Why hide this behind shell companies if it's all above board, authorized and legal? Oh, wait, anything that law enforcement does must be legal right?/sarcasm Wouldn't it be a more effective crime deterrent if the aircraft had large bold block letter lighted signs that said FBI on them?
The same reason that you don't go around blabbing your bank account number and transit number, even though it's likely public record.
When things are too easy to know, a larger percentage of the population will take advantage of the knowledge.
And you already knew that the FBI's mandate wasn't to deter crime... it's in their TLA;)
This statement also screams "we'd rather obfuscate what we're doing so the guy who sees our plane flying around his building doesn't google the registration and figure out instantly that it's the FBI, and they've found him and are monitoring his actions."
Thing is, the only groups who fly planes in these circles are government agencies. They should really switch to drones:D
Except dogs DO have useful context awareness (just not enough) -- unlike a chemical scanner that flags specific reactions, dogs know the difference between fertilizer + earth and explosives sans earth. Chemical testers don't check to see what other smells are also present.
But yeah; in that setting, sniffers don't work. Too many variables to account for.
As to the training, glad we agree. As to the weapon... you can come up with reasons why people shouldn't have ice cream or reasons why alternating tuesdays should have people standing out side balancing on their hands. Coming up with reasons for things doesn't mean they're good reasons.
In your case, you're saying having a weapons there might create problems. Sure. Giving your passangers sodas can cause problems too. the issue is do they actually matter?
Yeah; I agree with this too. It's all a measure of calculated risk. And yes, the question is: is the risk worth taking?
First, you have the gun be controlled by the pilot when he boards and debarks. The gun does not stay on the plane. It goes with the pilot.
Second, as the to the TSA regs being useless if the pilot can bring a gun through... bullshit. The pilot would have dispensation to do that and you the passanger would not. Air marshals take guns through the TSA lines on to those planes. Or at least I dont' think anyone would really argue the TSA was useless if they flashed their badge and did it.
I think you missed my point here, although the "goes with the pilot" is a good clarification. What I'm saying is that unlike air marshals who are anonymous, pilots carrying guns makes them a target, as everyone knows they're carrying a gun. This means that any attacker can leave their gun at home, and get one off the pilot after they've gone through security. It doesn't even have to be the pilot for the plane they're boarding, as long as they incapacitate the victim pilot for long enough that their plane can get in the air.
Third, as to the pilot focusing on the plane and not on the gun. The issue is that the pilot could hurt people on the plane if he jukes the plane all over the place. Lets say there is someone at the door and they some how snuck a pocket blow torch onto the plane. What are you going to do? Juke around? Good luck with that especially if they just hold on back there. You have to keep in mind that in tight spaces you're not that vulnerable to being shook up because you're not going very far in any direction. YOu can wedge yourself into that entry way and just work on the door.
Now what? I'm saying... give the pilot something say "here's Johnny!" to the would be hijacker.
You're worried about the bullets going through the plane and hurting people... again... subsonic rounds are not going to do that. I suggested subsonic rounds. They have less powder in them, the don't go as fast.
If this bothers you... let me suggest at the very least, a taser. A good one. Something you could make the guy really ride the lightning with... is that acceptable? I want some sort of stand off supremacy weapon that a pilot could use to stop an attacker cold.
I think I already covered this one. The pilot can depressurize the cabin. Doing so would not only deprive the attacker of oxygen, it would also deprive the blow torch of oxygen. No need for a gun where the shots could cause more damage. Subsonic rounds are great, but if they hit the wrong person, they're still going to do damage -- and subsonic rounds can actually do MORE damage in some cases, as instead of a clean puncture, they can cause greater internal damage.
Your taser suggestion is actually really good -- Tasers are great for close quarters, and are usually a one-use weapon, which means that the attacker can't then take the taser and turn it on someone else.
This is a weapon that will also be of less use if taken off a pilot who has gone through security but not yet boarded. Good idea all around:)
Another idea I was thinking about was outfitting pilots and cabin crew with these: http://www.gizmag.com/go/2357/ -- 80,000 volts when armed should be enough to deter most attackers.
2. Give flight attendants and pilots some defense training. That includes possibly giving them weapons. I have no problem for example with the pilot having a gun. If he can fly the plane into a mountain then he can be have a machine gun for all I care. He's fully capable of killing everyone on the plane as well as whomever is on the ground when the plane strikes. So give him a gun. If you want it to be one of those subsonic jobs that don't penetrate very far, that is fine. But lets not pretend the pilot can't kill everyone. He can.
Defense training is a great idea; not just a bit of Aikido like police get, but plane-centric defense training (when to depressurize the cabin, dropping the oxygen masks, when to cause turbulence, getting everyone back into their seat, when to seal off the cabin, etc.)
Guns? We now know that depressurization due to a few shots isn't explosive on modern planes, and so this isn't a problem. However, if an attacker/terrorist knew for certain that every pilot carried a machine gun, the reason for the TSA would cease to exist -- the weapon he needs is pre-loaded on the plane. If you lock up the gun enough that it takes some time to get it out and ready, then you've lost its effectiveness. If it is portable and loaded and just needs the safety released, then there are MANY creative ways for someone to get their hands on it who isn't the pilot/copilot. This isn't a situation where you can see the shady group of thugs hanging out at the other end of the street; anyone going after the gun is going to give close to no warning and already be in close quarters.
Plus there's the facts that a) you don't want someone already operating a deadly weapon to have to be distracted by a second deadly weapon, b) guns tend to miss their targets a LOT even when fired on stable ground; in the air with a bunch of people packed in like sardines, there's going to be a lot of friendly fire.
It'd be better to give the pilots gas masks and a panic button, so they can depressurize and stay conscious. Oh wait -- they've already got that!
In 2001, there were digital sniffers that performed better than dogs. These digital sniffers could not only could detect more items than dogs, but do so at a lower concentration.
The biggest problem with that solution, is that it outperformed every thing else. Its high price was a secondary issue.
No, the biggest problem with that solution is that it could sniff out if you'd been in someone's garden shortly after it had been fertilized, or if you'd eaten a lemon-poppyseed muffin for breakfast, or had handled cash, or a multitude of other things.
In other words, Dogs have better context awareness than a chemical sniffer.
Interesting method of waging war in space -- make mines out of objects that use their electrons to move into position -- then anytime a neutrally-charged object comes near them -- BOOM
It also makes you more valuable to your manager, as you're seen as someone who tells it like it is and has confidence in your abilities. Just make sure not to get over-confident, or that nest egg will dry up pretty quickly.
i wonder if apk can fix this with a hosts file. he really is quite obsessed with them, to teh point of not using other tools even when they can complement a good hosts file. like a religious zealot. oh and i love the way he declares victory every time he gets trolled, he takes the bait EVERY SINGLE TIME and pats himself on the back for it. an amazing feat of self-delusion.
apk can fix this with a hosts file really easily: 0 slashdot.org
What level of luminescence and at what frequency do current UV sterilizers need to be for current treatment systems? And what wattage/gal are we talking about here? If they can find a way to mass produce these, there could be some significant wins globally for water sanitation.
Also: would this make it possible to create portable systems that you could carry with you whle hiking/carry to remote locations and operate via solar power/battery?
Interesting thing with this is that recent studies on stem cell communication shows that cells "age" and mutate when exposed to stress and inflamation. Which means this could also aid in longevity and reducing cancer activity in the body. I think there was an article on slashdot recently looking at a drug that combatted inflamation by the immune system in body tissues -- the two of these treatments together could be rather interesting.
Well, in this case, the device itself is standard issue for many hospitals; the novel bit is accessing it over the internet instead of leaving it on the intranet as has traditionally been the case.
Having been part of the "let's make this emulator do multiplayer over the internet" group back in the day, I agree with you... there's a LOT that can go wrong. If they're not designing for failure (in both software and operating protocol), they're in for a world of hurt eventually.
I have to admit, this one had me scratching my head.
Don't medical safety guidelines always require safe handling of the *worst* case scenario, not the *average* case scenario? Hospitals have network outages, and have plans in place to mitigate that. How do you mitigate a surgeon losing link while he's cutting the right ventricle? When you're yards away and the link goes down, you just scrub in. When you're on the other side of the world....
Sounds about right... QEMU isn't designed to be fast, it's designed to be accurate and portable. so writing a pipelined JIT x86 emulator specifically for ARM should get around a 4x speedup over QEMU even if it is solely based on QEMU code and a JIT engine, prior to optimization.
Is there a reason why all the obstacles are flat, low and pink? Can the lasers only see pink objects? What happens with higher/lower objects? What happens with irregular objects? What happens with different coloured objects? What happens on irregular ground?
I think you've just given them assignments B, C, D, and E:)
I'd say there's a sizeable chunk of us that can run on a sandy beach, a rocky beach, a mountain trail, or a cityscape. This robot has been designed specifically to jump hurdles on a standard cinder track, no more, no less.
Yeah; you and the GP agree (as do I) -- the GGP is remembering the Slashdot of last decade that even then we joked about. Even back in college I tended to go out "city running" as we called it back then instead of joining the MTG circle in the catacombs of the CS building. Nothing helps sharpen the mind quite as much as knowing that if you judge wrongly, you will be hospitalized.
If they're making a robotic cheetah, then their next step should be to get it to mimic how a cat falls from a height in any orientation -- if they can get it to master that too, then it doesn't really need to know about the steep cliff, as it'll always land on its feet. Of course, they also would have to give it a windbreak of some sort and bring its mass down far enough that its terminal velocity isn't enough to damage it on impact. Doable, I think.
Prosecution has a police plant who was contacted by DPR to perform a hit. So in order for it not to be hearsay, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that DPR is in fact Ulbricht. This is the trial that decides if DPR == Ulbricht is fact. If it IS fact, then the prosecution can substitute that their plant was contacted by Ulbricht to perform a hit. Which means it doesn't move from hearsay to fact until the finding of fact in this trial. After the finding of fact, they can now conclude that these actions took place, based on the officer's testimony. Since the officer's testimony was already a key piece in orchestrating the original search warrant against Ulbricht, it makes this a case of connect-the-dots.
But again, it all depends on exactly how the judge and prosecution lined things up and presented the evidence; anything out of place/in the wrong order and the entire line of reasoning has to be thrown out.
Potable water is an essential service. Transportation is pretty damned essential, but I don't see DOT handing out Obamacars. Broadband is far from *essential*, especially considering there are accessible computers in libraries and schools.
Awesome. Can't wait for the additional taxes to cover the increased program expenditures...
Yeah; I went for the first 14 years of my working life without a car. Transportation? Essential. Much of it can be done by walking, the rest with busses and rapid transit if you're in an at-all populated area. Sure, I used to regularly walk 20-40 min to get places, but I saved on the gym membership.
I'd say broadband is also an essential service -- and as you point out, that can be provided via libraries. Hey -- I used to have a local library with an internet connection back in the 90's in a rural area pop 3,000. Took me 15 minutes to bike to it. These days I'm sure it's got broadband.
To me it would make more sense to go the UK way: tax the non-essential services like TV to create value to serve over those services. Hey, it works (or at least used to; now people just buy a monitor and stream instead of buying a taxed TV).
Employee makes $34k, is taxed at 7% Employee makes $36k, $34k is taxed at 7%, $2k is taxed at 20%
Now the employee works for thoe government: Employee makes $28k -- equivalent to $34k-tax. (we're doing really rough estimates here) Employee also does contract work at $30k. Contract work is taxed at 7%. OR Employee makes $28k from government, plus an extra $6k on the side, for a total of $34k (because the tax law states that ANY earnings nullifies your non-taxable government income status) and you pay 7% tax -- and STILL come out ahead of the person who earned $36k.
So while tax bracketing inequality in the current system is indeed a myth, by introducing this new system, it would become reality. Imagine that people in Congress/Senate/etc. had this new system -- they could enjoy all sorts of non-taxable government work and supplement to the bare minimum with non-government work.
And what do you do for contractors who operate as a private entity, but are paid by the government? How about colleges etc. who get grants from the government but are private entities? How about things at the municipal government level?
There may be a place for reducing certain kinds of taxation, but every time you carve out exceptions, you create more exploitable loopholes. You have to calculate the point at which losses due to bureaucracy balance losses due to inequality. Traditionally, the US has gone for "one size fits all" -- except when it comes to corporations, who get special treatment once they can go multinational.
Slashdot Mirror
Why hide this behind shell companies if it's all above board, authorized and legal? Oh, wait, anything that law enforcement does must be legal right? /sarcasm Wouldn't it be a more effective crime deterrent if the aircraft had large bold block letter lighted signs that said FBI on them?
The same reason that you don't go around blabbing your bank account number and transit number, even though it's likely public record.
When things are too easy to know, a larger percentage of the population will take advantage of the knowledge.
And you already knew that the FBI's mandate wasn't to deter crime... it's in their TLA ;)
This statement also screams "we'd rather obfuscate what we're doing so the guy who sees our plane flying around his building doesn't google the registration and figure out instantly that it's the FBI, and they've found him and are monitoring his actions."
Thing is, the only groups who fly planes in these circles are government agencies. They should really switch to drones :D
Except dogs DO have useful context awareness (just not enough) -- unlike a chemical scanner that flags specific reactions, dogs know the difference between fertilizer + earth and explosives sans earth. Chemical testers don't check to see what other smells are also present.
But yeah; in that setting, sniffers don't work. Too many variables to account for.
As to the training, glad we agree.
As to the weapon... you can come up with reasons why people shouldn't have ice cream or reasons why alternating tuesdays should have people standing out side balancing on their hands. Coming up with reasons for things doesn't mean they're good reasons.
In your case, you're saying having a weapons there might create problems. Sure. Giving your passangers sodas can cause problems too. the issue is do they actually matter?
Yeah; I agree with this too. It's all a measure of calculated risk. And yes, the question is: is the risk worth taking?
First, you have the gun be controlled by the pilot when he boards and debarks. The gun does not stay on the plane. It goes with the pilot.
Second, as the to the TSA regs being useless if the pilot can bring a gun through... bullshit. The pilot would have dispensation to do that and you the passanger would not. Air marshals take guns through the TSA lines on to those planes. Or at least I dont' think anyone would really argue the TSA was useless if they flashed their badge and did it.
I think you missed my point here, although the "goes with the pilot" is a good clarification. What I'm saying is that unlike air marshals who are anonymous, pilots carrying guns makes them a target, as everyone knows they're carrying a gun. This means that any attacker can leave their gun at home, and get one off the pilot after they've gone through security. It doesn't even have to be the pilot for the plane they're boarding, as long as they incapacitate the victim pilot for long enough that their plane can get in the air.
Third, as to the pilot focusing on the plane and not on the gun. The issue is that the pilot could hurt people on the plane if he jukes the plane all over the place. Lets say there is someone at the door and they some how snuck a pocket blow torch onto the plane. What are you going to do? Juke around? Good luck with that especially if they just hold on back there. You have to keep in mind that in tight spaces you're not that vulnerable to being shook up because you're not going very far in any direction. YOu can wedge yourself into that entry way and just work on the door.
Now what? I'm saying... give the pilot something say "here's Johnny!" to the would be hijacker.
You're worried about the bullets going through the plane and hurting people... again... subsonic rounds are not going to do that. I suggested subsonic rounds. They have less powder in them, the don't go as fast.
If this bothers you... let me suggest at the very least, a taser. A good one. Something you could make the guy really ride the lightning with... is that acceptable? I want some sort of stand off supremacy weapon that a pilot could use to stop an attacker cold.
I think I already covered this one. The pilot can depressurize the cabin. Doing so would not only deprive the attacker of oxygen, it would also deprive the blow torch of oxygen. No need for a gun where the shots could cause more damage. Subsonic rounds are great, but if they hit the wrong person, they're still going to do damage -- and subsonic rounds can actually do MORE damage in some cases, as instead of a clean puncture, they can cause greater internal damage.
Your taser suggestion is actually really good -- Tasers are great for close quarters, and are usually a one-use weapon, which means that the attacker can't then take the taser and turn it on someone else.
This is a weapon that will also be of less use if taken off a pilot who has gone through security but not yet boarded. Good idea all around :)
Another idea I was thinking about was outfitting pilots and cabin crew with these: http://www.gizmag.com/go/2357/ -- 80,000 volts when armed should be enough to deter most attackers.
2. Give flight attendants and pilots some defense training. That includes possibly giving them weapons. I have no problem for example with the pilot having a gun. If he can fly the plane into a mountain then he can be have a machine gun for all I care. He's fully capable of killing everyone on the plane as well as whomever is on the ground when the plane strikes. So give him a gun. If you want it to be one of those subsonic jobs that don't penetrate very far, that is fine. But lets not pretend the pilot can't kill everyone. He can.
Defense training is a great idea; not just a bit of Aikido like police get, but plane-centric defense training (when to depressurize the cabin, dropping the oxygen masks, when to cause turbulence, getting everyone back into their seat, when to seal off the cabin, etc.)
Guns? We now know that depressurization due to a few shots isn't explosive on modern planes, and so this isn't a problem. However, if an attacker/terrorist knew for certain that every pilot carried a machine gun, the reason for the TSA would cease to exist -- the weapon he needs is pre-loaded on the plane. If you lock up the gun enough that it takes some time to get it out and ready, then you've lost its effectiveness. If it is portable and loaded and just needs the safety released, then there are MANY creative ways for someone to get their hands on it who isn't the pilot/copilot. This isn't a situation where you can see the shady group of thugs hanging out at the other end of the street; anyone going after the gun is going to give close to no warning and already be in close quarters.
Plus there's the facts that a) you don't want someone already operating a deadly weapon to have to be distracted by a second deadly weapon, b) guns tend to miss their targets a LOT even when fired on stable ground; in the air with a bunch of people packed in like sardines, there's going to be a lot of friendly fire.
It'd be better to give the pilots gas masks and a panic button, so they can depressurize and stay conscious. Oh wait -- they've already got that!
So it comes back again to training.
>and dogs to sniff out anything explosive.
In 2001, there were digital sniffers that performed better than dogs. These digital sniffers could not only could detect more items than dogs, but do so at a lower concentration.
The biggest problem with that solution, is that it outperformed every thing else. Its high price was a secondary issue.
No, the biggest problem with that solution is that it could sniff out if you'd been in someone's garden shortly after it had been fertilized, or if you'd eaten a lemon-poppyseed muffin for breakfast, or had handled cash, or a multitude of other things.
In other words, Dogs have better context awareness than a chemical sniffer.
I ain't lettin' no goddamned mime swab my bag!
It's worth it just to see them raise the alarm.
Interesting method of waging war in space -- make mines out of objects that use their electrons to move into position -- then anytime a neutrally-charged object comes near them -- BOOM
It also makes you more valuable to your manager, as you're seen as someone who tells it like it is and has confidence in your abilities. Just make sure not to get over-confident, or that nest egg will dry up pretty quickly.
-When doing estimates, know that it will always take longer and be released with bugs. Factor that in.
i wonder if apk can fix this with a hosts file. he really is quite obsessed with them, to teh point of not using other tools even when they can complement a good hosts file. like a religious zealot. oh and i love the way he declares victory every time he gets trolled, he takes the bait EVERY SINGLE TIME and pats himself on the back for it. an amazing feat of self-delusion.
apk can fix this with a hosts file really easily:
0 slashdot.org
What level of luminescence and at what frequency do current UV sterilizers need to be for current treatment systems? And what wattage/gal are we talking about here? If they can find a way to mass produce these, there could be some significant wins globally for water sanitation.
Also: would this make it possible to create portable systems that you could carry with you whle hiking/carry to remote locations and operate via solar power/battery?
Interesting thing with this is that recent studies on stem cell communication shows that cells "age" and mutate when exposed to stress and inflamation. Which means this could also aid in longevity and reducing cancer activity in the body. I think there was an article on slashdot recently looking at a drug that combatted inflamation by the immune system in body tissues -- the two of these treatments together could be rather interesting.
Hmm... maybe someone should start up a spin-off called LobbyRoad where politicians can meet to trade kickbacks and favors in an anonymous setting?
Well, in this case, the device itself is standard issue for many hospitals; the novel bit is accessing it over the internet instead of leaving it on the intranet as has traditionally been the case.
Having been part of the "let's make this emulator do multiplayer over the internet" group back in the day, I agree with you... there's a LOT that can go wrong. If they're not designing for failure (in both software and operating protocol), they're in for a world of hurt eventually.
I have to admit, this one had me scratching my head.
Don't medical safety guidelines always require safe handling of the *worst* case scenario, not the *average* case scenario? Hospitals have network outages, and have plans in place to mitigate that. How do you mitigate a surgeon losing link while he's cutting the right ventricle? When you're yards away and the link goes down, you just scrub in. When you're on the other side of the world....
Apps can also be shorthand for aperitifs or appetizers. As in, "I grabbed the new Google app last night while eating an app at the bistro."
Sounds about right... QEMU isn't designed to be fast, it's designed to be accurate and portable. so writing a pipelined JIT x86 emulator specifically for ARM should get around a 4x speedup over QEMU even if it is solely based on QEMU code and a JIT engine, prior to optimization.
I think it was an attempt at humour.
Is there a reason why all the obstacles are flat, low and pink? Can the lasers only see pink objects? What happens with higher/lower objects? What happens with irregular objects? What happens with different coloured objects? What happens on irregular ground?
I think you've just given them assignments B, C, D, and E :)
I'd say there's a sizeable chunk of us that can run on a sandy beach, a rocky beach, a mountain trail, or a cityscape. This robot has been designed specifically to jump hurdles on a standard cinder track, no more, no less.
Yeah; you and the GP agree (as do I) -- the GGP is remembering the Slashdot of last decade that even then we joked about. Even back in college I tended to go out "city running" as we called it back then instead of joining the MTG circle in the catacombs of the CS building. Nothing helps sharpen the mind quite as much as knowing that if you judge wrongly, you will be hospitalized.
If they're making a robotic cheetah, then their next step should be to get it to mimic how a cat falls from a height in any orientation -- if they can get it to master that too, then it doesn't really need to know about the steep cliff, as it'll always land on its feet. Of course, they also would have to give it a windbreak of some sort and bring its mass down far enough that its terminal velocity isn't enough to damage it on impact. Doable, I think.
Yeah; in this case it gets trickier than that.
Prosecution has a police plant who was contacted by DPR to perform a hit. So in order for it not to be hearsay, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that DPR is in fact Ulbricht. This is the trial that decides if DPR == Ulbricht is fact. If it IS fact, then the prosecution can substitute that their plant was contacted by Ulbricht to perform a hit. Which means it doesn't move from hearsay to fact until the finding of fact in this trial. After the finding of fact, they can now conclude that these actions took place, based on the officer's testimony. Since the officer's testimony was already a key piece in orchestrating the original search warrant against Ulbricht, it makes this a case of connect-the-dots.
But again, it all depends on exactly how the judge and prosecution lined things up and presented the evidence; anything out of place/in the wrong order and the entire line of reasoning has to be thrown out.
Potable water is an essential service. Transportation is pretty damned essential, but I don't see DOT handing out Obamacars. Broadband is far from *essential*, especially considering there are accessible computers in libraries and schools.
Awesome. Can't wait for the additional taxes to cover the increased program expenditures ...
Yeah; I went for the first 14 years of my working life without a car. Transportation? Essential. Much of it can be done by walking, the rest with busses and rapid transit if you're in an at-all populated area. Sure, I used to regularly walk 20-40 min to get places, but I saved on the gym membership.
I'd say broadband is also an essential service -- and as you point out, that can be provided via libraries. Hey -- I used to have a local library with an internet connection back in the 90's in a rural area pop 3,000. Took me 15 minutes to bike to it. These days I'm sure it's got broadband.
To me it would make more sense to go the UK way: tax the non-essential services like TV to create value to serve over those services. Hey, it works (or at least used to; now people just buy a monitor and stream instead of buying a taxed TV).
Let's do the math.
Employee makes $34k, is taxed at 7%
Employee makes $36k, $34k is taxed at 7%, $2k is taxed at 20%
Now the employee works for thoe government:
Employee makes $28k -- equivalent to $34k-tax. (we're doing really rough estimates here)
Employee also does contract work at $30k. Contract work is taxed at 7%.
OR
Employee makes $28k from government, plus an extra $6k on the side, for a total of $34k (because the tax law states that ANY earnings nullifies your non-taxable government income status) and you pay 7% tax -- and STILL come out ahead of the person who earned $36k.
So while tax bracketing inequality in the current system is indeed a myth, by introducing this new system, it would become reality. Imagine that people in Congress/Senate/etc. had this new system -- they could enjoy all sorts of non-taxable government work and supplement to the bare minimum with non-government work.
And what do you do for contractors who operate as a private entity, but are paid by the government? How about colleges etc. who get grants from the government but are private entities? How about things at the municipal government level?
There may be a place for reducing certain kinds of taxation, but every time you carve out exceptions, you create more exploitable loopholes. You have to calculate the point at which losses due to bureaucracy balance losses due to inequality. Traditionally, the US has gone for "one size fits all" -- except when it comes to corporations, who get special treatment once they can go multinational.
You need to move to an Animal Farm.