Hey, look at me! I've got a few years worth of data! Now I can make wide reaching conclusions about the work of hundreds of scientists!
Temperature changes are well understood to happen more gradually than a few years. If the next decade would show cooling that still wouldn't mean anything about the long term trend. Short term reversals of some trends can and do happen. A volcano spewed sulfur into the atmosphere? Solar output decreased very slightly? And so on...
This doesn't invalidate the long term warming trend and the science behind global warming, at all.
The closest thing of the "EU" definiton of rights is the European Convention on Human Rights. The first few sentences of the convention includes the descriptions of "universal", "fundamental" in relation with rights.
The grandparent post merely said that ultimately governments and the people are those who enforce rights, whether we consider them inalienable or not.
Every time MS vs. EU is discussed on slashdot someone drags this stupid argument out of the closet.
MS would be very, very screwed if they would try to do anything like this. Let me put things into perspective:
The EU area has a GPD of $14.51 trillion, while MS has a revenue of around $51 billion, globally. The EU has the power of the police, government, military behind them which can seize MS's assets and if MS decides to pull out of EU they would leave billions in assets behind. If events reach that point, EU given the national security clauses in copyright conventions would simply suspend MS copyright in Europe while Europe moves to Linux/BSD/Solaris at a hugely accelerated pace. Given that the EU is the largest economy block in the world, everyone else would be forced to use those open technologies and MS would find itself with a pretty minimal market share in a few years.
Even Microsoft isn't this stupid to make a move anything like this.
Democracy is actually never perfect, but by any definition you cannot say that the civil war in the USA started one that was better what people had elsewhere in the world at that time. Muslim women in 1861, since the 7th century actually, had more rights than western woman. They could own property and had some individual existence, not totally dependent on their husband. After the civil war in the USA, it is true that the 14th amendment was passed and technically negroes were free, a reordering took place in the 1870s, where a lot of blacks were forced into semi-slave conditions with actual legal backing from the southern states. Land that was given to freed slaves was taken back and the 14th amendment became a way for corporations to grab more power instead of a guarantee of rights for black people. Out of nearly 300 court cases that invoked the 14th amendment, only 18 or so had to do with black people, the rest were about corporations and them being a "legal person".
The rights of women didn't change until the early 20th century, before that they couldn't own property, couldn't vote and essentially women were considered subjugated to their husbands.
The rule of corporations and the dual party structure where both parties are catering to the business interests became especially strong after the civil war. Workers were striking in record numbers and record times and a lot of those strikes were crushed in a violent way by federal military forces. Unionization was prevented with underhanded tactics in a lot of cases.
The aftermath of the civil war paved the way for the political and corporate structure that exists today. The focus shifted in politics from real issues to "moral values" and although the process began with the "Jacksonian democracy", this way of doing politics has solidified and as one observer noted in the era:
"We are here plunged in politics funnier than words can express. Very great issues are involved....But the amusing thing is that no one talks about the real interests. By common consent they agree to let these alone. We are afraid to discuss them. Instead of this the press is engaged in a most amusing dispute whether Mr. Cleveland had an illegitimate child and did or did not live with more than one mistress."
Corporate greed and corporate welfare thrives in the USA since that era, while the average person is told to take care of themselves. The political structure that poisons the current american politics took hold at that time, masking the striking similarity between the two parties by focusing on totally unimportant issues.
All in all, this paints a picture more of a plutocracy than a democracy.
What you call mob greed in civilized countries is considered to be the reason why we live in a society.
This viewpoint and it's history in the USA is not suprising however, as anyone who has ever taken a look at the origins and establishment of the USA must have noticed it's upper class roots, the control this upper class exercises and the repecussions of the aforementioned to democratic values.
While I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but there are quantitative differences between the thinking of a country like Japan and for example the USA. In Japan, they did have the foresight to make their systems IPv6 ready, so maybe just our expectations are too low? I'd rather tell people what to do than to make excuses in the technology/politics field referring to Joe Sixpack who allegedly wouldn't understand or care.
This is a good reminder how you're supposed to dig down to the raw data and validate that. I remember reading in one of Richard Feynman's books about a similar case, some conclusion or data appeared well supported, because a lot of the research papers were supportive of the idea, but it turned out that they derived what they said based on a single source.
The case here is similar, it's a good reminder how science is about data, validation and facts not about authority. You're supposed to check your data, check your facts and try to avoid making implicit assumptions.
...at least according to an earlier slashdot article. In a lot of dreams you're simply dealing with uncomfortable situations. It seems like a pretty useless thing to interpret dreams. They are only relevant to the given person anyway and totally useless for a third party, because no conclusions should be drawn on them.
No, actually CO2 and global temperature are like a couple making love. When one of them makes the first gentle push, the other reacts, which in turn causes a bigger push.
And let me tell you something: you absolutely do not want to get caught between these two deadly lovers, because their love is destructive from our point of view. (And I guess I'm totally missing the target audience here on slashdot with a sex analogy.)
I think there were studies done to show that using QoS on an ISP level is not cost effective compared to just upgrading to more capacity. On an ISP level, you just got to have the equipment necessary to handle the traffic on your network, there is no working around of that. Comcast must know this, so they have an ulterior motive in pushing QoS and differentiationg content from content. They might use this as a prelude to introduce tiered pricing. This just goes to show why net neutrality is necessary.
Ulanoff gives four suggestions for a complete Vista makeover, like starting with new code(...)
Brilliant idea! I think it needs a catchy name though. I got it! They could name it after a breed of cattle to signify strength, like the Texas Longhorn.
IF MS were to change the way pages rendered with existing doctypes, millions of pages could/would render differently requiring businesses and individuals across the world to either re-vamp their websites or at least change the existing doctype to a new name that referred to the old rendering style.
So? This is a new version of a browser we're talking about. A business is dead nowadays if only supports IE. It means it already has a Firefox useragent detector, which serves up more or less standards compliant HTML. It is really not that hard to add a similar detection for the new IE version if it turned out to be standards following.
The situation is worse. Not the encoding of the information, but the information itself is copyrighted, and not even that, but parts of it aswell. This is a technical impossibility to make work right.
Some questions are simply wrong. Asking "why" presupposes a reason and in a lot of cases there isn't one (on the level people are looking for - people still don't seem to accept the possibility that humanity's whole existence did not serve a higher purpose).
Personally, I'm viewing philosophers as the stepping stone between religion and science. You see, at the dawn of human civilization humans started asking questions: the first (incredibly bad) way of answering them was religion. Some people were not satisfied with the way religion answers them, so they went into the direction of philosophy. Some people went into the direction of science to try to answer questions. Religion and philosophy are flawed ways of finding things out.
But, let's not kid ourselves, it is breaking real legitimate laws.
Last time I've checked, distributing information on from whom to get a certain piece of a file is not against any law in Sweden, the same way it is not against the law to sell someone a firearm that could be used to kill another human being in the USA.
There's a certain crowd that believes that piracy is somehow noble.
I find piracy highly immoral. Plundering on the seas and taking over ships near certain parts of Africa results in losses of life and property. Of course I know that you were talking about copyright infringement, but I just wanted to hilight the fact that using the wrong expressions can cloud an issue and mislead people. There is no such thing as piracy of copyrighted works. There is no such thing as intellectual property, except as a misleading umbrella term to refer to copyright, patent and trademark law under one title.
There's a certain crowd that believes that piracy is somehow noble. This is nonsense. It's not the worse thing in the world, but it is definitely a crime.
I think people should question laws more often. A law in the best case is the codified morality of society's majority, while still respecting the minority. In the worst case it is a tool of power, for those in power. There is nothing inherently moral about laws and immoral about committing a crime. A lot of unjust laws have been created over time and some are still in existence today. It is enough if we think about the 19th century's slavery related laws: could we claim that it was immoral for a black person to break the law when he/she sought freedom?
I don't think copyright law is based on morality, but I don't think it is a strongly immoral law either. I would say it is immoral to the extent a particular person values the freedom of information.
Copyright violation is a violation of someone's property rights. It might not be as bad as stealing someone's car, but it is stealing, and people that make piracy their business are still criminals.
Copyright deals with information, regardless of how the information manifests as atoms. Property is of atoms, tangible material or of a part of tangible material. Stealing is undefined on information, because stealing can only manifest itself on property, which information is not. You cannot steal information in the sense that you relocate material under your own control and deprive someone else of those same atoms. Copyright infringement is a civil matter in a lot of countries around the world.
Additionally, as a software developer those are *my* property rights that are being violated some of the time. If I want my software to go out as freeware or open source, I'll do so, but no one has the right to just take something of mine for free that I only offered them for sale. That's just theft.
You do not have property rights on information, that is an impossibility. Information cannot be taken from you, so that no longer have it unless you lose all physical representation of that information, including the copy that exists in your brain. What you describe as something taken from you in reality is information that a third party transmitted to a fourth party, information on how one person may align bits in his storage equipment.
We have things called rights, which are basically ideas that we strongly believe make for a better society. These rights evolved over human history and there is nothing in them that is inherently obvious. Specifically, private property in relation to material turned out to be a good idea for the human species. It very well might be that private property is entirely undesirable for another sentient species, because for example that species is much more hive minded.
Someone had the idea to try to apply property terminology to information, so copyright was born (I'm not suggesting that the
He did more than just plan to break the law. He attempted to.
Attempting to break the law is not against the law, unless there is specifically a law that makes it a crime for you to attempt to break the law (and convict you even if you don't succeed).
Copyright infringement is not a criminal offense for a good reason, that would get you automatically prosecuted. It is breaking the law only if a.) the act of copying takes place b.) it is not fair use c.) the copyright owner does not give you permission d.) the copyright owner sues you for it and wins the court case.
It just seems ridiculous to me that this man admits doing everything he needed to do to commit copyright infringement
Again,the matter is not something that would get prosecuted automatically, nor should it be. If someone copies a song and the copyright owner never sues for it, in the eye of the law it is perfectly legal and deserves no punishment. There is a huge difference between a criminal case like attempted murder where even the attempt is prosecuted and between a copyright case where you're saying that it is ridiculous that an attempt is not prosecuted, which in order to realistically work would automatically mean making copyright infringement a criminal offense.
It decreased the size of the program code, made the code more modular, faster, made possible to write good unit tests for it and decrease bug count per LOC, all in all rewarding the developer and user with a more stable, smaller, faster and more maintainable codebase.
What GPLv2 does in spirit, GPLv3 does in spirit, but also in a court.
The Tivo example is not about the availability of source code, because that is a must, but about the ability to be able to change the source code. Tivo violated the spirit of GPLv2 when they created their device in such a way that it can only run their signed versions (and their users can't have the key). The problem is that this aspect of the license is not really enforceable in a court, so thus GPLv3 was created. It just spells out specifically that the Tivo case is prohibited with GPL licensed code, because it blocks your freedom to modify code.
The problem with proportional voting and accommodating small parties with narrow agendas is that you're going to be politicizing legitimizing the message and empowering people on the fringe with extremist views.
As opposed to empowering major parties with extremist views? I'll take that deal any day. The fact that the USA is governed effectively by two parties means that no matter how bad those parties get, they will still be in power. There is no way to get your opinion represented if, for example your views on foreign policy differ from the famously similar views of the two parties.
Don't disrupt a 200+ year old system because you don't like George Bush.
This 200+ year old system was brilliant when it was created, but mainly because it gave some power to the people as opposed to systems elsewhere in the world. The problem is, it has a built-in tendency to create two parties with a more or less 50 percent split barring small fluctuations. This is due to the nature of the winner gets everything scheme. This presents a very large barrier of entry for new parties. You make the mistake of equating small parties with fringe and large parties with mainstream. This is due to your snapshot way of thinking of the parliamentary system while you should be factoring in time aswell. For a democracy to function it is absolutely necessary to have some recourse against an offending party. It is not enough that you don't want to vote for a certain party, you need to have an _alternative_ aswell. Small parties can grow by time into mainstream parties, but only if the parliamentary system allows for it. It is true that some of the small parties would be extremist ones, but of course because of that they would never grow into a large party either. These parties would also help in cleaning out the extremists from the government/mainstream/bigger parties. But of course, not _all_ small parties represent fringe groups. Some were just never given a chance to grow into a large party. They couldn't enter the parliamentary system because the barrier of entry is in double digits. If the barrier of entry would be in single digits (that is, let's say 5% for the sake of example), they would gain media coverage and some power. They would have a say in Congress etc., they would have some seats in commissions and IF their conduct is judged to be good based on this small responsibility, they would grow into a larger party with more responsibility and this is how you would get recourse and accountability. This would mean that if the democrat or republican party does not perform well enough, they could cease to exist as parties and this would be a good thing, because you would have more alternatives to select from and more importantly, more capable people in government than the republicans OR the democrats. Think of the small parties as a breeding ground for your future government. It is a way to bring in change. Without this, the situation just slowly deteriorates and the two ruling parties learn how to cooperate in the shadows. Choice is severely reduced.
In the US, this means that anti-abortion parties, libertarians, socialists will begin to wield real political power.
Indeed, but if they represent some percentage of the population who voted for them then that is the right thing to do. Do not think though, that small parties would wield an excessive amount of power, they would need to gain much more support in that case and then they wouldn't be a small party anymore.
And although they won't win alot of seats, their power will be magnified because they will become swing votes.
This is the beauty of the whole thing. Under a reformed election system swing votes wouldn't have that much importance anymore. Sure, it still matters who gains the majority, and unlike your scenario of two major parties and one small, the case realistically would be some major parties and a lot of small ones. The extortio
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, look at me! I've got a few years worth of data! Now I can make wide reaching conclusions about the work of hundreds of scientists!
Temperature changes are well understood to happen more gradually than a few years. If the next decade would show cooling that still wouldn't mean anything about the long term trend. Short term reversals of some trends can and do happen. A volcano spewed sulfur into the atmosphere? Solar output decreased very slightly? And so on...
This doesn't invalidate the long term warming trend and the science behind global warming, at all.
...as it is clearly evident.
The closest thing of the "EU" definiton of rights is the European Convention on Human Rights. The first few sentences of the convention includes the descriptions of "universal", "fundamental" in relation with rights.
The grandparent post merely said that ultimately governments and the people are those who enforce rights, whether we consider them inalienable or not.
Every time MS vs. EU is discussed on slashdot someone drags this stupid argument out of the closet.
MS would be very, very screwed if they would try to do anything like this. Let me put things into perspective:
The EU area has a GPD of $14.51 trillion, while MS has a revenue of around $51 billion, globally. The EU has the power of the police, government, military behind them which can seize MS's assets and if MS decides to pull out of EU they would leave billions in assets behind. If events reach that point, EU given the national security clauses in copyright conventions would simply suspend MS copyright in Europe while Europe moves to Linux/BSD/Solaris at a hugely accelerated pace. Given that the EU is the largest economy block in the world, everyone else would be forced to use those open technologies and MS would find itself with a pretty minimal market share in a few years.
Even Microsoft isn't this stupid to make a move anything like this.
Democracy is actually never perfect, but by any definition you cannot say that the civil war in the USA started one that was better what people had elsewhere in the world at that time. Muslim women in 1861, since the 7th century actually, had more rights than western woman. They could own property and had some individual existence, not totally dependent on their husband. After the civil war in the USA, it is true that the 14th amendment was passed and technically negroes were free, a reordering took place in the 1870s, where a lot of blacks were forced into semi-slave conditions with actual legal backing from the southern states. Land that was given to freed slaves was taken back and the 14th amendment became a way for corporations to grab more power instead of a guarantee of rights for black people. Out of nearly 300 court cases that invoked the 14th amendment, only 18 or so had to do with black people, the rest were about corporations and them being a "legal person".
The rights of women didn't change until the early 20th century, before that they couldn't own property, couldn't vote and essentially women were considered subjugated to their husbands.
The rule of corporations and the dual party structure where both parties are catering to the business interests became especially strong after the civil war. Workers were striking in record numbers and record times and a lot of those strikes were crushed in a violent way by federal military forces. Unionization was prevented with underhanded tactics in a lot of cases.
The aftermath of the civil war paved the way for the political and corporate structure that exists today. The focus shifted in politics from real issues to "moral values" and although the process began with the "Jacksonian democracy", this way of doing politics has solidified and as one observer noted in the era: Corporate greed and corporate welfare thrives in the USA since that era, while the average person is told to take care of themselves. The political structure that poisons the current american politics took hold at that time, masking the striking similarity between the two parties by focusing on totally unimportant issues.
All in all, this paints a picture more of a plutocracy than a democracy.
What you call mob greed in civilized countries is considered to be the reason why we live in a society.
This viewpoint and it's history in the USA is not suprising however, as anyone who has ever taken a look at the origins and establishment of the USA must have noticed it's upper class roots, the control this upper class exercises and the repecussions of the aforementioned to democratic values.
While I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but there are quantitative differences between the thinking of a country like Japan and for example the USA. In Japan, they did have the foresight to make their systems IPv6 ready, so maybe just our expectations are too low? I'd rather tell people what to do than to make excuses in the technology/politics field referring to Joe Sixpack who allegedly wouldn't understand or care.
This is a good reminder how you're supposed to dig down to the raw data and validate that. I remember reading in one of Richard Feynman's books about a similar case, some conclusion or data appeared well supported, because a lot of the research papers were supportive of the idea, but it turned out that they derived what they said based on a single source.
The case here is similar, it's a good reminder how science is about data, validation and facts not about authority. You're supposed to check your data, check your facts and try to avoid making implicit assumptions.
...at least according to an earlier slashdot article. In a lot of dreams you're simply dealing with uncomfortable situations. It seems like a pretty useless thing to interpret dreams. They are only relevant to the given person anyway and totally useless for a third party, because no conclusions should be drawn on them.
No, actually CO2 and global temperature are like a couple making love. When one of them makes the first gentle push, the other reacts, which in turn causes a bigger push.
And let me tell you something: you absolutely do not want to get caught between these two deadly lovers, because their love is destructive from our point of view. (And I guess I'm totally missing the target audience here on slashdot with a sex analogy.)
I think there were studies done to show that using QoS on an ISP level is not cost effective compared to just upgrading to more capacity. On an ISP level, you just got to have the equipment necessary to handle the traffic on your network, there is no working around of that. Comcast must know this, so they have an ulterior motive in pushing QoS and differentiationg content from content. They might use this as a prelude to introduce tiered pricing. This just goes to show why net neutrality is necessary.
I challenge you to bring 5 mainstream articles each six months apart from the past 10 years.
...but mandatory xkcd.
Oh wait...
The situation is worse. Not the encoding of the information, but the information itself is copyrighted, and not even that, but parts of it aswell. This is a technical impossibility to make work right.
This is precisely why we believe in the guy up in the clouds who pulls the strings behind the curtains!
Oh wait...
Evolving towards science.
Some questions are simply wrong. Asking "why" presupposes a reason and in a lot of cases there isn't one (on the level people are looking for - people still don't seem to accept the possibility that humanity's whole existence did not serve a higher purpose).
Personally, I'm viewing philosophers as the stepping stone between religion and science. You see, at the dawn of human civilization humans started asking questions: the first (incredibly bad) way of answering them was religion. Some people were not satisfied with the way religion answers them, so they went into the direction of philosophy. Some people went into the direction of science to try to answer questions. Religion and philosophy are flawed ways of finding things out.
Last time I've checked, distributing information on from whom to get a certain piece of a file is not against any law in Sweden, the same way it is not against the law to sell someone a firearm that could be used to kill another human being in the USA.
I find piracy highly immoral. Plundering on the seas and taking over ships near certain parts of Africa results in losses of life and property. Of course I know that you were talking about copyright infringement, but I just wanted to hilight the fact that using the wrong expressions can cloud an issue and mislead people. There is no such thing as piracy of copyrighted works. There is no such thing as intellectual property, except as a misleading umbrella term to refer to copyright, patent and trademark law under one title.
I think people should question laws more often. A law in the best case is the codified morality of society's majority, while still respecting the minority. In the worst case it is a tool of power, for those in power. There is nothing inherently moral about laws and immoral about committing a crime. A lot of unjust laws have been created over time and some are still in existence today. It is enough if we think about the 19th century's slavery related laws: could we claim that it was immoral for a black person to break the law when he/she sought freedom?
I don't think copyright law is based on morality, but I don't think it is a strongly immoral law either. I would say it is immoral to the extent a particular person values the freedom of information.
Copyright deals with information, regardless of how the information manifests as atoms. Property is of atoms, tangible material or of a part of tangible material. Stealing is undefined on information, because stealing can only manifest itself on property, which information is not. You cannot steal information in the sense that you relocate material under your own control and deprive someone else of those same atoms. Copyright infringement is a civil matter in a lot of countries around the world.
You do not have property rights on information, that is an impossibility. Information cannot be taken from you, so that no longer have it unless you lose all physical representation of that information, including the copy that exists in your brain. What you describe as something taken from you in reality is information that a third party transmitted to a fourth party, information on how one person may align bits in his storage equipment.
We have things called rights, which are basically ideas that we strongly believe make for a better society. These rights evolved over human history and there is nothing in them that is inherently obvious. Specifically, private property in relation to material turned out to be a good idea for the human species. It very well might be that private property is entirely undesirable for another sentient species, because for example that species is much more hive minded.
Someone had the idea to try to apply property terminology to information, so copyright was born (I'm not suggesting that the
Copyright infringement is not a criminal offense for a good reason, that would get you automatically prosecuted. It is breaking the law only if a.) the act of copying takes place b.) it is not fair use c.) the copyright owner does not give you permission d.) the copyright owner sues you for it and wins the court case.
Again,the matter is not something that would get prosecuted automatically, nor should it be. If someone copies a song and the copyright owner never sues for it, in the eye of the law it is perfectly legal and deserves no punishment. There is a huge difference between a criminal case like attempted murder where even the attempt is prosecuted and between a copyright case where you're saying that it is ridiculous that an attempt is not prosecuted, which in order to realistically work would automatically mean making copyright infringement a criminal offense.
I have seen refactoring in action aswell.
It decreased the size of the program code, made the code more modular, faster, made possible to write good unit tests for it and decrease bug count per LOC, all in all rewarding the developer and user with a more stable, smaller, faster and more maintainable codebase.
What GPLv2 does in spirit, GPLv3 does in spirit, but also in a court.
The Tivo example is not about the availability of source code, because that is a must, but about the ability to be able to change the source code. Tivo violated the spirit of GPLv2 when they created their device in such a way that it can only run their signed versions (and their users can't have the key). The problem is that this aspect of the license is not really enforceable in a court, so thus GPLv3 was created. It just spells out specifically that the Tivo case is prohibited with GPL licensed code, because it blocks your freedom to modify code.
As opposed to empowering major parties with extremist views? I'll take that deal any day. The fact that the USA is governed effectively by two parties means that no matter how bad those parties get, they will still be in power. There is no way to get your opinion represented if, for example your views on foreign policy differ from the famously similar views of the two parties.
This 200+ year old system was brilliant when it was created, but mainly because it gave some power to the people as opposed to systems elsewhere in the world. The problem is, it has a built-in tendency to create two parties with a more or less 50 percent split barring small fluctuations. This is due to the nature of the winner gets everything scheme. This presents a very large barrier of entry for new parties. You make the mistake of equating small parties with fringe and large parties with mainstream. This is due to your snapshot way of thinking of the parliamentary system while you should be factoring in time aswell. For a democracy to function it is absolutely necessary to have some recourse against an offending party. It is not enough that you don't want to vote for a certain party, you need to have an _alternative_ aswell. Small parties can grow by time into mainstream parties, but only if the parliamentary system allows for it. It is true that some of the small parties would be extremist ones, but of course because of that they would never grow into a large party either. These parties would also help in cleaning out the extremists from the government/mainstream/bigger parties. But of course, not _all_ small parties represent fringe groups. Some were just never given a chance to grow into a large party. They couldn't enter the parliamentary system because the barrier of entry is in double digits. If the barrier of entry would be in single digits (that is, let's say 5% for the sake of example), they would gain media coverage and some power. They would have a say in Congress etc., they would have some seats in commissions and IF their conduct is judged to be good based on this small responsibility, they would grow into a larger party with more responsibility and this is how you would get recourse and accountability. This would mean that if the democrat or republican party does not perform well enough, they could cease to exist as parties and this would be a good thing, because you would have more alternatives to select from and more importantly, more capable people in government than the republicans OR the democrats. Think of the small parties as a breeding ground for your future government. It is a way to bring in change. Without this, the situation just slowly deteriorates and the two ruling parties learn how to cooperate in the shadows. Choice is severely reduced.
Indeed, but if they represent some percentage of the population who voted for them then that is the right thing to do. Do not think though, that small parties would wield an excessive amount of power, they would need to gain much more support in that case and then they wouldn't be a small party anymore.
This is the beauty of the whole thing. Under a reformed election system swing votes wouldn't have that much importance anymore. Sure, it still matters who gains the majority, and unlike your scenario of two major parties and one small, the case realistically would be some major parties and a lot of small ones. The extortio
How long until someon registers rm.rf ?