"A $40k per year Linux admin is unheard of. The average is almost $90k, $10k more than the average Windows admin. That's great if you're a Linux guy, not so much if you're a business trying to save money"
So, on average a Linux admin gets about 12% more than his Windows counterpart.
Now: what happens if your single Linux sysadmin is able to manage, say, your servers, mail services and network routing while you need to hire a Windows admin, an Exchange admin and a network guy? What would that say to those "business trying to save money"?
Per hired person wages is only part of the equation.
"while Microsoft's prices and licensing schemes are ridiculous, they are a drop in the bucket compared to the real costs of doing business."
The front cost of the cart is a drop in the bucket. You should count on the driver, the horses, forage and the two months it takes going coast to coast... Or you could buy a truck.
One should consider how big the bucket becomes precisely because of depending on the Microsoft way of doing bussiness and its ecosystem.
"The problem is the vendors you outsource to often JUST DON'T CARE"
There is ALWAYS one thing a manager must take into consideration when outsourcing a service that I haven't seen pointed out almost NEVER.
* The goal of an external provider is always offer as little as it can go with and ask for as much money as it can go with. * The goal of an internal provider is always offer as much as it can asking for as little money as it can.
Somehow a lot of managers don't seem to get this simple fact straight.
"And who would provide support for the "OSS solution" hmmm?"
IBM, Oracle, Red Hat or HP, among others. Don't they seem big enough names to you?
"The thing nobody seems to get when they say "just use FOSS" is that the cost of the software is so low as to be inconsequential especially on large scale contracts like this."
A few post above this, you have a real example: $2 millions out of $90. More than 2% is quite affordable but certainly not inconsequential: $2 millions are still $2 millions. And given all the other servitudes that closed source bring to the table, specially lock-in, you can bet that there's hidden much more than a 2% in future savings.
"the cost of retraining and hiring those capable of managing the new system"
That's a one time cost that will only grow with time. And even then, almost *any* other system will have lower retraining costs if the need arises again to migrate, and just this is another deterrent for companies to behave badly.
What if instead of we talking about a migration from Microsoft to whatever it was the case of a migration from, say, Solaris to Red Hat, or Red Hat to Suse, or Debian to HP, or HP to FreeBSD, or Solaris to AIX or, in general, from anything to anything *except* Microsoft? Don't you think migration costs would be *lower*? Don't you think that Microsoft knowing that once they have you, you will face quite significant costs to migrate away gives them a strong position to squeeze their current customers?
"Linux gurus don't work cheap!"
They are valuable while not looked for in big numbers. What did you expect? Start hiring them in big numbers and you will see their wages go down.
"converting the bazillion Excel macros and specialized apps and other costs that bite you in the ass"
Another one time cost.
"That is why companies, and yes governments are companies"
Yes, but they are not "charted" for the biggest monetary benefits for next quarter but for the biggest social benefits on the long run. Exactly like with other big transformations (roads, early space innovation, telecommunications...) it's specially needed for the government to open the path and pave the road because private companies are so locked within their current local optima that they will never go out by themselves.
"as the Swiss found out the hard way."
What the Swiss found is that closed source companies are the current 'statu quo' and have lots of money avaliable to preserve it.
"Sure, we could save some up-front money to Microsoft"
Of course, you would save 100% of use licences since using open source software you don't pay use licenses *at all*.
"but some of it would still go to Red Hat (all production Linux servers run RHEL, as CentOS is authorized only for test environments)"
Not some money, but some *other* money. Well, if you want support from Microsoft, you still have to pay it apart from use licenses too. Rates from Microsoft and Red Hat regarding support are basically the same, so you are at odds here -and you are still in front since you didn't pay for use licenses.
And then, public government is there to think about overall society benefit, isn't it? Even if now only Red Hat could bring proper advanced support for their products, if they are taking too large a profit margin what do you think that would happen? Support contracts at the State level are not peanuts and everybody is in the position to give proper support on Red Hat. Or any open source program for that matter. And then again, being Red Hat both open source and unix-like, it works lightyears better on integration with other solutions and with lightyears less risk of lock-in. You don't like Red Hat? OK, there's Suse, or Debian, or Ubuntu, or even FreeBSD and you can change to them with only minor transition costs.
Now, who can give advanced support on Windows but Microsoft? Where can you go appart from Microsoft when you don't like Microsoft without incurring large migration costs?
And that's exactly the point: Microsoft's basic strategy is based on lock-in, which being a variant of monopoly we all now what it does to the customers. And it's obvious both from common sense and past experience that it won't be any better tomorrow, so while meaning a large and expensive exercise, the sooner you break Microsoft's lock in, the more money you will be saving long term.
"the admins would have to be retrained or replaced at rates that run higher than the existing ones. "
You mentioned that rates were about 1:1.2 but, what about serviceability? Because if each Unix/Linux guy can bring to the table more than 1:1.2 when compared to Windows ones (and that's usually the case in my experience), you are getting savings *even* at a higher individual hiring costs. And then again, why do you think Unix/Linux guys get better wages? I'll tell you: on one hand because they diserve it (or else no one would hire them at such cost mark) on the other hand because of relative scarcity. Well, what do you think that will happen -and happen *fast*, with regards to scarcity if it's acknowledged that Unix/Linux guys are wanted in big numbers and payed over market average, specially if Windows guys needs start to decline?
"I then invite you to be the first person infected by a multiple drug resistant bacteria. You can then use your wealth to find a cure."
This is *already* happening. People in Third World is dying by the tens of thousands from diseases that are cured with ease in First World.
Even in First World, go have a look at statistics about hospitalary infections (those caused by your multiresistant bacteria) rates between top notch private hospitals and ghetto-like ones. Same for surgical practices.
Oh! and even if it's a new illness (think AIDS on its first years) maybe the wealthy will eventually die, but in that case so will do the poor, and want you bet who has, even in that case, the better chances?
Again, it can be sociopathic, it can be unethical, but it's plentily reasonable to accept nasty things as a way to become a wealthy and powerful person.
>> what's unreasonable or ilogical about looking for somebody's own pocket? > It is the height of irrationality to pursue short term profits by risking the future health of your own society.
Pardon me!? The only rational position is cover my ass and the hell with everybody else. Looking after "the future health of your own society" is ethical, is laudable, is the proper thing to do but it is a result of our evolution as social animals and it is not rational.
"It is the height of irrationality to act as if you are isolated from the society around you."
Who the hell talks about isolation here!? The thread is about killing *people*; taking the money from *people*; fucking down *people* so someone and his family gains a privileged position *within* a society. Can you get any less isolation than that? Acting like that can be designated "the height of sociopathy" if you want to, but it's certainly neither "acting as if isolated" nor "acting irrationaly" (since there's an obvious rationale: stuff is limited, so I deal with scarcity by insuring I am not the one that will suffer it).
"In some ways, the wealthy are more dependent on others than the rest of us, because of their huge need to consume."
I strongly disagree that the wealthy ones have a "huge need to consume". Both Maslow and the facts seem to disprobe that: the really wealthy are well beyond consumism (on one hand, once you get to the "two jets status"*1, there's not so much else you can get; on the other, there's a lot of rich men that show clear signs of personal frugality). Take Bill Gates as a paradigm (of the behaviour of many others): he has been much more looking for personal recognition (the Bill and Mellinda Gates Foundation) and power (i.e. his presence at Davos) than consumism (after reaching the "two jets" status).
But let's accept that wealthy people are much more dependent on others than average. OK: now they can either suplicate the help from others or they can *impose* and *abuse* the others onto helping them, since they have the means to choose any of the two strategies. Now, which do you think is the more successful, and thus rational, strategy? (hint#1: if you suplicate you can be answered "yes" or "no"; when you impose and abuse, you can only be answered "yes". hint#2: I think it was Churchill the one saying "never bribe when you can blackmail").
"I suspect your definition of reason is devoid of any real sense of ethics or morals."
You can bet it. Since when reason had anything to do with ethics or morals?
*1 "Two jets status": Jets are known requiring relatively long maintenance stops. The "two jets status" is reached when you are whealty enough to own not only one but two of them, the second one to cover maintenance stops for the first one. It is meant not to be taken necesarily literally but to somewhat comically to mean rich beyond any individual need.
The article you point out says nothing to answer the question. If any, the lasts paragraphs insinuate that USA government is not having problems rising debt (or else, the interest rates would grow up).
" Why drag hundreds of thousands of pounds of ordinance to a drop zone when your ICBM can deliver 10x more power from thousands of miles away?"
Exactly because of what they still maintain the B-52. A B-52 you can put it on parking, on 1-hour alert, on fly... all this can take hours -dearly needed when what you really want is calling them home without launching their bombs.
An ICBM... you just basically press the button and there you have the apocalypse.
"If it eventually kills you and your family what's reasonable and logical about it in the long run?"
Eventually you will be dead anyway. And in the meantime, rich people and their families enjoy better standard of living and have better future perspectives. You can bet that in a world where the life of the rich and powerful is at risk, the life of the not so rich is a hell.
"Someone is bound to say something like; No, No, No, the dollar is god [...] yes feed them grass and I don't care about your stank profits"
Why do you think there's any difference?
I bet you that those congressmen that won't let pass an antibiotic-free meat bill because they follow the money god will buy for themselves high quality grass-fed beef....And they can do it because they have the money, so their faith shows to hold merit!
"Or is it that those who rule us have sacrificed Reason and Logic on the Altar of the Mighty Dollar?"
What have you smoked? Those who rule apply Reason and Logic in very efficient ways, only to their own interests, but what's unreasonable or ilogical about looking for somebody's own pocket?
"If a group like the NAACP had tried the same stunts in a more dictatorial country, say Iran or Cuba, how long would they have lasted? How long would an actual organization survive with their leaders constantly arrested, tried and executed with in a week of founding the organization?"
South Africa's apartheid.
Since Mandela was jailed for 27 years, there you have a lower limit.
"Perhaps you are confusing the difference between a RIOT and a PROTEST."
Perhaps that's exactly the point.
That now you have riots and protests when in the past any protest could easily end up in a riot.
Think of "the father of all riots", the French revolution. Don't you think that France would still be a monarchy if all that happened were mere "protests"?
It is said that war is diplomacy by other means. Heck, the only power of diplomacy is that everybody knows that if it fails it will end up in a war.
Just the same, those in power have no interest on anything that doesn't endanger their own heads (if they did, probably a protest wouldn't be needed to start with). And now, those in power know that current "first world" societies are too apathetic or well positioned for a protest to mean a real danger for them so, who cares?
An old teacher of mine said that "it is very dificult to make the revolution on a full stomach". Two days ago there were a general strike in Spain that won't make any difference. On the other hand, you can bet the president of Ecuador will pay big attention to his country's situation now.
"No, that's exactly the meaning I intended. [...] Blind adherence to the rule of law is problematic."
I don't think so. That's what you said:
"The rule of law can only be respected when the law is just"
But "rule of law" means, specifically, abiding by the law even if you think it is unjust or somehow hurts you (dura lex, sed lex).
So, basically, what you said is "white can only be white when it is black". It just makes no sense.
Given that you also said "This country wouldn't even *exist* if the rebels hadn't chosen to override the rule of law in favor of fighting for their freedoms" then, what you wanted to say is that you don't think "rule of law" should be a basic principle of justice at all, since you abide by neither the 'dura lex sed lex' part (you think that law shouldn't always be accepted "just" because of it being law) nor the 'Nemo est supra legis' one (since you consider that -at least, fighters for freedom are above stablished laws).
"The rule of law can only be respected when the law is just"
I don't think "rule of law" means what you think it means.
"Rule of law" is expressed basically in two latin aphorisms: 1) 'Dura lex, sed lex' (the law may be harsh, but it's still the law) 2) 'Nemo est supra legis' (nobody is above the law)
Slashdot Mirror
"A $40k per year Linux admin is unheard of. The average is almost $90k, $10k more than the average Windows admin. That's great if you're a Linux guy, not so much if you're a business trying to save money"
So, on average a Linux admin gets about 12% more than his Windows counterpart.
Now: what happens if your single Linux sysadmin is able to manage, say, your servers, mail services and network routing while you need to hire a Windows admin, an Exchange admin and a network guy? What would that say to those "business trying to save money"?
Per hired person wages is only part of the equation.
"while Microsoft's prices and licensing schemes are ridiculous, they are a drop in the bucket compared to the real costs of doing business."
The front cost of the cart is a drop in the bucket. You should count on the driver, the horses, forage and the two months it takes going coast to coast... Or you could buy a truck.
One should consider how big the bucket becomes precisely because of depending on the Microsoft way of doing bussiness and its ecosystem.
"The problem is the vendors you outsource to often JUST DON'T CARE"
There is ALWAYS one thing a manager must take into consideration when outsourcing a service that I haven't seen pointed out almost NEVER.
* The goal of an external provider is always offer as little as it can go with and ask for as much money as it can go with.
* The goal of an internal provider is always offer as much as it can asking for as little money as it can.
Somehow a lot of managers don't seem to get this simple fact straight.
"And who would provide support for the "OSS solution" hmmm?"
IBM, Oracle, Red Hat or HP, among others. Don't they seem big enough names to you?
"The thing nobody seems to get when they say "just use FOSS" is that the cost of the software is so low as to be inconsequential especially on large scale contracts like this."
A few post above this, you have a real example: $2 millions out of $90. More than 2% is quite affordable but certainly not inconsequential: $2 millions are still $2 millions. And given all the other servitudes that closed source bring to the table, specially lock-in, you can bet that there's hidden much more than a 2% in future savings.
"the cost of retraining and hiring those capable of managing the new system"
That's a one time cost that will only grow with time. And even then, almost *any* other system will have lower retraining costs if the need arises again to migrate, and just this is another deterrent for companies to behave badly.
What if instead of we talking about a migration from Microsoft to whatever it was the case of a migration from, say, Solaris to Red Hat, or Red Hat to Suse, or Debian to HP, or HP to FreeBSD, or Solaris to AIX or, in general, from anything to anything *except* Microsoft? Don't you think migration costs would be *lower*? Don't you think that Microsoft knowing that once they have you, you will face quite significant costs to migrate away gives them a strong position to squeeze their current customers?
"Linux gurus don't work cheap!"
They are valuable while not looked for in big numbers. What did you expect? Start hiring them in big numbers and you will see their wages go down.
"converting the bazillion Excel macros and specialized apps and other costs that bite you in the ass"
Another one time cost.
"That is why companies, and yes governments are companies"
Yes, but they are not "charted" for the biggest monetary benefits for next quarter but for the biggest social benefits on the long run. Exactly like with other big transformations (roads, early space innovation, telecommunications...) it's specially needed for the government to open the path and pave the road because private companies are so locked within their current local optima that they will never go out by themselves.
"as the Swiss found out the hard way."
What the Swiss found is that closed source companies are the current 'statu quo' and have lots of money avaliable to preserve it.
"Sure, we could save some up-front money to Microsoft"
Of course, you would save 100% of use licences since using open source software you don't pay use licenses *at all*.
"but some of it would still go to Red Hat (all production Linux servers run RHEL, as CentOS is authorized only for test environments)"
Not some money, but some *other* money. Well, if you want support from Microsoft, you still have to pay it apart from use licenses too. Rates from Microsoft and Red Hat regarding support are basically the same, so you are at odds here -and you are still in front since you didn't pay for use licenses.
And then, public government is there to think about overall society benefit, isn't it? Even if now only Red Hat could bring proper advanced support for their products, if they are taking too large a profit margin what do you think that would happen? Support contracts at the State level are not peanuts and everybody is in the position to give proper support on Red Hat. Or any open source program for that matter. And then again, being Red Hat both open source and unix-like, it works lightyears better on integration with other solutions and with lightyears less risk of lock-in. You don't like Red Hat? OK, there's Suse, or Debian, or Ubuntu, or even FreeBSD and you can change to them with only minor transition costs.
Now, who can give advanced support on Windows but Microsoft? Where can you go appart from Microsoft when you don't like Microsoft without incurring large migration costs?
And that's exactly the point: Microsoft's basic strategy is based on lock-in, which being a variant of monopoly we all now what it does to the customers. And it's obvious both from common sense and past experience that it won't be any better tomorrow, so while meaning a large and expensive exercise, the sooner you break Microsoft's lock in, the more money you will be saving long term.
"the admins would have to be retrained or replaced at rates that run higher than the existing ones. "
You mentioned that rates were about 1:1.2 but, what about serviceability? Because if each Unix/Linux guy can bring to the table more than 1:1.2 when compared to Windows ones (and that's usually the case in my experience), you are getting savings *even* at a higher individual hiring costs. And then again, why do you think Unix/Linux guys get better wages? I'll tell you: on one hand because they diserve it (or else no one would hire them at such cost mark) on the other hand because of relative scarcity. Well, what do you think that will happen -and happen *fast*, with regards to scarcity if it's acknowledged that Unix/Linux guys are wanted in big numbers and payed over market average, specially if Windows guys needs start to decline?
"I then invite you to be the first person infected by a multiple drug resistant bacteria. You can then use your wealth to find a cure."
This is *already* happening. People in Third World is dying by the tens of thousands from diseases that are cured with ease in First World.
Even in First World, go have a look at statistics about hospitalary infections (those caused by your multiresistant bacteria) rates between top notch private hospitals and ghetto-like ones. Same for surgical practices.
Oh! and even if it's a new illness (think AIDS on its first years) maybe the wealthy will eventually die, but in that case so will do the poor, and want you bet who has, even in that case, the better chances?
Again, it can be sociopathic, it can be unethical, but it's plentily reasonable to accept nasty things as a way to become a wealthy and powerful person.
"What's logical about looking after one's own pocket when one will not live long?"
The fact that logics show that "not living long" is not the same than "dying right now".
>> what's unreasonable or ilogical about looking for somebody's own pocket?
> It is the height of irrationality to pursue short term profits by risking the future health of your own society.
Pardon me!? The only rational position is cover my ass and the hell with everybody else. Looking after "the future health of your own society" is ethical, is laudable, is the proper thing to do but it is a result of our evolution as social animals and it is not rational.
"It is the height of irrationality to act as if you are isolated from the society around you."
Who the hell talks about isolation here!? The thread is about killing *people*; taking the money from *people*; fucking down *people* so someone and his family gains a privileged position *within* a society. Can you get any less isolation than that? Acting like that can be designated "the height of sociopathy" if you want to, but it's certainly neither "acting as if isolated" nor "acting irrationaly" (since there's an obvious rationale: stuff is limited, so I deal with scarcity by insuring I am not the one that will suffer it).
"In some ways, the wealthy are more dependent on others than the rest of us, because of their huge need to consume."
I strongly disagree that the wealthy ones have a "huge need to consume". Both Maslow and the facts seem to disprobe that: the really wealthy are well beyond consumism (on one hand, once you get to the "two jets status"*1, there's not so much else you can get; on the other, there's a lot of rich men that show clear signs of personal frugality). Take Bill Gates as a paradigm (of the behaviour of many others): he has been much more looking for personal recognition (the Bill and Mellinda Gates Foundation) and power (i.e. his presence at Davos) than consumism (after reaching the "two jets" status).
But let's accept that wealthy people are much more dependent on others than average. OK: now they can either suplicate the help from others or they can *impose* and *abuse* the others onto helping them, since they have the means to choose any of the two strategies. Now, which do you think is the more successful, and thus rational, strategy? (hint#1: if you suplicate you can be answered "yes" or "no"; when you impose and abuse, you can only be answered "yes". hint#2: I think it was Churchill the one saying "never bribe when you can blackmail").
"I suspect your definition of reason is devoid of any real sense of ethics or morals."
You can bet it. Since when reason had anything to do with ethics or morals?
*1 "Two jets status": Jets are known requiring relatively long maintenance stops. The "two jets status" is reached when you are whealty enough to own not only one but two of them, the second one to cover maintenance stops for the first one. It is meant not to be taken necesarily literally but to somewhat comically to mean rich beyond any individual need.
"As a Brit, I follow the US space programme with intereset, because it's the best hope the human race has for getting off this rock."
Currently our best hope to get off this rock is in the biologists', geologists' and physicists' hands, not NASA.
"And a 20% tariff on all goods entering the country."
Good luck with this when everybody else starts charging a 20% tax on USA products too.
"See Is Debt OK? here"
The article you point out says nothing to answer the question. If any, the lasts paragraphs insinuate that USA government is not having problems rising debt (or else, the interest rates would grow up).
An on top of that, USA has nukes, lots of them.
" Why drag hundreds of thousands of pounds of ordinance to a drop zone when your ICBM can deliver 10x more power from thousands of miles away?"
Exactly because of what they still maintain the B-52. A B-52 you can put it on parking, on 1-hour alert, on fly... all this can take hours -dearly needed when what you really want is calling them home without launching their bombs.
An ICBM... you just basically press the button and there you have the apocalypse.
"The stupidity of including
[...]
But wait! The sophistication of the virus
[...]
But then, Iranians are used to having people not trust them"
Yeah, sure, and you never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line, blah, blah...
Duh... They were both poisoned.
"If it eventually kills you and your family what's reasonable and logical about it in the long run?"
Eventually you will be dead anyway. And in the meantime, rich people and their families enjoy better standard of living and have better future perspectives. You can bet that in a world where the life of the rich and powerful is at risk, the life of the not so rich is a hell.
"We live in a suburb of New York City [...] Our beef and chicken is raised walking around eating grass and bugs"
And pesticides, and heavy metals, and policyclic aromatic hydrocarbures. But, hey, if that makes you feel better...
"Someone is bound to say something like; No, No, No, the dollar is god [...] yes feed them grass and I don't care about your stank profits"
Why do you think there's any difference?
I bet you that those congressmen that won't let pass an antibiotic-free meat bill because they follow the money god will buy for themselves high quality grass-fed beef. ...And they can do it because they have the money, so their faith shows to hold merit!
"Evolution is an automated design process with a more complete specification than manual engineering."
Err... is that a new way to say "intelligent design"?
"Or is it that those who rule us have sacrificed Reason and Logic on the Altar of the Mighty Dollar?"
What have you smoked? Those who rule apply Reason and Logic in very efficient ways, only to their own interests, but what's unreasonable or ilogical about looking for somebody's own pocket?
"If a group like the NAACP had tried the same stunts in a more dictatorial country, say Iran or Cuba, how long would they have lasted? How long would an actual organization survive with their leaders constantly arrested, tried and executed with in a week of founding the organization?"
South Africa's apartheid.
Since Mandela was jailed for 27 years, there you have a lower limit.
"Perhaps you are confusing the difference between a RIOT and a PROTEST."
Perhaps that's exactly the point.
That now you have riots and protests when in the past any protest could easily end up in a riot.
Think of "the father of all riots", the French revolution. Don't you think that France would still be a monarchy if all that happened were mere "protests"?
It is said that war is diplomacy by other means. Heck, the only power of diplomacy is that everybody knows that if it fails it will end up in a war.
Just the same, those in power have no interest on anything that doesn't endanger their own heads (if they did, probably a protest wouldn't be needed to start with). And now, those in power know that current "first world" societies are too apathetic or well positioned for a protest to mean a real danger for them so, who cares?
An old teacher of mine said that "it is very dificult to make the revolution on a full stomach". Two days ago there were a general strike in Spain that won't make any difference. On the other hand, you can bet the president of Ecuador will pay big attention to his country's situation now.
"Are you deliberately misunderstanding my point?"
No. I'd say *you* misunderstood your own point. It's obvious what you try to say but what you *effectively* say is not what you try to say.
"my point is that the rule of law cannot continue when the law is unjust"
But then, what you say is that the rule of law is not a justice principle you find valuable, full stop.
There can't be such a thing as a "rule of law that is only valid when the law is just".
"...if anything would've changed had Parnelli Jones not lost a ball bearing in 1967."
Probably. It's another instance of the old motto: History is written by winners (and he lost).
"Some older motorbikes could be made to fire flames out of their exhaust"
Almost all sports motorbikes will exhaust flames when you aggresively reduce gear so the engine goes above the red line.
"Its awesome that it can run on diesel, biofuel, natural gas, or *LP*"
Yes, I indeed find awesome that it can run on old farted vinyls.
"No, that's exactly the meaning I intended. [...] Blind adherence to the rule of law is problematic."
I don't think so. That's what you said:
"The rule of law can only be respected when the law is just"
But "rule of law" means, specifically, abiding by the law even if you think it is unjust or somehow hurts you (dura lex, sed lex).
So, basically, what you said is "white can only be white when it is black". It just makes no sense.
Given that you also said "This country wouldn't even *exist* if the rebels hadn't chosen to override the rule of law in favor of fighting for their freedoms" then, what you wanted to say is that you don't think "rule of law" should be a basic principle of justice at all, since you abide by neither the 'dura lex sed lex' part (you think that law shouldn't always be accepted "just" because of it being law) nor the 'Nemo est supra legis' one (since you consider that -at least, fighters for freedom are above stablished laws).
"The rule of law can only be respected when the law is just"
I don't think "rule of law" means what you think it means.
"Rule of law" is expressed basically in two latin aphorisms:
1) 'Dura lex, sed lex' (the law may be harsh, but it's still the law)
2) 'Nemo est supra legis' (nobody is above the law)