There are a lot of "Microkernels" that amount to a core kernel and then "Linux runs on top of this because it's completely inadequate!" There are things like VMware ESXi that claim to be nothing more than a hypervisor; there are then all these microkernels that claim to be full-feature microkernels, but "are in development" and "have limitations" and "haven't been taken to their full potential" so they run a Linux kernel as a micorkernel service--they virtualize Linux and claim that you're running a microkernel OS, when all you're running is a monolith in a hypervisor.
Then you'll invent and patent a new method for making gasoline engines hyper-efficient, debunking Carnot Efficiency and getting 97% utilization and 3000MPG out of a Holden Monaro with a v8.
Then GM will use it.
Then you'll sue GM for patent coverage.
Then you'll be forced as an NPE to post bond to the tune of $10.7 Million to cover GM legal fees should you be an asshole looking to grub some cash.
Then GE will use your invention without paying you. And sue you for using theirs.
Minix displays roughly a 4% slowdown at worst, which isn't really a lot. It's considerable that 18% of code should probably run in kernel. Application code doesn't experience such a slow-down. 4% of 18% is about 0.72% total. This is pathetically little, so much so that even if you hit it with a fully loaded Web server you're talking about a situation that would kill your server anyway (consider: as soon as you dip a few connections for 3-5 seconds, your system catches up to the past hour or so of max load... 100% workload that takes 1 hour takes 35 seconds longer, so the moment you'd normally back off 100% CPU you have the headroom to blast that away OR you're running a non-stop square block maxed at 100%, so you're dead anyway).
On the other hand, this Genode thing is another L4-Linux-alike. Can't write a microkernel like Minix? Write a glorified hypervisor and load Linux on top of it as a guest OS, and call it a "Microkernel Architecture." You get all the advantages of being slower, with none of the disadvantages of having a better, decoupled architecture and without a refined and stable product like VMware or KVM or Xen and management tools like vSphere or oVirt. Great press release.
Why does everyone assume the Constitution is perfect and infalliable and that the framers made no mistakes and didn't write anything that desperately needs to be repealed?
Without hefty punitive downloading enforcement, the music industry would eventually implode. No, people won't pay "to support the industry," they'll take the cheapest thing they can get. If we all know we get this stuff for free, none of us is going to buy it.
With hefty punitive downloading enforcement, we get all kinds of other problems.
They're trafficking child pornography and other illegal works. Comcast is now providing a content-regulated stream of information and is responsible for the content of that stream.
"Puts some thought into how things work" = "crackpot" now.
It's a known fact that some information is suppressed and some is supported. Funding goes toward research shops that churn out favorable research to a cause for the backer. In extreme cases, big funding sources are completely cut for any shop that produces any unfavorable results--AGW is one such case, whereby if your research group produces any papers suggesting AGW isn't a thing and that the climate patterns are a mainly natural deviation will get all your funding pulled FOREVER.
Today it's copyright. Research papers showing copyright is harmful are suppressed. Research PEOPLE who un-suppress these ideals are eliminated.
It's not even about the accuracy. It's about how if your research group does any research that questions AGW as it stands politically, you lose all funding. You lose respect if you challenge global warming, and private funding goes away (except for Royal Dutch Shell, and only for your anti-AGW work, and only as long as your works are loud and favorable to them), and Federal funding vanishes (forever).
Wasn't so worried about whether or not guns need to [not] be banned or global warming is [real/caused by SUVs/etc] more that the facts are non-trivially obfuscated. Global warming is actually a fun one to poke at because it turns out that gasoline lawn mowers (2 stroke engines that you mix the oil into the gasoline for and have very poor exhaust emissions systems...) collectively output more crap--unburnt hydrocarbons, CO2, CO, particulate, toxic waste, etc--than all the cars on this planet. 50 times more crap. If we went to electric mowers, the impact would be much bigger than going to electric cars--whereas electric cars are nearly a no-op because cars are efficient and power plants are slightly more efficient (unlike inefficient-as-hell weed whackers). While I don't think the sky is falling, I do like clean air.
It goes like that. Is global warming real? Well I can spit out other interesting facts about it at you, though the bulk main body research is "Science say yes, but science is being leaned on by the Mafia." Is copyright critical? "The vast majority of paid-off economists say piracy is the death knell for our economy." I happen to agree that if Napster had been left to continue as-is, we would have destroyed the recorded entertainment (movie, music) industry and been left poorer for it; but the figures showing current piracy impacts are total bullshit... not that anyone can prove or disprove that. Gun laws, pit bulls, the works.
The important thing about that kind of philosophy is, like all philosophy, it's airy bullshit. There are NO NATURAL RIGHTS. There is nothing "natural" about the right to free speech: it's the exact opposite, with speech having consequences, with angering powerful people (governments or brutish bikers) leading to severe consequences. You only have a "right" to what you can keep.
Humans are social creatures. Due to the above effects, severe insecurities arise. You are never safe because you can be raped, murdered, and robbed at any time. Thus humans form groups--gangs--for protection. These groups are brutal, and eventually coalesce into tribes with structured rules. Tribes become broader societies with police forces and government. Nations.
Our "natural rights" in theory come from the fact that there are a lot of us and very few of them on high. We fought off the British. There are 300 million Americans and 0.5 million people in the Military, most of whom aren't keen on suppressing the "natural rights" of other Americans, and at least half of whom will immediately defect if put up to the task. With their guns. Possibly with entire bases. We can guillotine all these motherfuckers if they push us the wrong way.
The sad truth is that we look to our Glorious Leaders these days instead, hoping that they'll hand down new "Natural Rights". The UN says the Internet is a "natural right"--this isn't something the people of Europe fought for, it's something that was murmured and the Powers On High made a show of it to give witness to their benevolence. The UN and the US are always acting as defenders of "Human Rights", going into places they have no business and forcing tyrannical governments to convey certain privileges to the people they are abusing. They position themselves as the greater power that gives us our so-called "rights".
"Rights" can't be handed down from on high. They don't actually exist, so they cannot be given. "Rights" are exactly the product of what makes them impossible fantasy: something which must be taken. The natural order is to beat people and take the things you want; we take our rights by forming groups that are stronger than individuals and other groups, and demanding our rights on pain of vicious brutal beatings and death. They cannot be handed down to us because there isn't actually anything to hand down.
Oh and Re stock market: it doesn't work like you think. Money doesn't vanish in the stock market. There is no money in the stock market. There is money changing hands for goods--securities. You put $50 in, that means you gave me $50. I have $50. You have a pink slip. You hope someone else will give you $75 for that pink slip and you'll be $25 richer. When the market collapses and your pink slip is worth $5, I'll pass you $5 back and be $45 richer, and when the market bounces back I'll do it again.
When the bubble bursts, it just means you can't get your money back anymore. That money doesn't disappear; the stock market isn't rigged either. I've played the market and for fun I bootstrapped at 1% per day--that's turning $3000 into $28 MILLION in 1 year. I quit after a month, ahead of my goals. Do you know why? Because FUCK THAT NOISE, if you play that hard you'll shoot yourself in the face. Traders are the most up-tight, twitchy, jittery assholes. They learn to sip champagne and look haughty and really they need a diaper because they're constantly shitting themselves. I know why.
The market is a place for fools. It's like a poker table: those poker veterans see the fish coming, and they know how to win. They know the odds, they can take the odds. YOU can't. They will win, and you will lose, and you're all playing the same rules, and you just suck.
When you can get up at 4am, read the world markets, read MarketWatch, read all the other news, read the stuff that amateur big-time winners groan at (Seeking Alpha is much maligned, but I liked it), even leverage questionable Chinese advice (Bedford/Paragon) and idiots on Yahoo's forums (CongoBuster was some kind of diviner), and understand that Cramer is a moron and yet understand the significance of whatever he's shouting about, and do the technicals, and the fundamentals, and get ahead on emerging markets, and notice when money starts to flow out of a growing bubble and into something low and stable (that means the BIG WALL STREET TRADERS are slowly migrating out of FINANCIALS and into BASIC MATERIALS, which means get out of FIN because the housing bubble is about to pop and invest heavily in Materials!)... and then at 11 at night go to sleep with your mind racing, and have terrible nightmares...
... then maybe your retirement accounts won't wind up empty.
The concentration of money does make the country poorer. It's less efficient. Wealth is not entirely about money--I'm a very rich man, and I'm not sitting on a cash pile. I'm richer than people making twice as much as me. Why? Because I know how to manipulate debt--I bought a house a few months ago, and I'll have it paid off in 3 years and I make $65k and I'm $3000 in credit card debt. I would have preferred a market with a standard 14% interest rate, it would have been better for me (the buyer), would have bought a bigger house. When I'm done, I'll have $2000+/mo free cash to spend or stuff into savings... a comfortable life, a good house, flexibility. That efficiency is wealth. Barely scraping by flitting all your money away on things that don't make you happy is poverty.
In Feudalism, landlords will allow their serfs to keep 25% and sometimes up to as much as 75% of their products of labor. This is historically accurate according to College level history books, numerous Web sites (written by single persons with no real peer review) from Google, and Wikipedia (written by numerous persons with continuous peer review); although every time I bring this up I get a nebulous "there is NO WAY feudal lords let anyone keep barely anything they produce!" as argument, with nothing to back it up.
In Capitalism, the often touted "superior" system, employee wages are 9% or less of a company's revenue. On top of this, the Government takes taxes directly from the employees to a tune of 30% (Caveat: at the median it's 25%-30%, but the overall average personal income tax is 16%)--leaving only 6%. That means people in the system of Capitalism are poorer.
In Feudalism, the Feudal Lord has a vested interest in the safety of his serfs. For one thing, they live on his land, and hostile invasion would deprive him of his land and the products of his land. On top of that, serfs are hard to replace--they're replaced primarily by breeding, not by migration--and the loss of serfs is unprofitable. Feudal Lords directly provide for the protection of their Serfs.
In Capitalism, businesses replace lost employees by migration--hiring. Businesses have no interest in the health or other well-being of their employees. Governments protect their lands from hostile invasion, but police only seek to enforce laws and provide stability. Crime statistics and tourism (to bring in money from other regions) are more important locally than the safety of the working class.
We can go on and on about this, but I'll just finish up and let you do your own research. The conclusion I reached was that Capitalism carries a heavy tax, but provides greater freedom of movement both physically and figuratively (you can swap careers easily in Capitalism); whereas Feudalism provides superior stability and is much better suited for terrible, terrible conditions in which a healthy Capitalistic system can't survive. Ethiopia for example would probably have trouble in any case, but function better under Feudalism than Capitalism (in fact there are studies into many parts of North Africa that strongly suggest that economic collapse post-Capitalism, where many of these places used to be Feudalistic, wasn't due to some major shift in global political climate or other factors but rather just a result of Feudalism being a better system for those regions). The United States and Japan are better off Capitalistic, as they can survive the trade-off and benefit from the more dynamic economic atmosphere (i.e. develop technology and new markets).
A long time ago, the Supreme Court started abusing the 14th amendment by using it to apply the 1st amendment invalidly to a lot of cases. One of the most visible was forcing a court house in Mass(?) to take down a statue bearing the Catholic Ten Commandments due to "Freedom of Religion" (you see the logical disconnect?). Somehow, they extended "Congress [of the United States] shall make no law..." into the courts enforcing things that aren't laws, when the courts should only be enforcing laws--a Federal law making it illegal for a State courthouse to bear religious symbols would itself violate the First Amendment.
This is a combination of two things. The first, as I already stated, is an abuse of the 14th amendment: the Incorporation Clause is first used to extend restrictions on Congress and the Federal Government to the states (which conflicts with the Tenth amendment, delegating powers not granted to the Federal Government nor forbidden from the States to the States or the People thereof--this interpretation of the 14th amendment has the side effect of making all state laws illegal), and then to extend misinterpretations of Constitutional law ("Congress Shall Make No LAW" does not mean they cannot make a display).
The second, and this is key, is that the Courts then threw out the concept of "Standing." Prior to this abuse, you had to have standing to raise suit in court. Following this pattern abuse, however, the courts would allow anyone who could throw a tantrum to come and force their will on the State. In other words: if you show up in court bitching that the Highway Patrol put four crosses next to the road where some teenagers were killed by a drunk driver, the courts would demand Standing, and summarily dismiss your case with prejudice if you were just there to bitch and couldn't actually show harm was personally done to you. Following the new treatment of Standing, if you showed up bitching the courts would summarily decide that this may cause some sort of nebulous problem because, in this case, "Separation of Church and State," and order the display removed.
The court is now arguing that you need Standing to raise suit about violation of your Fourth Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure, bolstered by further wiretapping laws meant to close verbiage loopholes. In other words: if you want to bitch that your First Amendment rights are being violated, that's fine and we will take action, even if there is no tangible or even real effect on you (the government taxing you more for being a Morman or otherwise creating policy that impacts you differently depending on religious views and practices would convey Standing, but you DON'T NEED THAT); whereas if you want to bitch that your Fourth Amendment rights are being violated, you need to show some sort of tangible effect (you DO need to show that something happens to you due to the government's actions), and I somehow doubt they'd take "They discovered my marijuana grow operation by wiretap" as tangible effect (although they might dismiss the charges for growing marijuana due to illegally gathered evidence, they'll still tap your phones).
This is awful. The idea that copyright (and in fact ideas about copyright) should be enforced as vigorously as this is absurd.
No, you're wrong. That's not what this is about.
This is about a policy in which political propaganda is held above human life, liberty, rights, the law, everything. A policy by which goals are set and the rest is just a front. This is a government that lies to the people and that works against their interests, that fights against the will of change, that uses selective force of law and mock-law to suppress ideas and ideals.
This is the same tyranny as gun control, global warming, and stem cell research: things we either can't know without major amounts of research or just can't know period, because the political views have covered up and even shaped the facts. Global warming is the biggest offender: we can cite stem cell research and see what was adult and embryonic, even though that's usually left out of casual activism (a lot of embryonic stem cell proponents point to "stem cell research" using adult stem cells); but with global warming, any research about the trends, the causes, and the impacts not following the political dogma is actively prevented as a first line of defense, and then picked apart and ridiculed by measures that would similarly debase current consensus. The same one-side slant is applied to everything, to varying degrees of effectiveness, regardless of whether the dogma is accurate with reality or completely fantastic.
This is the same with copyright. The media and the government want to provide a slanted view of copyright, to ridicule and debase research contrary to their position, to hide all research that doesn't contradict but does show the other impacts (weak copyright DOES hurt business; but it also GREATLY improves the wealth of society by slipping works into the hands of consumers after a shorter time, and by reducing punishments to not be retaliatory and destructive but rather simply just). They have set out to destroy their opponents to cover the important facts that must be brought to the public mind.
Because if you refuse to hear the case, it's a valid case and can be brought up by another thousand monkeys later. If you hear the case, let the lawyers make fools of themselves, then tell everyone involved they're a bunch of morons and can go to hell and to never bring this shit back to the court, the next guy to bring it to court will get a lawyer who is like "In IBM v. SCO, SCO made the same claims and IBM assraped them" and the judge will be like, "Bend over."
Wrong. Small things are things people hopefully don't have to think too much about, to avoid herd resistance. Like moving the salt lick a little bit at a time, rather than trying to drive the cattle. The cattle neither realize nor care what's going on.
First off, you're asking a leading question, which is a logical fallacy.
Second, you do make a good point.
Finally, I like how the doctor in the summary gives the answer: "Your explanation sounds like conjecture and has no verifiable numbers to back it up! I propose a better solution, which is also conjecture and has no verifiable numbers to back it up, but I think it's probably right."
You're a self-protecting asshat who will use excuses and bald-faced lies, or you're just not useful. A) You're full of shit, you're acting paranoid and have no sense of reasonable trust; or B) you know useful things but aren't at liberty to discuss them, thus we could hire you but you couldn't implement secret things, so you are worthless.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a lot of "Microkernels" that amount to a core kernel and then "Linux runs on top of this because it's completely inadequate!" There are things like VMware ESXi that claim to be nothing more than a hypervisor; there are then all these microkernels that claim to be full-feature microkernels, but "are in development" and "have limitations" and "haven't been taken to their full potential" so they run a Linux kernel as a micorkernel service--they virtualize Linux and claim that you're running a microkernel OS, when all you're running is a monolith in a hypervisor.
BULLET. Titanium nitride tipped to penetrate your SHIELD.
Oh it'll get passed.
Then you'll invent and patent a new method for making gasoline engines hyper-efficient, debunking Carnot Efficiency and getting 97% utilization and 3000MPG out of a Holden Monaro with a v8.
Then GM will use it.
Then you'll sue GM for patent coverage.
Then you'll be forced as an NPE to post bond to the tune of $10.7 Million to cover GM legal fees should you be an asshole looking to grub some cash.
Then GE will use your invention without paying you. And sue you for using theirs.
Actually tanenbaum WAS right.
Minix displays roughly a 4% slowdown at worst, which isn't really a lot. It's considerable that 18% of code should probably run in kernel. Application code doesn't experience such a slow-down. 4% of 18% is about 0.72% total. This is pathetically little, so much so that even if you hit it with a fully loaded Web server you're talking about a situation that would kill your server anyway (consider: as soon as you dip a few connections for 3-5 seconds, your system catches up to the past hour or so of max load... 100% workload that takes 1 hour takes 35 seconds longer, so the moment you'd normally back off 100% CPU you have the headroom to blast that away OR you're running a non-stop square block maxed at 100%, so you're dead anyway).
On the other hand, this Genode thing is another L4-Linux-alike. Can't write a microkernel like Minix? Write a glorified hypervisor and load Linux on top of it as a guest OS, and call it a "Microkernel Architecture." You get all the advantages of being slower, with none of the disadvantages of having a better, decoupled architecture and without a refined and stable product like VMware or KVM or Xen and management tools like vSphere or oVirt. Great press release.
Why does everyone assume the Constitution is perfect and infalliable and that the framers made no mistakes and didn't write anything that desperately needs to be repealed?
Without hefty punitive downloading enforcement, the music industry would eventually implode. No, people won't pay "to support the industry," they'll take the cheapest thing they can get. If we all know we get this stuff for free, none of us is going to buy it.
With hefty punitive downloading enforcement, we get all kinds of other problems.
Problem is hard.
They're trafficking child pornography and other illegal works. Comcast is now providing a content-regulated stream of information and is responsible for the content of that stream.
Uh. How do you think the RSA key-exchange protocol works? Hint: It's an asymmetric encryption algorithm.
So your idea is that because you imagine something existed, write it down, and found a large socio-political group around it, it's real?
Can I interest you in Islam today? There's this book called the Al-Q'ran, it contains all absolute truth...
"Puts some thought into how things work" = "crackpot" now.
It's a known fact that some information is suppressed and some is supported. Funding goes toward research shops that churn out favorable research to a cause for the backer. In extreme cases, big funding sources are completely cut for any shop that produces any unfavorable results--AGW is one such case, whereby if your research group produces any papers suggesting AGW isn't a thing and that the climate patterns are a mainly natural deviation will get all your funding pulled FOREVER.
Today it's copyright. Research papers showing copyright is harmful are suppressed. Research PEOPLE who un-suppress these ideals are eliminated.
It's not even about the accuracy. It's about how if your research group does any research that questions AGW as it stands politically, you lose all funding. You lose respect if you challenge global warming, and private funding goes away (except for Royal Dutch Shell, and only for your anti-AGW work, and only as long as your works are loud and favorable to them), and Federal funding vanishes (forever).
Wasn't so worried about whether or not guns need to [not] be banned or global warming is [real/caused by SUVs/etc] more that the facts are non-trivially obfuscated. Global warming is actually a fun one to poke at because it turns out that gasoline lawn mowers (2 stroke engines that you mix the oil into the gasoline for and have very poor exhaust emissions systems...) collectively output more crap--unburnt hydrocarbons, CO2, CO, particulate, toxic waste, etc--than all the cars on this planet. 50 times more crap. If we went to electric mowers, the impact would be much bigger than going to electric cars--whereas electric cars are nearly a no-op because cars are efficient and power plants are slightly more efficient (unlike inefficient-as-hell weed whackers). While I don't think the sky is falling, I do like clean air.
It goes like that. Is global warming real? Well I can spit out other interesting facts about it at you, though the bulk main body research is "Science say yes, but science is being leaned on by the Mafia." Is copyright critical? "The vast majority of paid-off economists say piracy is the death knell for our economy." I happen to agree that if Napster had been left to continue as-is, we would have destroyed the recorded entertainment (movie, music) industry and been left poorer for it; but the figures showing current piracy impacts are total bullshit... not that anyone can prove or disprove that. Gun laws, pit bulls, the works.
The important thing about that kind of philosophy is, like all philosophy, it's airy bullshit. There are NO NATURAL RIGHTS. There is nothing "natural" about the right to free speech: it's the exact opposite, with speech having consequences, with angering powerful people (governments or brutish bikers) leading to severe consequences. You only have a "right" to what you can keep.
Humans are social creatures. Due to the above effects, severe insecurities arise. You are never safe because you can be raped, murdered, and robbed at any time. Thus humans form groups--gangs--for protection. These groups are brutal, and eventually coalesce into tribes with structured rules. Tribes become broader societies with police forces and government. Nations.
Our "natural rights" in theory come from the fact that there are a lot of us and very few of them on high. We fought off the British. There are 300 million Americans and 0.5 million people in the Military, most of whom aren't keen on suppressing the "natural rights" of other Americans, and at least half of whom will immediately defect if put up to the task. With their guns. Possibly with entire bases. We can guillotine all these motherfuckers if they push us the wrong way.
The sad truth is that we look to our Glorious Leaders these days instead, hoping that they'll hand down new "Natural Rights". The UN says the Internet is a "natural right"--this isn't something the people of Europe fought for, it's something that was murmured and the Powers On High made a show of it to give witness to their benevolence. The UN and the US are always acting as defenders of "Human Rights", going into places they have no business and forcing tyrannical governments to convey certain privileges to the people they are abusing. They position themselves as the greater power that gives us our so-called "rights".
"Rights" can't be handed down from on high. They don't actually exist, so they cannot be given. "Rights" are exactly the product of what makes them impossible fantasy: something which must be taken. The natural order is to beat people and take the things you want; we take our rights by forming groups that are stronger than individuals and other groups, and demanding our rights on pain of vicious brutal beatings and death. They cannot be handed down to us because there isn't actually anything to hand down.
Oh and Re stock market: it doesn't work like you think. Money doesn't vanish in the stock market. There is no money in the stock market. There is money changing hands for goods--securities. You put $50 in, that means you gave me $50. I have $50. You have a pink slip. You hope someone else will give you $75 for that pink slip and you'll be $25 richer. When the market collapses and your pink slip is worth $5, I'll pass you $5 back and be $45 richer, and when the market bounces back I'll do it again.
When the bubble bursts, it just means you can't get your money back anymore. That money doesn't disappear; the stock market isn't rigged either. I've played the market and for fun I bootstrapped at 1% per day--that's turning $3000 into $28 MILLION in 1 year. I quit after a month, ahead of my goals. Do you know why? Because FUCK THAT NOISE, if you play that hard you'll shoot yourself in the face. Traders are the most up-tight, twitchy, jittery assholes. They learn to sip champagne and look haughty and really they need a diaper because they're constantly shitting themselves. I know why.
The market is a place for fools. It's like a poker table: those poker veterans see the fish coming, and they know how to win. They know the odds, they can take the odds. YOU can't. They will win, and you will lose, and you're all playing the same rules, and you just suck.
When you can get up at 4am, read the world markets, read MarketWatch, read all the other news, read the stuff that amateur big-time winners groan at (Seeking Alpha is much maligned, but I liked it), even leverage questionable Chinese advice (Bedford/Paragon) and idiots on Yahoo's forums (CongoBuster was some kind of diviner), and understand that Cramer is a moron and yet understand the significance of whatever he's shouting about, and do the technicals, and the fundamentals, and get ahead on emerging markets, and notice when money starts to flow out of a growing bubble and into something low and stable (that means the BIG WALL STREET TRADERS are slowly migrating out of FINANCIALS and into BASIC MATERIALS, which means get out of FIN because the housing bubble is about to pop and invest heavily in Materials!)... and then at 11 at night go to sleep with your mind racing, and have terrible nightmares...
The concentration of money does make the country poorer. It's less efficient. Wealth is not entirely about money--I'm a very rich man, and I'm not sitting on a cash pile. I'm richer than people making twice as much as me. Why? Because I know how to manipulate debt--I bought a house a few months ago, and I'll have it paid off in 3 years and I make $65k and I'm $3000 in credit card debt. I would have preferred a market with a standard 14% interest rate, it would have been better for me (the buyer), would have bought a bigger house. When I'm done, I'll have $2000+/mo free cash to spend or stuff into savings... a comfortable life, a good house, flexibility. That efficiency is wealth. Barely scraping by flitting all your money away on things that don't make you happy is poverty.
Wot's wrong with Feudalism?
In Feudalism, landlords will allow their serfs to keep 25% and sometimes up to as much as 75% of their products of labor. This is historically accurate according to College level history books, numerous Web sites (written by single persons with no real peer review) from Google, and Wikipedia (written by numerous persons with continuous peer review); although every time I bring this up I get a nebulous "there is NO WAY feudal lords let anyone keep barely anything they produce!" as argument, with nothing to back it up.
In Capitalism, the often touted "superior" system, employee wages are 9% or less of a company's revenue. On top of this, the Government takes taxes directly from the employees to a tune of 30% (Caveat: at the median it's 25%-30%, but the overall average personal income tax is 16%)--leaving only 6%. That means people in the system of Capitalism are poorer.
In Feudalism, the Feudal Lord has a vested interest in the safety of his serfs. For one thing, they live on his land, and hostile invasion would deprive him of his land and the products of his land. On top of that, serfs are hard to replace--they're replaced primarily by breeding, not by migration--and the loss of serfs is unprofitable. Feudal Lords directly provide for the protection of their Serfs.
In Capitalism, businesses replace lost employees by migration--hiring. Businesses have no interest in the health or other well-being of their employees. Governments protect their lands from hostile invasion, but police only seek to enforce laws and provide stability. Crime statistics and tourism (to bring in money from other regions) are more important locally than the safety of the working class.
We can go on and on about this, but I'll just finish up and let you do your own research. The conclusion I reached was that Capitalism carries a heavy tax, but provides greater freedom of movement both physically and figuratively (you can swap careers easily in Capitalism); whereas Feudalism provides superior stability and is much better suited for terrible, terrible conditions in which a healthy Capitalistic system can't survive. Ethiopia for example would probably have trouble in any case, but function better under Feudalism than Capitalism (in fact there are studies into many parts of North Africa that strongly suggest that economic collapse post-Capitalism, where many of these places used to be Feudalistic, wasn't due to some major shift in global political climate or other factors but rather just a result of Feudalism being a better system for those regions). The United States and Japan are better off Capitalistic, as they can survive the trade-off and benefit from the more dynamic economic atmosphere (i.e. develop technology and new markets).
Actually this decision conflicts.
A long time ago, the Supreme Court started abusing the 14th amendment by using it to apply the 1st amendment invalidly to a lot of cases. One of the most visible was forcing a court house in Mass(?) to take down a statue bearing the Catholic Ten Commandments due to "Freedom of Religion" (you see the logical disconnect?). Somehow, they extended "Congress [of the United States] shall make no law..." into the courts enforcing things that aren't laws, when the courts should only be enforcing laws--a Federal law making it illegal for a State courthouse to bear religious symbols would itself violate the First Amendment.
This is a combination of two things. The first, as I already stated, is an abuse of the 14th amendment: the Incorporation Clause is first used to extend restrictions on Congress and the Federal Government to the states (which conflicts with the Tenth amendment, delegating powers not granted to the Federal Government nor forbidden from the States to the States or the People thereof--this interpretation of the 14th amendment has the side effect of making all state laws illegal), and then to extend misinterpretations of Constitutional law ("Congress Shall Make No LAW" does not mean they cannot make a display).
The second, and this is key, is that the Courts then threw out the concept of "Standing." Prior to this abuse, you had to have standing to raise suit in court. Following this pattern abuse, however, the courts would allow anyone who could throw a tantrum to come and force their will on the State. In other words: if you show up in court bitching that the Highway Patrol put four crosses next to the road where some teenagers were killed by a drunk driver, the courts would demand Standing, and summarily dismiss your case with prejudice if you were just there to bitch and couldn't actually show harm was personally done to you. Following the new treatment of Standing, if you showed up bitching the courts would summarily decide that this may cause some sort of nebulous problem because, in this case, "Separation of Church and State," and order the display removed.
The court is now arguing that you need Standing to raise suit about violation of your Fourth Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure, bolstered by further wiretapping laws meant to close verbiage loopholes. In other words: if you want to bitch that your First Amendment rights are being violated, that's fine and we will take action, even if there is no tangible or even real effect on you (the government taxing you more for being a Morman or otherwise creating policy that impacts you differently depending on religious views and practices would convey Standing, but you DON'T NEED THAT); whereas if you want to bitch that your Fourth Amendment rights are being violated, you need to show some sort of tangible effect (you DO need to show that something happens to you due to the government's actions), and I somehow doubt they'd take "They discovered my marijuana grow operation by wiretap" as tangible effect (although they might dismiss the charges for growing marijuana due to illegally gathered evidence, they'll still tap your phones).
Problem?
RSA?? You mean that DIFFIE-HELLMAN RIP-OFF?
It's more like the postman's kid.
Why is it 3 inches longer?
This is awful. The idea that copyright (and in fact ideas about copyright) should be enforced as vigorously as this is absurd.
No, you're wrong. That's not what this is about.
This is about a policy in which political propaganda is held above human life, liberty, rights, the law, everything. A policy by which goals are set and the rest is just a front. This is a government that lies to the people and that works against their interests, that fights against the will of change, that uses selective force of law and mock-law to suppress ideas and ideals.
This is the same tyranny as gun control, global warming, and stem cell research: things we either can't know without major amounts of research or just can't know period, because the political views have covered up and even shaped the facts. Global warming is the biggest offender: we can cite stem cell research and see what was adult and embryonic, even though that's usually left out of casual activism (a lot of embryonic stem cell proponents point to "stem cell research" using adult stem cells); but with global warming, any research about the trends, the causes, and the impacts not following the political dogma is actively prevented as a first line of defense, and then picked apart and ridiculed by measures that would similarly debase current consensus. The same one-side slant is applied to everything, to varying degrees of effectiveness, regardless of whether the dogma is accurate with reality or completely fantastic.
This is the same with copyright. The media and the government want to provide a slanted view of copyright, to ridicule and debase research contrary to their position, to hide all research that doesn't contradict but does show the other impacts (weak copyright DOES hurt business; but it also GREATLY improves the wealth of society by slipping works into the hands of consumers after a shorter time, and by reducing punishments to not be retaliatory and destructive but rather simply just). They have set out to destroy their opponents to cover the important facts that must be brought to the public mind.
Hang them all.
Because if you refuse to hear the case, it's a valid case and can be brought up by another thousand monkeys later. If you hear the case, let the lawyers make fools of themselves, then tell everyone involved they're a bunch of morons and can go to hell and to never bring this shit back to the court, the next guy to bring it to court will get a lawyer who is like "In IBM v. SCO, SCO made the same claims and IBM assraped them" and the judge will be like, "Bend over."
Wrong. Small things are things people hopefully don't have to think too much about, to avoid herd resistance. Like moving the salt lick a little bit at a time, rather than trying to drive the cattle. The cattle neither realize nor care what's going on.
First off, you're asking a leading question, which is a logical fallacy.
Second, you do make a good point.
Finally, I like how the doctor in the summary gives the answer: "Your explanation sounds like conjecture and has no verifiable numbers to back it up! I propose a better solution, which is also conjecture and has no verifiable numbers to back it up, but I think it's probably right."
OSX Cougar?
Also the end of the Catholic Church, since Benedict is the last pope.
You're a self-protecting asshat who will use excuses and bald-faced lies, or you're just not useful. A) You're full of shit, you're acting paranoid and have no sense of reasonable trust; or B) you know useful things but aren't at liberty to discuss them, thus we could hire you but you couldn't implement secret things, so you are worthless.
You don't have 4 years of experience so we can't hire you.