There are plug-ins available for VS that support cvs and subversion (ankhsvn, or something; it's on the svn site). You really shouldn't have issues with sharing files between developers. Look at TortiseCVS and TortiseSVN and WinCVS, etc., for more options.
In the past, I worked for a contractor who had to deal with another contractor to complete a project. The real workers who knew the parallel contractor did shit work scored them in certain areas as "major negative" (the 2nd contractor said that a deliverable was in the mail for 2 years; *literally*, that's not a figure of speach). By the time the review made it through all the levels of management, with each thinking "aww, they couldn't have been *that* bad", and "what will happen to me if my boss finds out that I hire people that suck", the rating became a "minor plus". Nearly ALL of the ratings were bumped up at least a few notches.
The repetition is the point at that level; getting the rote knowledge into your head.
Assuming she's bright and will otherwise keep up on her math skills, she shouldn't need to do extra simple problems. But, there are too many people nowadays that can't do simple math, and they don't have the added health complications.
I'm not trying to be clever, and I have won - I know you can't see it from up there on your high horse, but all cryptography relies on obscurity. That's the reason it's called a "Private Key". Just because calling a good security algorythm "Security through obscurity" pushes your negative buttons, doesn't make it untrue... "Security through obscurity" may seem perjorative to you, but it is in fact one of the best kinds of security.
Calling an apple an orange might seem wrong, too; but, that's because it *is* wrong.
"Security through obscurity" has a well-known meaning of using poor security practices (e.g. XOR, ROT, etc.) and relying on the fact that exactly which poor practice you used is not publicly known.
The opposite behavior, of course, is to use a good scheme and not care whether outsiders know your method of encryption.
Abusing the non-context free grammar that is English in order to point out that, technically, even the best encryption relys on obscurity of some sort and can thus be categorized as "security through obscurity" is banal sophomorism.
Yeah, not worth trying out if their independant development team couldn't afford a million-dollar graphical art budget.
Sure, it might be fun as hell, but how could you torture your eyes with such images!?
#end Sarcasm
To be fair, I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Unless, of course, they were to challenge the views of people who have judged a game by actually playing it, rather than by just looking at the screenshots.
Apparently pausing with your finger on the touchpad counts, I can't find a way to adjust the settings to fix it.
First, you should be able to turn off the clicking feature. There was a user backlash after the 1st gen of those, and all of them that I know of let you turn off clicking via the touchpad (somewhere under mouse properties).
Second, you probably are double-clicking. Try pressing down with your finger a little more. It's natural to get where you want to go and then lighten the pressure on the touchpad. The thing is, what feels like a feather-light touch to you can really be a finger that is bumping up and down on of the surface of the touchpad. You'd think they'd ignore double-taps that occur faster than 50%-80% of the double-click speeds, but maybe that's hard to do? Or, maybe the ones that get through the filtering happen that slowly? What I know for sure is that if you concentrate on keeping your finger down on the touchpad for awhile, you'll get used to it and not have that problem anymore.
I think his point was that we, the American people, voted our leaders into office, so we are responsible for their actions. That if we don't like the way things are going under the Democrat/Republican choices we have, then we should find somebody else who's worth voting for. The fact that this is currently an impossible scenario is not discussed.
But, yeah, 9/11/2001 was caused by Reagan's administration more than anyone (i.e., not Clinton or Bush W); training, arming, and paying Osama and his followers to keep the Russians on their side of the border; then abandoning them when the Russians were no longer a threat.
Precicely. It's not what he IS, it's what he SAYS and can make people believe. What he's good at is repeating things 1000 times, while his media buddies do the same, until enough of America believes it, "because, well, everybody knows that!".
It's what's worked for him since his campaign for governor of Texas. The American people have no memory, and the opposition either can't or just doesn't repeat the truth enough for it to stick in most people's heads (probably because it's a lot easier to quip a one-liner about how you'll do something great than to explain how past claims were a bunch of BS that didn't work out even when he claims they did). Hell, it even works in real-time with Osama/terrorism and Saddam/Iraq. After 2-3 months of repetition, polls show that people only care about what he's currently saying, and not the fact that it doesn't match anything he said 4-6 months ago.
So, re-evaluating your stance on important issues after you recieve more information and grow as a person is a bad thing, eh?
Yep, I much prefer the swaggering red-neck attitude of "I'm right 'cause I know I am! (now lets go burn us some Kikes 'n Niggers!)".
Oh, no, wait. Sorry, I mean the "Fuck anybody who isn't rich enough to own their own hospital. Those 2-working-parent families with little or no healthcare should get off their lazy asses and get a real job, like CEO of a small-cap business at least, if they want good health insurace" attitude.
Oh, no, it's the "There's nothing wrong with deciding national policy behind closed doors, especially if your buddies you worked for in the past are there" viewpoint that I hate.
Well, I guess I can't make up my mind. But, luckily for me, I have an easy dicision this year.
And, a little more info I feel I must share: I don't care how many concentual hummers a President of my country gets. I DO care about how many Americans are dead because of a war waged against a no-threat country. I DO care about my healthcare benefits going down every year, with premiums and co-pays going way up. I DO care when the first budget surplus in years is squandered practically the first week of a new President's term, and any chance of that accidentally happening again is immediatley squashed. (FYI, if we payed off the national debt, the entire country would get an immediate ~20% permanent tax cut due to not having to pay the interest on the loan).
Yes, you take 2 hits. The first is wasting tons of HD space on an un- or barely-compressed stream. The 2nd is wasting CPU power (re-)encoding the stream to something else. But, what it buys you is being able to create small high-quality final versions of the programs with a small CPU. The CPU is probably idle for ~20 hours out of the day, with video playback being done via the video card. So, you might as well use that idle CPU time to create a better finished product. If you want to watch the show before it's been converted, then you watch the raw stream. Otherwise, you watch or burn the higher quality MPEG4, and delete the uncompressed stream to recover ~3.6GB / hour storage. So, you're not really taking a "hit", because you're not using the CPU anyway.
It's not just you. At night, I put an old soft t-shirt over my eyes so I can sleep. I don't know if it's because I got used to pitch-black nights growing up, or an extention of the way I can't truly concentrate on something unless I have no distractions, or what. But, unless I'm really tired (working out can help), I can't fall asleep if I can see light through my eyelids.
1) There is plenty of proof that programs like after-school programs in the inner-city definitely p lower crime rates and improve the choices of the growing children.
2) We're not talking baout giving people who make 30k an extra 60 so they can buy a Lexus. We're talking about giving peoplefood and clothes that they can't provide for themselves, despite working.
3)If you're going to make claims about the "historical, scientific" proof", you need to back them up, not point at others.
Taking money from one set of people just because they have more - is a great way to teach people why it's ok to steal and take things - just because you percieve you need it more than they do.
That's because your thinking on this problem hasn't raised above the 12-14 year-old level.
See, my mom busted her ass at multiple jobs, to earn only $100 a week, with which she had to raise 2 children. (This was the 80's). We couldn't afford milk or meat. About once a month there would be extra meat left at the restaurant she worked at. Mom busted her ass, doing everything she could, but couldn't keep up. We never starved, but I almost always was hungry. Of course, I can see how the company owner (where she worked as a graphic artist) would need his new boat more than I percieved I needed nutrition.
But, of course, it's still all her fault because of her choices. The fact that she had a technical degree, a job, and got married; then had her husband drafted into the Vietnam war, who came back an alcoholic and drug addict and left her on my 1st birthday (about a week after she was pregnant with my brother, too early to know about), and couldn't find a good job in a bad economy, that's all choices. Yup, just her bad choices, and she is right to have been left to suffer the consequences!
That's not what he said. Despite MS's history, he said that XP works well. With comments like that, you're just cutting off your nose to spite your face.
To understand, read http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/cowards.html
It's not about the CD player. It's about one's personal liberties and freedom.
Since you brought up whether a car is worth the life of a criminal: I've heard of numerous carjacking victims killed by carjackers who obviously think the car is worth the life of somebody who worked hard to get it. You saying it's not worth the life of the scum trying to steal it? And yeah, if GOD himself could promise that all they would do is take the car, I'd let them take it and deal with insurance. The thing is, many victims of robbery also become victims of kidnapping, rape, or murder, and you don't know what's going to happen to you until it happens. To assume that anything less than the worst is about to happen, and to not defend yourself accordingly, is to make your own precious human life worth no more than a VCR and a quick thrill. And what if the criminal then goes on hurt others when you could have stopped him? Their pain stains your soul.
You buy the.45 because of its "stopping power". That means it helps to assure that the attacker stops attacking, but nothing short of a very high powered rifle "assures" a kill. When a rapist is coming at you with a knife, you could put a 32 in his arm and he'll still come and cut you up.
The fact that "stopping power" also increases the chances of death is simply not worth worrying about. Why? Because a criminal can reduce his chance of death to zero by not breaking in or attacking in the first place. THEY are the ones violating others. It is the victim's responsibility to ensure their own life and liberty. See http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/cowards.html for an more complete argument. Some of that essay is a bit inflammitory, but most is well-reasoned.
Also, how do you know the intruder or attacker is there to just rob you? You don't. Only a fool would rely on an assumption other than that the attacker will seriously hurt or kill you or somebody you care about. If you need to worry about others, think about the other innocent and kind people that will be terrorized, hurt, and possibly killed by the person violating you. Protect them, not the monster.
I liked what you said, but I'm a little confused about just how big your house is.
1) At 20 ft, the spread of a shotgun is only a few inches. Most houses don't have areas where people can get much further than that apart and still see eachother. And, if they could, there would almost certainly be doorways in between or to the side where cover can quickly be taken. All a shotgun buys you at that distance is a couple pellets in an extremity, where a rifle or handgun would have missed by ~2 inches. Preferable, yes, but you can certainly miss with a shotgun.
2) How can a "home intruder" not be too close for comfortable rifle range? (i.e., be too far for comfortable handgun range). When turning a corner looking for the bogey, I wouldn't want a long rifle in my hands, but a short, controllable handgun.
The other problem, besides non-founders only looking short-term, is founders who realize that working benefits have deteriorated overall. They have little incentive to give up profits to provide benefits because workers hardly have a choice. Wal-Mart is the ultimate example of abusing the needy, people who would like to work full-time and work hard, in order to cut costs. Sure, Sam's kids aren't technically the original founders, but they sure care about the long-term good of the company.
Nowadays, higher productivity = more output for the same $6/hr = increased wealth for only the owners.
And, just to rant a little: I've heard the I took the risk to start the company line a number of times, but it usually comes from well-off people who, even if they lost their personal investment, had one hell of a family and friend safety net sitting under them. This, of course, includes contacts to ensure that the endeavor is properly funded in the first place. Add to that the addition socio-economic reasons as to why I may not have gotten as good an education as you, and it's obvious that not just anyone can choose to start their own company (and have anything like realistic expectations of it succeeding). My point, I guess, is that maybe it *is* fair to ask those who have more opportunity to carry more than their "fair" share of the tax burden; but, that's really a response to another post...
Then why is it that when I do my taxes and compare them to others in my supposed income level and bracket, that the majority of the others in my bracket have tons of "expenses", such as medical, and lots of assets (savings, property, etc), but somehow only managed to earn what I did? I'm single, making a good wage, and have enough money to do things like buy a new dishwaser or TV (at the expense of a new computer, which is years old). But, it would take me 10-20 years of miserly living to accumulate the kind of assets that others in my income bracket have. I earn a good deal more than the average retiree, so I'm not being compared to senior citizens who've accumulated a lot and are living on $25K. I'm being compared to people with 6-digit incomes paying 5-digit tax. The mid 5's, which means they are cutting their effective income in half, at least.
What do you mean by "flat tax rate"? The mythical system where everyone pays X%? Yes, that would be good. What would be better is to eliminate income tax and move to enirely sales tax. People with lots of money that can go around buying whatever they want will end up paying more tax. Poor people who can't afford as much, pay less. Any rich person who wants to complain about how much tax they pay can simply pay less by spending less.
I'm not arguing against you, but without any proof your story is no more than an anecdote that is, itself, begging the question.
As a fellow software developer, I could see how lots of people might want to get things put in the kernel that have crappy code, or code formatting the reviewers aren't familiar with and have to spend extra time on, or modules that don't behave in standard ways. Sure, it might be more of a pain in the ass for individual developers, but it's good for the project as a whole. So, in order for your story to have much credence, you would really need to provide concrete examples of how these good ideas were mis-applied to you, i.e., why the problem was really with the reviewer and not you.
But yeah, if you actually were getting shafted by an ego-maniacal asshole, that really sucks.
Slashdot Mirror
There are plug-ins available for VS that support cvs and subversion (ankhsvn, or something; it's on the svn site). You really shouldn't have issues with sharing files between developers. Look at TortiseCVS and TortiseSVN and WinCVS, etc., for more options.
In the past, I worked for a contractor who had to deal with another contractor to complete a project. The real workers who knew the parallel contractor did shit work scored them in certain areas as "major negative" (the 2nd contractor said that a deliverable was in the mail for 2 years; *literally*, that's not a figure of speach). By the time the review made it through all the levels of management, with each thinking "aww, they couldn't have been *that* bad", and "what will happen to me if my boss finds out that I hire people that suck", the rating became a "minor plus". Nearly ALL of the ratings were bumped up at least a few notches.
The repetition is the point at that level; getting the rote knowledge into your head.
Assuming she's bright and will otherwise keep up on her math skills, she shouldn't need to do extra simple problems. But, there are too many people nowadays that can't do simple math, and they don't have the added health complications.
I'm not trying to be clever, and I have won - I know you can't see it from up there on your high horse, but all cryptography relies on obscurity. That's the reason it's called a "Private Key". Just because calling a good security algorythm "Security through obscurity" pushes your negative buttons, doesn't make it untrue... "Security through obscurity" may seem perjorative to you, but it is in fact one of the best kinds of security.
Calling an apple an orange might seem wrong, too; but, that's because it *is* wrong.
"Security through obscurity" has a well-known meaning of using poor security practices (e.g. XOR, ROT, etc.) and relying on the fact that exactly which poor practice you used is not publicly known.
The opposite behavior, of course, is to use a good scheme and not care whether outsiders know your method of encryption.
Abusing the non-context free grammar that is English in order to point out that, technically, even the best encryption relys on obscurity of some sort and can thus be categorized as "security through obscurity" is banal sophomorism.
70's, 80's and 90's didn't really happen. ;)
Nope, in terms of computer science, they sure didn't (well, the 80's through today).
Yep. Because, afterall, violence, vengence, and non-tolerance are all OK for kids to hear about. Boobies, on the other hand, are right out!
Yeah, not worth trying out if their independant development team couldn't afford a million-dollar graphical art budget.
Sure, it might be fun as hell, but how could you torture your eyes with such images!?
#end Sarcasm
To be fair, I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Unless, of course, they were to challenge the views of people who have judged a game by actually playing it, rather than by just looking at the screenshots.
Well, fuck you very much, but what the fuck is WTF? :)
Apparently pausing with your finger on the touchpad counts, I can't find a way to adjust the settings to fix it.
First, you should be able to turn off the clicking feature. There was a user backlash after the 1st gen of those, and all of them that I know of let you turn off clicking via the touchpad (somewhere under mouse properties).
Second, you probably are double-clicking. Try pressing down with your finger a little more. It's natural to get where you want to go and then lighten the pressure on the touchpad. The thing is, what feels like a feather-light touch to you can really be a finger that is bumping up and down on of the surface of the touchpad. You'd think they'd ignore double-taps that occur faster than 50%-80% of the double-click speeds, but maybe that's hard to do? Or, maybe the ones that get through the filtering happen that slowly? What I know for sure is that if you concentrate on keeping your finger down on the touchpad for awhile, you'll get used to it and not have that problem anymore.
I think his point was that we, the American people, voted our leaders into office, so we are responsible for their actions. That if we don't like the way things are going under the Democrat/Republican choices we have, then we should find somebody else who's worth voting for. The fact that this is currently an impossible scenario is not discussed.
:)
But, yeah, 9/11/2001 was caused by Reagan's administration more than anyone (i.e., not Clinton or Bush W); training, arming, and paying Osama and his followers to keep the Russians on their side of the border; then abandoning them when the Russians were no longer a threat.
I'll have to watch that movie
What an act.
Precicely. It's not what he IS, it's what he SAYS and can make people believe. What he's good at is repeating things 1000 times, while his media buddies do the same, until enough of America believes it, "because, well, everybody knows that!".
It's what's worked for him since his campaign for governor of Texas. The American people have no memory, and the opposition either can't or just doesn't repeat the truth enough for it to stick in most people's heads (probably because it's a lot easier to quip a one-liner about how you'll do something great than to explain how past claims were a bunch of BS that didn't work out even when he claims they did). Hell, it even works in real-time with Osama/terrorism and Saddam/Iraq. After 2-3 months of repetition, polls show that people only care about what he's currently saying, and not the fact that it doesn't match anything he said 4-6 months ago.
So, re-evaluating your stance on important issues after you recieve more information and grow as a person is a bad thing, eh?
Yep, I much prefer the swaggering red-neck attitude of "I'm right 'cause I know I am! (now lets go burn us some Kikes 'n Niggers!)".
Oh, no, wait. Sorry, I mean the "Fuck anybody who isn't rich enough to own their own hospital. Those 2-working-parent families with little or no healthcare should get off their lazy asses and get a real job, like CEO of a small-cap business at least, if they want good health insurace" attitude.
Oh, no, it's the "There's nothing wrong with deciding national policy behind closed doors, especially if your buddies you worked for in the past are there" viewpoint that I hate.
Well, I guess I can't make up my mind. But, luckily for me, I have an easy dicision this year.
And, a little more info I feel I must share: I don't care how many concentual hummers a President of my country gets. I DO care about how many Americans are dead because of a war waged against a no-threat country. I DO care about my healthcare benefits going down every year, with premiums and co-pays going way up. I DO care when the first budget surplus in years is squandered practically the first week of a new President's term, and any chance of that accidentally happening again is immediatley squashed. (FYI, if we payed off the national debt, the entire country would get an immediate ~20% permanent tax cut due to not having to pay the interest on the loan).
Yes, you take 2 hits. The first is wasting tons of HD space on an un- or barely-compressed stream. The 2nd is wasting CPU power (re-)encoding the stream to something else. But, what it buys you is being able to create small high-quality final versions of the programs with a small CPU. The CPU is probably idle for ~20 hours out of the day, with video playback being done via the video card. So, you might as well use that idle CPU time to create a better finished product. If you want to watch the show before it's been converted, then you watch the raw stream. Otherwise, you watch or burn the higher quality MPEG4, and delete the uncompressed stream to recover ~3.6GB / hour storage. So, you're not really taking a "hit", because you're not using the CPU anyway.
It's not just you. At night, I put an old soft t-shirt over my eyes so I can sleep. I don't know if it's because I got used to pitch-black nights growing up, or an extention of the way I can't truly concentrate on something unless I have no distractions, or what. But, unless I'm really tired (working out can help), I can't fall asleep if I can see light through my eyelids.
I think that IBM the Company is more interested in the $10M tax writeoff. (Not to say that IBM isn't great to the FOSS community)
What a fucking troll.
1) There is plenty of proof that programs like after-school programs in the inner-city definitely p lower crime rates and improve the choices of the growing children.
2) We're not talking baout giving people who make 30k an extra 60 so they can buy a Lexus. We're talking about giving peoplefood and clothes that they can't provide for themselves, despite working.
3)If you're going to make claims about the "historical, scientific" proof", you need to back them up, not point at others.
Learn to make a rational argument.
Taking money from one set of people just because they have more - is a great way to teach people why it's ok to steal and take things - just because you percieve you need it more than they do.
That's because your thinking on this problem hasn't raised above the 12-14 year-old level.
See, my mom busted her ass at multiple jobs, to earn only $100 a week, with which she had to raise 2 children. (This was the 80's). We couldn't afford milk or meat. About once a month there would be extra meat left at the restaurant she worked at. Mom busted her ass, doing everything she could, but couldn't keep up. We never starved, but I almost always was hungry. Of course, I can see how the company owner (where she worked as a graphic artist) would need his new boat more than I percieved I needed nutrition.
But, of course, it's still all her fault because of her choices. The fact that she had a technical degree, a job, and got married; then had her husband drafted into the Vietnam war, who came back an alcoholic and drug addict and left her on my 1st birthday (about a week after she was pregnant with my brother, too early to know about), and couldn't find a good job in a bad economy, that's all choices. Yup, just her bad choices, and she is right to have been left to suffer the consequences!
Yeah, ok.
It scares me to think of what a person with your nick would know about "tiny ass enclosures".
That's not what he said. Despite MS's history, he said that XP works well. With comments like that, you're just cutting off your nose to spite your face.
To understand, read http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/cowards.html
It's not about the CD player. It's about one's personal liberties and freedom.
Since you brought up whether a car is worth the life of a criminal: I've heard of numerous carjacking victims killed by carjackers who obviously think the car is worth the life of somebody who worked hard to get it. You saying it's not worth the life of the scum trying to steal it? And yeah, if GOD himself could promise that all they would do is take the car, I'd let them take it and deal with insurance. The thing is, many victims of robbery also become victims of kidnapping, rape, or murder, and you don't know what's going to happen to you until it happens. To assume that anything less than the worst is about to happen, and to not defend yourself accordingly, is to make your own precious human life worth no more than a VCR and a quick thrill. And what if the criminal then goes on hurt others when you could have stopped him? Their pain stains your soul.
You buy the .45 because of its "stopping power". That means it helps to assure that the attacker stops attacking, but nothing short of a very high powered rifle "assures" a kill. When a rapist is coming at you with a knife, you could put a 32 in his arm and he'll still come and cut you up.
The fact that "stopping power" also increases the chances of death is simply not worth worrying about. Why? Because a criminal can reduce his chance of death to zero by not breaking in or attacking in the first place. THEY are the ones violating others. It is the victim's responsibility to ensure their own life and liberty. See http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/cowards.html for an more complete argument. Some of that essay is a bit inflammitory, but most is well-reasoned.
Also, how do you know the intruder or attacker is there to just rob you? You don't. Only a fool would rely on an assumption other than that the attacker will seriously hurt or kill you or somebody you care about. If you need to worry about others, think about the other innocent and kind people that will be terrorized, hurt, and possibly killed by the person violating you. Protect them, not the monster.
I liked what you said, but I'm a little confused about just how big your house is.
1) At 20 ft, the spread of a shotgun is only a few inches. Most houses don't have areas where people can get much further than that apart and still see eachother. And, if they could, there would almost certainly be doorways in between or to the side where cover can quickly be taken. All a shotgun buys you at that distance is a couple pellets in an extremity, where a rifle or handgun would have missed by ~2 inches. Preferable, yes, but you can certainly miss with a shotgun.
2) How can a "home intruder" not be too close for comfortable rifle range? (i.e., be too far for comfortable handgun range). When turning a corner looking for the bogey, I wouldn't want a long rifle in my hands, but a short, controllable handgun.
paying you a profit sharing bonus
Heh, yeah. Right next to the full pension plan.
The other problem, besides non-founders only looking short-term, is founders who realize that working benefits have deteriorated overall. They have little incentive to give up profits to provide benefits because workers hardly have a choice. Wal-Mart is the ultimate example of abusing the needy, people who would like to work full-time and work hard, in order to cut costs. Sure, Sam's kids aren't technically the original founders, but they sure care about the long-term good of the company.
Nowadays, higher productivity = more output for the same $6/hr = increased wealth for only the owners.
And, just to rant a little: I've heard the I took the risk to start the company line a number of times, but it usually comes from well-off people who, even if they lost their personal investment, had one hell of a family and friend safety net sitting under them. This, of course, includes contacts to ensure that the endeavor is properly funded in the first place. Add to that the addition socio-economic reasons as to why I may not have gotten as good an education as you, and it's obvious that not just anyone can choose to start their own company (and have anything like realistic expectations of it succeeding). My point, I guess, is that maybe it *is* fair to ask those who have more opportunity to carry more than their "fair" share of the tax burden; but, that's really a response to another post...
Then why is it that when I do my taxes and compare them to others in my supposed income level and bracket, that the majority of the others in my bracket have tons of "expenses", such as medical, and lots of assets (savings, property, etc), but somehow only managed to earn what I did? I'm single, making a good wage, and have enough money to do things like buy a new dishwaser or TV (at the expense of a new computer, which is years old). But, it would take me 10-20 years of miserly living to accumulate the kind of assets that others in my income bracket have. I earn a good deal more than the average retiree, so I'm not being compared to senior citizens who've accumulated a lot and are living on $25K. I'm being compared to people with 6-digit incomes paying 5-digit tax. The mid 5's, which means they are cutting their effective income in half, at least.
What do you mean by "flat tax rate"? The mythical system where everyone pays X%? Yes, that would be good. What would be better is to eliminate income tax and move to enirely sales tax. People with lots of money that can go around buying whatever they want will end up paying more tax. Poor people who can't afford as much, pay less. Any rich person who wants to complain about how much tax they pay can simply pay less by spending less.
I'm not arguing against you, but without any proof your story is no more than an anecdote that is, itself, begging the question.
As a fellow software developer, I could see how lots of people might want to get things put in the kernel that have crappy code, or code formatting the reviewers aren't familiar with and have to spend extra time on, or modules that don't behave in standard ways. Sure, it might be more of a pain in the ass for individual developers, but it's good for the project as a whole. So, in order for your story to have much credence, you would really need to provide concrete examples of how these good ideas were mis-applied to you, i.e., why the problem was really with the reviewer and not you.
But yeah, if you actually were getting shafted by an ego-maniacal asshole, that really sucks.