You can appreciate the work ethic without subscribing to the religious view. After all, some of the hardest working communities (e.g. Asians or Jews) appreciate the value of hard work and diligence, and have nothing to do with Calvinism in the religious sense.
if OpenSSL had 5 pages of bugs so far... and was widely used in an ecosystem where the source was there, just imagine the nightmare of closed source projects...
patching 100 bugs on average introduces 3 new bugs. now i know bugs != security vulnerabilities. but bugs are why people complain about software stability.
also a 'vulnerability' bug has a black market value that is always going to be higher than bug bounties. however an old exploit has the added value of 'reporting' it after a new vulnerability is found and the old one is blamed perhaps by news of this 'old' vulnerability. it's a revolving door problem. back in 1997 i knew how to 'fix' broken open source ports tree applications, because i used freebsd and it was very buggy (though less buggy than the windows 95 machine i had).
as i see it the problem is marketing. to get people to buy computers they promote them as doing a lot of things that they can only just barely do. and often the code base is filled by people who don't care about quality and comprehensible coding. and for for profit they often take steps to make the code illegible as a so called security through obscurity (which never works for more than a few years).
A computer that has run for three years. That's so cute!
You are clubbing all the 1% into a single group. There's a study by Saez and Zucman of Berkley/LSE that talks about how clubbing the entire 1% into a single group is disingenuous -- The other wealth gapâ"the 1% vs the 0.01%.
Most of the 1% to
The surge in 1% is entirely attributable to the growth in capital of the
Most government policies favor the really rich and *punish* the hardworking upper middle classes. In fact, I would argue in favor of Reagan-esque tax policies for these folks, who are for the most part well educated, successful individuals in banking, law, medicine, technology, consulting and so on. These are the ones who are really building the economy, but the ones who are being punished by the government and vilified by the mass media who club them with the truly wealthy.
Imagine a successful husband and wife earning $150k/year, working in a white collar job (lawyers, doctors, consultants, IT -- take your pick). According to the IRS, making $343k/year puts you in the top 1% (by income). But what about wealth? Well, that's supposedly $8.4MM.
Some simple math will make it evident that a husband and wife earning (an average) of $171k for 40 years (assume raises and lower starter incomes are factored into the average) who save 15% of their annual income, with a starting principal of $10000 will have ~$5.4 MM at the end of their careers. Assume that they invested in a home that cost $300k early in their careers, whose value has gone up 5X in the 30 year time that they had to pay off the mortgage. Assume that they more or less maxed out their 401K, giving them $17,500.00/year for 40 years each, which is ~$1.4MM. At best, they have $8.4 MM, assuming market crashes, children's education, and life threatening diseases didn't wipe out their savings.
However, by virtue of having $8.4 MM, suddenly, these people are being placed in the *same* category as someone with enough capital to buy legislation or pay an army of Cravath lawyers. That is not factoring in any smart investing in what's been a pretty bullish run (minus the recent crisis) or basic fiscal conservatism.
[Just one more reason] to legalize and regulate.
I can see how this kind of story would support legalization (crimes against criminals often go unaddressed), but how would it support regulating? Is theft unusually common with unregulated crops, as opposed to regulated ones?
(Ignorance plea: Heh, it occurs to me that I don't even know what crops are regulated and what isn't. Maybe agriculture is already totally micromanaged by Washington; I sure hear enough stories of corruption (e.g. subsidies) within the topic!)
Smart engineering thinking. These are the details that make for verisimilitude.
Sad. A future that could never, ever be. Remember when the situation of Kubrick's 2001 seemed not only plausible, but likely?
Was that an ironic comment? It's SO hard to tell these days.
Hey! Look! We're all meta!
That's a fact.
Nobody dealin' with that winter, for rent.
You can extract the harvest via UAV.
Sometimes I think the war-on-people has an upside. This is how we're going to develop the tech to colonize other worlds. I think you just described a Martian farm from the year 2200.
Legalizing weed would take some money/power away from cartels which is always a good thing.
It's not a good thing, if your financial interests are aligned with the cartels.
If I'm on Al Capone's payroll and you ask for my opinion of the 21st Amendment, I'm going to say it's a bad idea.
It's perfect! Unsinkable? Unthinkable!
No Homer will ever be allowed, and all the regulators will be objective and unbowed!
The US president is a Spokesmodel.
The last vestiges of Presidential authority as actual executive were blown out of JFK's skull, 50 years ago. The real rulers have allowed the cosmetic changes of politics, without substantial challenge to policy or imperative.
That's why you can argue successfully to let fags into the imperial legions, but not if such legions should be withdrawn from the globe and disbanded.
False conservatism, false progressive/liberalism. Everybody in the US takes a hot shower and drives to the mall, on the burnt bodies and broken future of a million dead babies - hidden in Congo and Yemen and Indonesia and...
Your brain washing has been complete. You are now free to follow orders, citizen.
Don't forget about all the Bush admin people that lied us into the Iraq war. Lots of those folks were the ones that STARTED all these surveillance programs.
You have the same government that you started this century with.
They just changed spokesmodels - while you felt like you had a say in the matter... Your coup happened in many stages, over many decades - but defining moments happened with the Truman/Eisenhower/Kennedy years - with a decisive event in Nov 1963...
"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe
