EVERYONE else to basic things due process, and freedom of speech.
If the only way to police the Internet leaves online publishers (which includes anyone operating a site) with no recourse to defend themselves against improper claims prior to action being taken against them, there is a chilling effect. Its not an acceptable trade off. Frankly IP based business are just going to have to learn to live with a certain amount of crime, and come up with better solution technical and possibly legal to deal with it. Draconian clubs are not the answer though.
Think about this for an analogy. Shop keepers deal with breakins and vandalism all the time. Now I think everyone agrees that the media industry figures which put their losses at $250B ( http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/how-much-do-music-and-movie-piracy-really-hurt-the-u-s-economy/ ) the article further states that is like $800 for every man, woman and child in this nation. Clearly that is not reasonable. So the actual harm must be less, perhaps no so different from what the shop keepers experience. Now we could eliminate much of that physical property crime. All we would need to is impose a curfew and during the hours you are permitted out of your home have a guard on the corner of ever commercial district street demand your papers and you state your business for being there. The thing is nobody wants to live in that society. We don't want or need the Internet to work like that either.
What I don't understand is why antibiotics can't be rotated in and out of use. If these bugs adapt in so few generations and have generations so quickly I'd think they'd lose adaptations for immunities that haven't been needed as quickly as they develop new ones.
So why can't we just put penicillin on the shelf for 20 years, use amoxicillian, and then some others and by the time we go through the list penicillin would be highly effective again?
Windows Core, does remove a little more than just having explorer not running. There are a bunch of other services, and schedule tasks that do not run. It is lighter but you are essentially correct in that GDI, and all the window-station stuff is still there.
I am sure it was a backwards compatibility decision. Nobody would have been able to do anything with a Core install beyond basic ADs / file server / radius / DCHP / WINS / DNS type platform services otherwise, because nothing would be able to run. Everything depends on those libraries, and basic services.
That would practically need that EVERY software on the planet need to be rewritten and made to use client-server structure
No it requires server applications to use a client server architecture, which they do already because they are by definition the server component. It *may* require some server applications to be altered to allow configuration from a client, or to use a more human editable configuration store.
There is really no problem here. Again unless we are talking about the very specific animal that is a terminal server, most people are running things on servers which are already client/server. Stop running windows server on your desk, most likely you don't need to (even you developers).
Has anyone tried to run Exchange on WINE recently; I wonder....
The program can still have a configuration gui. You just need a remote client running on a client operating system or a web interface, which again you can access from a client platform.
Honestly most 'builtin' windows services can be remotely managed from a client platform machine already. This should be the preferred way. Generally if you as a matter of routine need to use a desktop session on your windows servers barring the ones specifically being used as terminal servers, you are doing it wrong.
Mistakes can happen more easily, and you are potentially exposing the system to attacks.
This is really a message to developers to make sure their server applications have remote management support, and that their main server processes can run on box where some the shell libraries, and some subsystems like GDI may not be present or otherwise not in a useable state.
Sounds nice that way HR can tell you IT department they have to enforce the GPO that does not let anyone go over 65MPH.
Can't wait.
Sure its like if you had a car and left in a parking lot. Now suppose this car of yours had wireless unlock that did not use strong encryption, or any kinds of DH mutual authentication, rolling code, or time based scheme. Then suppose some guy with some relative simply radio equipment waited for you to unlock it. He can could then use a simply replay attack to unlock it and steal any shit you had in there.
Does that help.
Because that is how they implement the "Music gets louder, when the engine is turning more revs and making noise" feature.
Consumers want wizbang features like stereo's that auto adjust volume, they don't care about security. They might not even really care about safety. Oh they'll demand safety "features" like 60 different airbags, but the idea that a software bug or interconnect problem introduced as a result of the needless complexity in some vehicles could cause their breaks to malfunction just is not real to them. Well its not real to them until they or someone they know slams into something.
Wait wait, I am sorry but you have to be of the sort that excepts those evil Republicans are just obstructionists bit as a matter of faith types.
Lets review:
1. Bush had already signed an agreement to remove the troops at the time Obama ultimately did before he left office. So baring the troops coming home early the president should get no credit. This what happened.
2. Obama was commander and chief, the military goes where he tells the to go, had he said leave IRAQ they would have. Congressional hearings or not the President *could* have order the troops home early.
3. The first two years of Obama's presidency he had a majority of his own party in BOTH houses of Congress. There is simply no way the Republicans could have effectively blocked a troop withdrawal, even though I strongly suspect they might have tried.
4. Members of the Obama administration were negotiating with IRAQ to keep the troops there longer.
So if anyone should get credit for bringing the troops home, its Gorge W. Bush!
They are only bring the troops home because the new Iraqi government ( that we setup ) essentially kicked us out.
They asked us to leave and they basically said we are going to attempt to capture and jail US Soldiers if they violate any of our laws, which naturally most of them probably have to do in order to accomplish anything useful over there.
Nobody in the US government deserves any credit. All our officials were negotiating up until the last to keep the troops there, it was not until those negotiations failed they it turned into "We are keeping our campaign promise to bring the troops home". Its so hollow you'd think it was Sadam's former information minister writing the line.
No they don't because there is the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. In most situations its not going to be reasonable to assume someone testifying on behalf the American Bar Association to the subject of your membership is false testimony. So that would satisfy me that you are not a licensed lawyer, prove to me you were practicing law and I will vote to convict.
If someone from the government on the other hand says you are not on a list well... This nation and I have been lied to by the government so many times they simply are not credible. The higher the rank the less credible they are. I am going need to see some extraordinary evidence before I would accept such testimony. Hell if the they told me the sky is blue I'd demand to go outside and verify nothing has changed for myself.
So if it is a fundamental right and responsibility at the state level why shouldn't it be standardized at the next larger level of government?
Maybe it should it be! You know what though the Constitution has this thing called an amendment process. If you want remove power from the states or people the right way to do it, is with an amendment. The *wrong* way to do is by re-imaging what the wording of the existing powers to be mean something that any honest person knows was never intended.
If you not going to fall the prescription of law you might just as well not have any laws. There are words when a few at the top hold power and just get to do whatever they want, its called Tyranny or Oligarchy and that is what this nation as become.
When the TSA show up at a bus station, and as I am getting off (not on mind you) and subject me to a search without any probably cause, my 4th amendment rights are being violated. When Obama makes recess appointments while congress is not in recess, the Senate's right to "consent" is being violated. We have no laws.
I mean just as the government their is cracking down and blocking their access to dating and singing contest shows, carried on prime time television. Intel rides to the rescue on its white horse to deliver all the 1080p reality tv they can handle right to the palm of their hot little hands.
Only on God's flat disk.
I mean it sounds like if you "like" a commercial page, you increasing the likelihood you will get ads from them.
Two things pop into my mind. If I have like'd a commercial page, am I really the person their advertising department is trying to reach anymore. I mean I have already basically indicated I know something about the products and services that entity offers and posses a favorable opinion of it. What more can they hope to accomplish by marketing to me?
There is no better advertizement than the testimonial of someone you know and respect the opinion of on a subject. That is what advertisers were getting on FB whenever someone like'd or reshared their stuff. All that persons friends say it on their news feed. That is advertising gold!
So now Facebook is going to be effectively teaching users that like'ing stuff results in spam, assuming the content is remotely spamy and I don't know how it could not be. That creates a disincentive to like' things you might really like! Won't that actually reduce the value of Facebook to prospective advertizes?
I dont think it's that most programmers don't recognize that sales and marketing folks have a difficult job as well or that they think they could do it better. They have a different culture. Programmers don't generally have a sense of entitlement, sales and marketing people usually do. I think the way compensation is often done feeds into it. They all work on commission and they all are usually pitted against each other in some fashion with leader boards etc.
They come to us with that same strong incentive to have it yesterday and done to their satisfaction regardless of the resources needed, few companies manage to account for those costs specifically enough to tie it back to that sales guys margin and they know it.
The only way to stop this bullshit is to mandate that all campaigns be publicly funded... We need to get money out of politics
Wow that might be the *worst* idea I have ever seen. Look how the existing two major parties are enshrined in to law. How do you hold a primary as the third party in most states? answer: you don't. How get on a ballot if your not a GOP or DNC candidate in a national race in most states? answer: only with a great amount of difficulty and run around, its not as simple as having enough signatures most places.
So when the current incumbents are put in charge of writing the legislation that governs who gets those campaign funds and how, what chance do thing outsiders will have for qualifying? answer: little. What does that do to our democracy? answer: Becomes a bigger barrier to new comers and opposition candidates then the current money driven mess ever could.