That would be too new actually, and in fact seems more prone to corruption for me. After the Diabold machines getting Windows viruses during election, I still want something a little more well tested and old fashioned.
Juries are a tried (pun not intended) and true system, I just propose to extend their role in society.
As opposed to the current system where laws are ALSO written by lawyers but they are vetoed by trusty representatives that don't care at all about the people they purportedly represent, do not share their status, do not share their burden and have substantial opportunities of personal gains through corruption?
Even if he is smarter, he isn't likely to be more moral. Or rather his morals adapt to the votes he wants to bag. He is as likely to vote for that racist act or religiously righteous law you fear the wallmart crowd would, simply to please them. Even worse, he is highly motivated to turn political discourse into rhetorical drama to laverage emotional responses.
Politicians, living comfortably above the middle class, rarely live under the results of their own legislations, the repercussions they care about are only those that affect their careers.
And that's just look forward. Looking backwards. Politicians need to get into a party and then get lobbied before they can seriously contend to executive positions. In other words they need to get bought for the specific matter of jump starting their careers!
So yeas, it's not a comforting thought when compared to some imaginary perfect authority figure, but I think it can take us to a better position than we are right now.
Then my proposal is, at worst. Slightly better than we are now. At least a jury is less likely than a politician to deliberatively choose which experts to take advise from. How often politicians have already decided the answer they want before officially asking for advice? Very often I'll dare to say.
Which is why I advocate doing away with elections altogether and implement Sortition. Essentially. Use the same system we use when selecting juries than when selecting representatives. A representative sample of the population is better than a man at representing the population wouldn't you think?
Yes a Jury will lack experience in technical matters. But so are politicians. Like with politicians and like juries in trials, experts can be provided to inform the jury to take decisions. Unlike politicians, they won't make false promises, won't take decisions to advance a non existent political careers, nor are they as likely to cheat for personal gain, since they would be different people from different social levels.
Only in that banks don't serve you web ads. This helps Google get even better informed about what you thus tailor ads to your psyche.
Because, please, the purpose of stalking and data-mining the hell out of you is not just to sell you wonderful goods that will make your life better but to learn the marketing tricks that better fool you into getting what you don't really need.
Because 1920x1200 wastes space when watching movies which is what a lot of people use their PC for?
Sure larger is better, but by that measure why not get one of those 2048x1080 displays anyway? Unless you are implying that 8:5 is superior to 16:9 which is stupid, in my opinion, on large displays wider is better.
Sort of agree. While I've become so used to Linux that I actually feel crippled on Windows, I know that if I spend enough time tinkering with a Windows PC I can get a lot of the same functionality, specially if you are willing to fork some bucks. I know this first hand because I used to customize windows beyond recognition when I was younger.
And compatibility is supreme. I've had problems, but pretty much everything works. In Linux only FOSS stuff (and some server stuff like ORACLE's) work reliably.
The thing is, I thrust (selected distros of) Linux and FOSS much more than MS and proprietary programs that mess up with the registry with all the activation key drama, uninstalable crap and the general antagonist relation that windows users have with their software.
Oh and I also don't support Microsoft. I don't know why this guy above derides it like "smug anti-microsoft linux fanboy" as if there wasn't lot's of legitimate reasons to disprove of their behavior.
If I recall correctly Nintendo sells Wii's at a loss. "Free" XBOXes are sure to boots sales of XBOX games, XLive subscriptions and DLC sells.
And that's not even actually free, it's easy to hide the cost in the price of the PC + Windows 7, specially considering Windows costs nothing for MS to install and people are just going to end up buying another copy when their PC inevitably gets infected/broken and need a replacement.
Have you noticed how every news we get about "Two Factor Authentication" ALWAYS means "Mobile Phone Authentication"?
I don't know if you read TFA, I did so just to confirm it but could see it coming from miles away. It has come to be that you don't really have to ask what kind of "Two Factor Authentication" they are scheming because it always always always means "Mobile Phone Authentication"
Variety is good but the most important thing is interoperability.
Having multiple login managers means for instance that your favorite KDM theme won't work in GDM or LightDM etc. It's not like they support some common theming standard.
This kind of fragmentation is hurting linux desktop a lot.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be too new actually, and in fact seems more prone to corruption for me. After the Diabold machines getting Windows viruses during election, I still want something a little more well tested and old fashioned.
Juries are a tried (pun not intended) and true system, I just propose to extend their role in society.
As opposed to the current system where laws are ALSO written by lawyers but they are vetoed by trusty representatives that don't care at all about the people they purportedly represent, do not share their status, do not share their burden and have substantial opportunities of personal gains through corruption?
But a politician is likely to be worse!
Even if he is smarter, he isn't likely to be more moral. Or rather his morals adapt to the votes he wants to bag. He is as likely to vote for that racist act or religiously righteous law you fear the wallmart crowd would, simply to please them. Even worse, he is highly motivated to turn political discourse into rhetorical drama to laverage emotional responses.
Politicians, living comfortably above the middle class, rarely live under the results of their own legislations, the repercussions they care about are only those that affect their careers.
And that's just look forward. Looking backwards. Politicians need to get into a party and then get lobbied before they can seriously contend to executive positions. In other words they need to get bought for the specific matter of jump starting their careers!
So yeas, it's not a comforting thought when compared to some imaginary perfect authority figure, but I think it can take us to a better position than we are right now.
Then my proposal is, at worst. Slightly better than we are now. At least a jury is less likely than a politician to deliberatively choose which experts to take advise from. How often politicians have already decided the answer they want before officially asking for advice? Very often I'll dare to say.
But they still perform their duties as juries in trials so it's not like nobody is willing to accept this challenge.
Which is why I advocate doing away with elections altogether and implement Sortition. Essentially. Use the same system we use when selecting juries than when selecting representatives. A representative sample of the population is better than a man at representing the population wouldn't you think?
Yes a Jury will lack experience in technical matters. But so are politicians. Like with politicians and like juries in trials, experts can be provided to inform the jury to take decisions. Unlike politicians, they won't make false promises,
won't take decisions to advance a non existent political careers, nor are they as likely to cheat for personal gain, since they would be different people from different social levels.
Only in that banks don't serve you web ads. This helps Google get even better informed about what you thus tailor ads to your psyche.
Because, please, the purpose of stalking and data-mining the hell out of you is not just to sell you wonderful goods that will make your life better but to learn the marketing tricks that better fool you into getting what you don't really need.
Because 1920x1200 wastes space when watching movies which is what a lot of people use their PC for?
Sure larger is better, but by that measure why not get one of those 2048x1080 displays anyway? Unless you are implying that 8:5 is superior to 16:9 which is stupid, in my opinion, on large displays wider is better.
Pretty sure he meant Eurasia
Indeed, whoever thinks the US (government) is always on the right side should have a talk with any Latinamerican historian.
Do we have a world government now?
Damn beat me to this by a !nternet month (and hour)
My own take is that they've become chasers of the next big thing. They want to be able to be described better than Mac rip-off or Windows rip-off.
But yes, long live gnome 2.
Offtopic but that gamepad wouldn't be bad at all for an old HTPC settup.
Sort of agree. While I've become so used to Linux that I actually feel crippled on Windows, I know that if I spend enough time tinkering with a Windows PC I can get a lot of the same functionality, specially if you are willing to fork some bucks. I know this first hand because I used to customize windows beyond recognition when I was younger.
And compatibility is supreme. I've had problems, but pretty much everything works. In Linux only FOSS stuff (and some server stuff like ORACLE's) work reliably.
The thing is, I thrust (selected distros of) Linux and FOSS much more than MS and proprietary programs that mess up with the registry with all the activation key drama, uninstalable crap and the general antagonist relation that windows users have with their software.
Oh and I also don't support Microsoft. I don't know why this guy above derides it like "smug anti-microsoft linux fanboy" as if there wasn't lot's of legitimate reasons to disprove of their behavior.
Is having principles really so passé?
People ARE getting this, it's just the Apple fanboys in denial.
Should we call those free iPods a proof of desperation from Apple?
If I recall correctly Nintendo sells Wii's at a loss. "Free" XBOXes are sure to boots sales of XBOX games, XLive subscriptions and DLC sells.
And that's not even actually free, it's easy to hide the cost in the price of the PC + Windows 7, specially considering Windows costs nothing for MS to install and people are just going to end up buying another copy when their PC inevitably gets infected/broken and need a replacement.
Don't forget their never ending battle against the First-sale doctrine.
Glad I'm not the only one who grew up to find their favorite games company is most consumer hostile corporation in gaming.
It's not just Starcraft tough. I'm not the only one who enjoys watching other people play games, that why the entire genre of "Let's Play" exist.
bribe.amount? Why do you have a `Bribe` class and methods and attributes does it define?
Anonymous delivers!
Have you noticed how every news we get about "Two Factor Authentication" ALWAYS means "Mobile Phone Authentication"?
I don't know if you read TFA, I did so just to confirm it but could see it coming from miles away. It has come to be that you don't really have to ask what kind of "Two Factor Authentication" they are scheming because it always always always means "Mobile Phone Authentication"
Variety is good but the most important thing is interoperability.
Having multiple login managers means for instance that your favorite KDM theme won't work in GDM or LightDM etc. It's not like they support some common theming standard.
This kind of fragmentation is hurting linux desktop a lot.
One problem is that they actually change the underlying packages enough they introduce more bugs. Or unwanted functionality which is just the same.