Donating more money than a poor person has does. Like, if you have billions of dollars, and you reach in your pocket and throw whatever change you have on hand from the vending machine--some $20,000 it cashed out when you broke a $100,000 on a gold-plated packet of caviar Fritos--to the Salvation Army, you are supporting an anti-gay religious organization and are a hyperextremist Nazi.
It is rather horrifying. A lot of my political positions are volatile. Basic income is a paradigm shift on the welfare system, because our welfare system is broken. Social welfare is effectively "Steal from the rich, give to the poor", and our unemployment and housing assistance and food stamps programs do exactly that. Unconditional Basic Income throws all that out, stamps a tax number down (18% in this case), taxes that much money from everyone's income, and divvies it up between everyone over 18 (this is specialized to my vision--UBI is just basically "Give everyone X amount of money").
That can easily get me branded a socialist. Imagine that kind of publicity. Can you imagine the jobs I'd get denied? Just for trying to refactor our current broken system into a new system that does the same thing, but more effectively, and at a lesser cost to the tax payer (the poor, the wealthy, and the businesses), and with better durability, and without creating an inescapable welfare trap in which attempting to get a job is extremely dangerous and could destroy your life.
Imagine the headline: "New Mozilla CEO Favors Wealth Redistribution: Popular browser vendor appoints Marxist to run business operations, hypocrite still makes $2M salary".
Why would it be different if he supported NAMBLA? Our puritan values are such that we believe it is somehow harmless for small children--hell, teens up to 17--to know about sexual activity. Because Jesus. Or something. Maybe in 100 years we'll reverse on that. Remember that in some cultures they still have pornography in the open--in Germany, children play outside of pornography shops with explicit sex images on display in their view. In Japan it was legal for 13 year olds to appear in pornography, but the US put pressure on them to take an official stance against this.
In Florida, they tried--and failed--to pass a bill banning sex with animals. Are we going to do the same with people for/against sex with animals being made illegal? Which side in this is right, and why are they right?
I continue to assert two major considerations for gay marriage laws. First, gay marriage has many societal impacts, from tax implications to the social impacts of exposing children to the greater acceptance of gays and to visible gay behavior, which is deviant (i.e. not of the majority) and automatically draws attention to what is ultimately sexual behavior. Second, some people may not have problems with gays individually, yet may decide that the legitimization of gay marriage would lead to some of the aforementioned implications (real or imaginary) and that these societal changes are harmful to society, and thus may oppose gay marriage directly on the grounds of doing what is morally right for society to prevent harm.
I get all kinds of push back for this, mostly from people skipping most of the reasoning and cherry picking, or asserting that these people are wrong and thus they're simple bigots because they can't believe that a societal change is potentially harmful while bearing no ill will toward certain people who would benefit from, prefer, or otherwise be connected to said societal change. Of course bigotry is irrational hatred toward a person for their beliefs or behavior or physical attributes, not earnest belief that a certain societal change is harmful; but people like to use a different language and pretend it's English when discussing people they hate, as it lets them exercise their own bigotry while claiming they're not bigots.
let's bully their income away with higher taxes for the rich.
I believe the rich should pay their fair share, and that fair share is precisely 18%.
In 2012, if we taxed everyone a flat 18% UBI tax--eliminating Social Security (and its 7.5% tax), government pensions, food stamps, housing assistance, welfare checks, unemployment, etc. but not medicaid--we would have drawn enough money to pay everyone over the age of 18 $10,000 per year. In practice, a transition to this system would be slow and cautious, due to the social contracts of social security and government pensions--I can accelerate this, but it's very tricky (you have to give them 100% of what they've been promised).
Such a tax would be lower than our welfare taxes--25% +/- 1.5% of personal income supports welfare benefits, not including administrative costs of these services. As it's bound to personal income, an ever-shrinking middle class would not break this system: the rich get richer, but we're still taxing that 18% whether more of it is going to the middle class or to the rich upper class. Because poor people have predictable income and rich people are greedy, capitalist greed will spawn all kinds of housing solutions to create a really shitty but livable life with access to housing and food on just UBI income: life will suck if you're broke and unemployed, but nobody will go homeless and hungry under this system.
As UBI is unconditional, getting a job doesn't revoke it like SSI, unemployment, or other welfare--a job is always a net gain in cash. Unemployment at $430/wk here means a $12/hr job nets you $50/wk more, making it roughly a $1.25/hr job in reality. With UBI, you would still collect your UBI. Because of this, we can eliminate minimum wage: if you don't want to work for $1.25/hr, hold out for better; you're probably not that desperate.
In short: we should tax the rich. We should tax everyone. We should create a tax that replaces all of the taxes collected for welfare with a single categorized tax (like OASDI) devoted to collecting the tax for each successive year. That money is divvied up and passed around to everyone of the age of majority. It should not be 92%; it should be 18%, and it should never increase because inflation and greater economic activity already increase the payout. If it's not enough, the economy is collapsing and there is nothing you can do about it.
Businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone on any grounds. I fail to understand how you can be forced to service blacks if you can refuse service to anyone on any grounds. These seem logically inconsistent.
Terms like "Gay mafia" should be used in cases where a bunch of people get up and scream loudly to assassinate the character and career of someone they disagree with, because uh... because they disagree with him about gays!
Otherwise it's stupid. Gay people wanting to not be denied employment is not "gay mafia", it's "your employer is an asshole".
I'm telling you we need to burn the constitution and write a new one. It's an alpha-quality document written for old architecture.
I keep telling people: ALL LAWS MUST BEGIN WITH A MISSION. At the top of the document is a mission statement in English, Latin, and Ancient Greek. Yes, it's mandatory to learn Latin and Ancient Greek. No, I don't care that it's hard; we used to teach both of these in primary school, remember?
So every bill starts with an English list of definitions, followed by Latin and Ancient Greek. These definitions may reference the English or Latin version, because you may need to explain "electricity" in Latin. Then, in simple English, Latin, and Ancient Greek, you write the mission: what the bill does. These must be verified against each other as consistent. The mission defines both the intent (goal) and the scope (method) of the law.
Now, when evaluating the bill, it's restricted to this mission. If an action is taken according to the law--a tax, a fine, an arrest--and it can be shown that this action does not act toward the intent of the law, that action is invalid. If an action proscribed in law is outside the scope of the law, that is invalid--this breaks earmarks and things like raising the age of consent silently from 16 to 18 on a bill about income tax (you're going to set the Age of Consent in a special law dealing with sexual crimes, not in a fucking tax law).
You know that feeling you get where you keep looking at laws and going, "WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE? THIS IS JUST ANOTHER WAY TO ARREST PEOPLE AND SHAKE MONEY OUT OF THEM!" Well, that's what the Mission does: it sticks right at the top what the law is about, and makes that entire sentiment LEGALLY FUCKING BINDING. When a judge looks at the law and goes, "...what does this have to do with corn oil?" He is then legally empowered and required to declare that part of the law INVALID.
Then, when politicians try to put us back in Medieval times, they can put a "Medieval Government Rapes You For Your Parents' Debt" bill on the table in the house and vote on it openly. Try to misdirect that shit.
The Challenger had initial opposition from Thinkol management, but that later turned to support for launch. Engineers continued to protest, and Thinkol's management pushed them back into a corner and told NASA they could continue. Essentially, the narrative here is, "Well, our engineers told us this is a problem... oh, you don't think so? Well then sure we can launch! Hey you guys in the back! Shut up!"
If Thinkol's engineers got a new O-ring that could handle those launch temperatures out, as long as it made it to the rocket pad, it wouldn't matter how they decided to label it. If they got them to launch later in the day when it was warm, it also wouldn't matter. The engineers have no ethical interest in red tape; all they care about--all they need to care about--is putting good, solid work in place. Change management procedures are put in place and enforced by project managers--one of them was named--but they also come down from the project management office, which may speculate that replacement parts bear the same part number.
Essentially each style of doing something is more clutter, which becomes the KDE problem. (The other being that KDE is a poorly designed desktop UI in the first place)
My point is primarily that the default behavior is stupid and useless--or more importantly, not the most optimal way for the majority of users. The default behavior abstracts away from solid objects you're working with (individual windows) to abstract concepts (tasks, in this case meaning applications which identify to X that these windows are all the same application).
Sri's point is that extensions allow for specific custom behavior, but of course they break sometimes and are hard to write--and that this issue should be fixed, so as to provide "an easy option and choice" for anything that has enough drive for someone to pop out an extension. This is also valid.
It's the opposite way. When I look at how transporters and deflectors supposedly work, I keep thinking they should have a hell of a lot of holy shit magic going on. They hardly ever tap into it. Like why the hell can't you store a transporter pattern to make a stasis field? Oh they did that. Why can't you clone people by using a transporter? Why in the hell can't you blast a weak spot into a shield, or extend a deflector bubble to merge with theirs and make a conduit, and beam their warp core into space (or just dematerialize it)?
Wait until we can FTL to other star systems and check them out ourselves. The universe gets really weird when it looks completely different depending on where you're stopping for a burger today, and never looks like what the maps say. I mean seriously, people get in arguments with me and I point and go, "I'M LOOKING RIGHT AT IT, YOU MORON!" And this is a situation where what you're looking right at is wholly wrong.
The only economic implications are "you get X monies per month for Y years, then we kick you out of your house".
They don't actually come back making you sell off assets to pay interest, do they? Also: interest on someone owning your house. I guess it's low-cost rent.
Remember: You only need income until you die. After that, whatever you have left is unimportant.
It indicates that there is no shortage of STEM workers, I think. That the market for other workers is more heavily flooded is a different matter.
Think about it this way: 4.5% of programmers are unemployed. That means 100% of employment slots, roughly, are fitted with candidates appropriately fitted to the job; beyond that, we have candidates who are programmers but not in Silicon Valley, or whatever. They're in Florida, where computers don't exist. Okay. So then the University of Florida pushes programming education, and Florida gets filled with unemployed programmers.
Employment opportunities are kind of regional. To say that in America you should become a programmer is silly: you live in New Mexico, there are 5 programmers and 500,000 farmers, and they need more farmers there. Become a farmer. You live in New York and they need thousands of programmers to write analytical programs to rob the stock market day traders of their money; become a programmer.
But my point stands: we're seeing a labor flood reducing salaries and increasing unemployment. I'm not a fan of guild behavior--rent seeking by restricting labor so that businesses must bid high for limited resources and deal with engineer poaching--but the opposite problem is also a problem.
Cool, after that can you fix the broken alt-tab behavior in Gnome Shell? I've stopped using alt-tab because it's so slow and clunky compared to the old "group all the current desktop windows, separate and have all the rest over there" model. Instead of either swapping desktops repeatedly or tapping alt-tab, I have to hit alt-tab, then use arrows to navigate back to i.e. Thunderbird, hit down, and select the "Compose" or "Read" window to swap back and forth.
Further, instead of just jumping program-to-program like I initially guessed (as opposed to window-to-window which would be better), the damn thing does something weird... it'll jump to the last program on another desktop, then back to the last program on the prior desktop, then swap between them. So alt-tab 3 times normally ends up jumping between 3 programs, after which it'll swap between 2 programs on the same desktop until I do something besides alt-tab.
In any case, the current model makes it impossible to work rapidly with two windows in the same application, which is the only thing alt-tab was ever good for.
I've found Barnes & Noble to be stocked with whatever they can find that's made of paper and glue, mostly garbage of no note, or stuff that was a top-seller 50 years ago. It seems to be a random selection of whatever sells, like a scifi compendium called "Ultimate Dick" carrying the works of Philip K. Dick because you know people will buy something called "Ultimate Dick"... right next to some 3rd-grade-reading-level pulp that costs a dollar on Amazon and was printed by Del Rey, the go-to publisher for printing five million copies of the toilet paper you wiped your ass with this morning. They even carry graphic novels, usually a random pick from the middle of a series (typically not #1, and they don't track or change week by week).
Brick-and-mortar stores carry what looks like it has a nice cover and can sell to idiots. There's nothing worth buying in any of them.
"Aren't many relative to total" is "aren't many". It's like saying there "aren't many people" in your town, and you say, "But there's 100 people!" and I'm like, dude, my town has 667,000 and it's 15 miles across. There "aren't many people" in your house--15--except you have THIRTEEN KIDS, which is a lot.
No, several thousand servers isn't a lot, because there are several hundred million servers. And Marcus Ranum didn't notice when his OpenBSD box got hacked, until he saw penis pill ads on his home page.
Slashdot Mirror
Donating more money than a poor person has does. Like, if you have billions of dollars, and you reach in your pocket and throw whatever change you have on hand from the vending machine--some $20,000 it cashed out when you broke a $100,000 on a gold-plated packet of caviar Fritos--to the Salvation Army, you are supporting an anti-gay religious organization and are a hyperextremist Nazi.
It is rather horrifying. A lot of my political positions are volatile. Basic income is a paradigm shift on the welfare system, because our welfare system is broken. Social welfare is effectively "Steal from the rich, give to the poor", and our unemployment and housing assistance and food stamps programs do exactly that. Unconditional Basic Income throws all that out, stamps a tax number down (18% in this case), taxes that much money from everyone's income, and divvies it up between everyone over 18 (this is specialized to my vision--UBI is just basically "Give everyone X amount of money").
That can easily get me branded a socialist. Imagine that kind of publicity. Can you imagine the jobs I'd get denied? Just for trying to refactor our current broken system into a new system that does the same thing, but more effectively, and at a lesser cost to the tax payer (the poor, the wealthy, and the businesses), and with better durability, and without creating an inescapable welfare trap in which attempting to get a job is extremely dangerous and could destroy your life.
Imagine the headline: "New Mozilla CEO Favors Wealth Redistribution: Popular browser vendor appoints Marxist to run business operations, hypocrite still makes $2M salary".
Why would it be different if he supported NAMBLA? Our puritan values are such that we believe it is somehow harmless for small children--hell, teens up to 17--to know about sexual activity. Because Jesus. Or something. Maybe in 100 years we'll reverse on that. Remember that in some cultures they still have pornography in the open--in Germany, children play outside of pornography shops with explicit sex images on display in their view. In Japan it was legal for 13 year olds to appear in pornography, but the US put pressure on them to take an official stance against this.
In Florida, they tried--and failed--to pass a bill banning sex with animals. Are we going to do the same with people for/against sex with animals being made illegal? Which side in this is right, and why are they right?
I continue to assert two major considerations for gay marriage laws. First, gay marriage has many societal impacts, from tax implications to the social impacts of exposing children to the greater acceptance of gays and to visible gay behavior, which is deviant (i.e. not of the majority) and automatically draws attention to what is ultimately sexual behavior. Second, some people may not have problems with gays individually, yet may decide that the legitimization of gay marriage would lead to some of the aforementioned implications (real or imaginary) and that these societal changes are harmful to society, and thus may oppose gay marriage directly on the grounds of doing what is morally right for society to prevent harm.
I get all kinds of push back for this, mostly from people skipping most of the reasoning and cherry picking, or asserting that these people are wrong and thus they're simple bigots because they can't believe that a societal change is potentially harmful while bearing no ill will toward certain people who would benefit from, prefer, or otherwise be connected to said societal change. Of course bigotry is irrational hatred toward a person for their beliefs or behavior or physical attributes, not earnest belief that a certain societal change is harmful; but people like to use a different language and pretend it's English when discussing people they hate, as it lets them exercise their own bigotry while claiming they're not bigots.
let's bully their income away with higher taxes for the rich.
I believe the rich should pay their fair share, and that fair share is precisely 18%.
In 2012, if we taxed everyone a flat 18% UBI tax--eliminating Social Security (and its 7.5% tax), government pensions, food stamps, housing assistance, welfare checks, unemployment, etc. but not medicaid--we would have drawn enough money to pay everyone over the age of 18 $10,000 per year. In practice, a transition to this system would be slow and cautious, due to the social contracts of social security and government pensions--I can accelerate this, but it's very tricky (you have to give them 100% of what they've been promised).
Such a tax would be lower than our welfare taxes--25% +/- 1.5% of personal income supports welfare benefits, not including administrative costs of these services. As it's bound to personal income, an ever-shrinking middle class would not break this system: the rich get richer, but we're still taxing that 18% whether more of it is going to the middle class or to the rich upper class. Because poor people have predictable income and rich people are greedy, capitalist greed will spawn all kinds of housing solutions to create a really shitty but livable life with access to housing and food on just UBI income: life will suck if you're broke and unemployed, but nobody will go homeless and hungry under this system.
As UBI is unconditional, getting a job doesn't revoke it like SSI, unemployment, or other welfare--a job is always a net gain in cash. Unemployment at $430/wk here means a $12/hr job nets you $50/wk more, making it roughly a $1.25/hr job in reality. With UBI, you would still collect your UBI. Because of this, we can eliminate minimum wage: if you don't want to work for $1.25/hr, hold out for better; you're probably not that desperate.
In short: we should tax the rich. We should tax everyone. We should create a tax that replaces all of the taxes collected for welfare with a single categorized tax (like OASDI) devoted to collecting the tax for each successive year. That money is divvied up and passed around to everyone of the age of majority. It should not be 92%; it should be 18%, and it should never increase because inflation and greater economic activity already increase the payout. If it's not enough, the economy is collapsing and there is nothing you can do about it.
Businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone on any grounds. I fail to understand how you can be forced to service blacks if you can refuse service to anyone on any grounds. These seem logically inconsistent.
Let's go back to Martin Luther King instead. Basic income for all! Our current welfare paradigm is broken and needs to be thrown out.
Terms like "Gay mafia" should be used in cases where a bunch of people get up and scream loudly to assassinate the character and career of someone they disagree with, because uh... because they disagree with him about gays!
Otherwise it's stupid. Gay people wanting to not be denied employment is not "gay mafia", it's "your employer is an asshole".
It looks like Microsoft made an update, and the update was so terribly bad that they EOL'd the product.
The product was the latest version of Windows.
I'm telling you we need to burn the constitution and write a new one. It's an alpha-quality document written for old architecture.
I keep telling people: ALL LAWS MUST BEGIN WITH A MISSION. At the top of the document is a mission statement in English, Latin, and Ancient Greek. Yes, it's mandatory to learn Latin and Ancient Greek. No, I don't care that it's hard; we used to teach both of these in primary school, remember?
So every bill starts with an English list of definitions, followed by Latin and Ancient Greek. These definitions may reference the English or Latin version, because you may need to explain "electricity" in Latin. Then, in simple English, Latin, and Ancient Greek, you write the mission: what the bill does. These must be verified against each other as consistent. The mission defines both the intent (goal) and the scope (method) of the law.
Now, when evaluating the bill, it's restricted to this mission. If an action is taken according to the law--a tax, a fine, an arrest--and it can be shown that this action does not act toward the intent of the law, that action is invalid. If an action proscribed in law is outside the scope of the law, that is invalid--this breaks earmarks and things like raising the age of consent silently from 16 to 18 on a bill about income tax (you're going to set the Age of Consent in a special law dealing with sexual crimes, not in a fucking tax law).
You know that feeling you get where you keep looking at laws and going, "WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE? THIS IS JUST ANOTHER WAY TO ARREST PEOPLE AND SHAKE MONEY OUT OF THEM!" Well, that's what the Mission does: it sticks right at the top what the law is about, and makes that entire sentiment LEGALLY FUCKING BINDING. When a judge looks at the law and goes, "...what does this have to do with corn oil?" He is then legally empowered and required to declare that part of the law INVALID.
Then, when politicians try to put us back in Medieval times, they can put a "Medieval Government Rapes You For Your Parents' Debt" bill on the table in the house and vote on it openly. Try to misdirect that shit.
Yes, that's what happened with the Columbia.
The Challenger had initial opposition from Thinkol management, but that later turned to support for launch. Engineers continued to protest, and Thinkol's management pushed them back into a corner and told NASA they could continue. Essentially, the narrative here is, "Well, our engineers told us this is a problem... oh, you don't think so? Well then sure we can launch! Hey you guys in the back! Shut up!"
If Thinkol's engineers got a new O-ring that could handle those launch temperatures out, as long as it made it to the rocket pad, it wouldn't matter how they decided to label it. If they got them to launch later in the day when it was warm, it also wouldn't matter. The engineers have no ethical interest in red tape; all they care about--all they need to care about--is putting good, solid work in place. Change management procedures are put in place and enforced by project managers--one of them was named--but they also come down from the project management office, which may speculate that replacement parts bear the same part number.
Essentially each style of doing something is more clutter, which becomes the KDE problem. (The other being that KDE is a poorly designed desktop UI in the first place)
My point is primarily that the default behavior is stupid and useless--or more importantly, not the most optimal way for the majority of users. The default behavior abstracts away from solid objects you're working with (individual windows) to abstract concepts (tasks, in this case meaning applications which identify to X that these windows are all the same application).
Sri's point is that extensions allow for specific custom behavior, but of course they break sometimes and are hard to write--and that this issue should be fixed, so as to provide "an easy option and choice" for anything that has enough drive for someone to pop out an extension. This is also valid.
I did import an extension that semi-fixed it, but it broke when a new version came out and I don't understand how it works in the first place.
It's the opposite way. When I look at how transporters and deflectors supposedly work, I keep thinking they should have a hell of a lot of holy shit magic going on. They hardly ever tap into it. Like why the hell can't you store a transporter pattern to make a stasis field? Oh they did that. Why can't you clone people by using a transporter? Why in the hell can't you blast a weak spot into a shield, or extend a deflector bubble to merge with theirs and make a conduit, and beam their warp core into space (or just dematerialize it)?
Magic of the week? This shit is always magic!
Wait until we can FTL to other star systems and check them out ourselves. The universe gets really weird when it looks completely different depending on where you're stopping for a burger today, and never looks like what the maps say. I mean seriously, people get in arguments with me and I point and go, "I'M LOOKING RIGHT AT IT, YOU MORON!" And this is a situation where what you're looking right at is wholly wrong.
The only economic implications are "you get X monies per month for Y years, then we kick you out of your house".
They don't actually come back making you sell off assets to pay interest, do they? Also: interest on someone owning your house. I guess it's low-cost rent.
Remember: You only need income until you die. After that, whatever you have left is unimportant.
Wot's wrong with reverse mortgages?
It indicates that there is no shortage of STEM workers, I think. That the market for other workers is more heavily flooded is a different matter.
Think about it this way: 4.5% of programmers are unemployed. That means 100% of employment slots, roughly, are fitted with candidates appropriately fitted to the job; beyond that, we have candidates who are programmers but not in Silicon Valley, or whatever. They're in Florida, where computers don't exist. Okay. So then the University of Florida pushes programming education, and Florida gets filled with unemployed programmers.
Employment opportunities are kind of regional. To say that in America you should become a programmer is silly: you live in New Mexico, there are 5 programmers and 500,000 farmers, and they need more farmers there. Become a farmer. You live in New York and they need thousands of programmers to write analytical programs to rob the stock market day traders of their money; become a programmer.
But my point stands: we're seeing a labor flood reducing salaries and increasing unemployment. I'm not a fan of guild behavior--rent seeking by restricting labor so that businesses must bid high for limited resources and deal with engineer poaching--but the opposite problem is also a problem.
Cool, after that can you fix the broken alt-tab behavior in Gnome Shell? I've stopped using alt-tab because it's so slow and clunky compared to the old "group all the current desktop windows, separate and have all the rest over there" model. Instead of either swapping desktops repeatedly or tapping alt-tab, I have to hit alt-tab, then use arrows to navigate back to i.e. Thunderbird, hit down, and select the "Compose" or "Read" window to swap back and forth.
Further, instead of just jumping program-to-program like I initially guessed (as opposed to window-to-window which would be better), the damn thing does something weird... it'll jump to the last program on another desktop, then back to the last program on the prior desktop, then swap between them. So alt-tab 3 times normally ends up jumping between 3 programs, after which it'll swap between 2 programs on the same desktop until I do something besides alt-tab.
In any case, the current model makes it impossible to work rapidly with two windows in the same application, which is the only thing alt-tab was ever good for.
It doesn't work because my modest library has more good books than their entire multi-level megastore downtown!
You see?! We need basic income, not minimum wage!
I've found Barnes & Noble to be stocked with whatever they can find that's made of paper and glue, mostly garbage of no note, or stuff that was a top-seller 50 years ago. It seems to be a random selection of whatever sells, like a scifi compendium called "Ultimate Dick" carrying the works of Philip K. Dick because you know people will buy something called "Ultimate Dick" ... right next to some 3rd-grade-reading-level pulp that costs a dollar on Amazon and was printed by Del Rey, the go-to publisher for printing five million copies of the toilet paper you wiped your ass with this morning. They even carry graphic novels, usually a random pick from the middle of a series (typically not #1, and they don't track or change week by week).
Brick-and-mortar stores carry what looks like it has a nice cover and can sell to idiots. There's nothing worth buying in any of them.
OMG TWITTER IS DYING!
"Aren't many relative to total" is "aren't many". It's like saying there "aren't many people" in your town, and you say, "But there's 100 people!" and I'm like, dude, my town has 667,000 and it's 15 miles across. There "aren't many people" in your house--15--except you have THIRTEEN KIDS, which is a lot.
No, several thousand servers isn't a lot, because there are several hundred million servers. And Marcus Ranum didn't notice when his OpenBSD box got hacked, until he saw penis pill ads on his home page.
Haha.... Veteran, Purple Heart, MOH, POW plates, that's great. More for America's most entitled class.
Programming has matured to the point where severe bugs are rare. It's called Python 3000.