Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Institutional hypocrisy (Score 1) 157

I agree with your main point, btw.

However, both on paper and from real-world experience, I dare to say that the judicative is the least troubled arm.

In most of Europe, the legislative and executive are pretty much identical and that bothers me to no end. Parliament passes laws and parliament elects the executive, and all the executives (ministers, etc.) are also members of parliament. These two arms are not seperated at all. The USA has the better system there, even though it is still imperfect in that the same parties exist in both.

If I were to re-write the political rules, I'd seperate the arms completely and make a law that political parties can be active in either the executive or the legistlative election processes, but not in both and any attempt to do so leads to immediate dissolution of the party in question with all assets seized and distributed to the poor.

Comment: Re:So much unnecessary trouble (Score 1) 320

by Tom (#47547949) Attached to: Satellite Images Show Russians Shelling Ukraine

If Putin were to back down and support a peaceful resolution whose outcome might not satisfy Russian nationalists, he could find himself out of power.

Highly unlikely. Putin is beloved by the majority of russians, because under his government economy and internal security have improved dramatically. Most russians remember the 1990s when people were shot in the streets regularily, the way you only see in some old movies about when the Mafia ruled in some US cities. Compared to that time, they live in paradise now, and many attribute this change to Putin. Don't expect him to be out of power anytime soon. As for the russian elite, a lot of them own their fortune to this change. Never mistake criticism for opposition. Especially among politicians and the rich, it is fairly common to complain loudly about someone and still support them when it matters, because all the complaining and seeming hostility is simply an attempt to move them on certain topics.

Comment: Re:So much unnecessary trouble (Score 1) 320

by Tom (#47547927) Attached to: Satellite Images Show Russians Shelling Ukraine

The last thing Putin wants is a country with a lot of relatives of Russians getting the EU treatment and finding out how nice it is to be out of their largely lawless, virtual dictatorship of a state.

You should update your propaganda-driven beliefs. I've got a russian girlfriend and I've been to Russia myself. At least for where I was (St. Petersburg), it looks much like any european city, except more beautiful (but that's a St. Petersburg special, they made very sure to keep all the old palaces and buildings in shape).

Crime was horrible in the 1990s, my girlfriend says, but here's why most russians actually love Putin: Since he became the top dog, things have been continuously improving. Crime is low, economy is good, of course nothing is perfect, but compared to previous times, they're pretty great.

From what I've seen in daily life, I don't see anything that would make them jealous of a random EU member country. Supermarkets are full of basically the same products I can buy here, everyone has a car, public transport is better than in some european cities, the streets are in good condition and clean, I felt safe both at day and at night.

Of course Putin doesn't want Ukraine to join the EU. But that they will all be able to suddenly buy bananas and thus run away from communism is 1990s stuff and long since outdated.

Comment: This is patently false. (Score 3, Interesting) 320

by boorack (#47547513) Attached to: Satellite Images Show Russians Shelling Ukraine

Russians published their satellite data and detailed radar records. Data clearly implicates Ukraine army. Interviews with locals who seen this incident seem to confirm russian version. Yet western media managed to black it out completely. Russians asked US and Ukraine to publish their data. US is hiding its satellite data and istead published some joke screenshots. Ukraine government went even further: their security services confiscated data from air traffic control (there was also some BBS news on this topic, yet I didn't bookmark link for it).

It's all about BRICS and petrodollar. US thinks Putin has to be removed at all costs in order to keep petrodollar ponzi scheme working. This is pretty good summary of this whole Ukraine debacle.

Comment: Re:Weakest Russia ever (Score 1) 320

by shutdown -p now (#47547387) Attached to: Satellite Images Show Russians Shelling Ukraine

Oh, and the other aspect of it is who is going to come to power if Putin steps away. If you asked me that question in 2011, I still had hopes that pro-western liberals had a chance (at least in a coalition with moderate nationalists). Now, though, I'd say that the people who will use the opportunity will be the ones like Strelkov and Borodai - and Putin will be a sane angel in comparison.

In fact, given that there is seemingly some bickering between Kremlin and DNR/LNR leaders, I would say that the most likely (as in, more likely than anything else - still rather unlikely in general) possibility of Putin being ousted at this point is if Strelkov and his guard escape Ukrainian forces, cross the border to Russia, and announce that they're heading for Moscow to punish the traitors who backstabbed them. There's already plenty of talk going around about how Putin is "betraying the Russian Spring" by refusing to commit full support to the rebels. If a charismatic figure like Strelkov would formally voice such a complaint, and have several thousand battle-hardened fighters standing behind him, I honestly don't know how that would go - except that there would be a rush of volunteers (from extreme nationalists, monarchists, maybe even some Stalinist-type communists) to his ranks.

Comment: Re:Weakest Russia ever (Score 1) 320

by shutdown -p now (#47547377) Attached to: Satellite Images Show Russians Shelling Ukraine

You missed the point. It will not take 2 or 5 or 10 years to get rid of him. If the economy crashes now (or in 5 years), he'll just blame the West (cuz sanctions), and will use it as an excuse to crack down on the "fifth column" and the "national traitors", that he already identified as the enemies in his speech earlier this year, even more. If it gets really tight, why, time for another war, nothing like some shooting to make sure people don't grumble too much about rising prices and lack of goods. Georgia, perhaps?

Comment: Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! (Score 1) 490

by HiThere (#47546873) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

The problem affecting the kernel appears to only be enabled with a specific set of optimizations, and only to matter for a specific class of programs.

Also, apparently the problem has actually been present for a number of iterations of the compiler, but a shift within the Linux kernel code has caused the compiler error to manifest. But the shift within the Linux kernel code was still valid C (C++?) code, so it was a compiler problem, even though it didn't affect most programs.

Comment: Re:Oe noes! "Naughty" language! (Score 1) 490

by HiThere (#47546847) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

I, personally, dislike swearing even when "sanitized".

OTOH, I do realize that this is my personal taste. I feel it makes the communication less clear.

OTTH, written communication lacks the richness of communication by speech. This means that there is no inherent channel corresponding to tone of voice. When someone uses swearing as a substitute for certain tones of speech, it's really hard to say there is a better option. The alternative work-arounds tend to be verbose. Also, swearing via the use of the term "shit" appears to be something we inherited from our common ancestor with chimpanzees, because if they are taught to sign they will automatically use the term "shit" to describe persons and situations that they dislike.

Comment: Re:But what IS the point they're making? (Score 1) 299

You've gotten less that half-way through your last mammoth before it's no longer safe to eat, so now you gotta kill another.

Actually, you do have a point. So people don't do that.

Mammoths (and bison, and caribou/elk, and horses - to name some of the other usual suspects) are quite dangerous animals when they're full grown. And they are very protective of their young, until they get to a certain age.

So, going from the actual skeletal evidence, what it seems happened, repeatedly, was that hunting would target the yearling (or two-year) youngsters, separate them from the adults, kill and eat them. Getting to the infants through the adults is too dangerous, and getting the adults is too dangerous too. So you take out the middling ones.

Take out 50% of the yearlings (two-yearlings) every year for one generation, and you have halved the population. After five generations, the herds become small enough that they can't protect their infants so effectively ... and you get a populations crash.

Quoth the hunter : "But we never took out too many. We were hunting sustainably!"

Fishermen say the same. And they believe it's true. Population dynamics are not intuitive.

"You know, we've won awards for this crap." -- David Letterman

Working...