>success of a long-term project can be ensured through the procedures described in the source article: you set up a durable judicial system, and invest them with the power to require that the country uphold its end of the bargain, no matter how much its current political leaders might want to change course.
That's an abuse of the judicial system. Politicians are elected exactly because the voters perceive a need to change the execution of government's functions.
The thing is, you cannot beat human moral qualities with formalist means. People who come to power by raising hatred towards their political opponents will always find a way to subvert policies even if not cancel them.
Long-term policies should be established through consensus among all parties, not though legalistic bureaucracy.
Perhaps you don't think legalistic bureaucracy should matter, but the voters' representatives in Congress don't agree. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, government agencies must produce legalistic bureaucratic reasons for their actions; they may not act capriciously to suit the whims of political leaders or transient desires for a change.
Congress certainly has the power to change this if they want to. But without something like the APA, private businesses exposed to federal regulation would struggle to make any plans beyond the current US Presidential term. So they do not want to.
>Under the Administrative Procedure Act, government agencies must produce legalistic bureaucratic reasons for their actions; they may not act capriciously to suit the whims of political leaders or transient desires for a change.
Well, this is sort of against the spirit of the US constitution, at least as explained in the Federalist. I might even call it an abuse of the Legislative system.
I'm not speaking very confidently here, but by the spirit of it, the Congress should not do this much of micro-management of the Executive.
Surely the Congress should pass the laws which _prevent_ the Executive from doing stupid things, in particular collecting too much taxes, but it shouldn't really tell the Executive "do this, in this particular way".
To be honest, I suspect that the actual _reason_ every administration tries to undo as much of the actions of the previous administration as they can is because due to the amount of limits imposed on them by the Congress they they cannot do much else. Fighting the Congress is much harder than fighting the previous administration.
I seriously suspect that if the amount of regulation is decreased, it will actually be beneficial to long-term policy stability, because instead of fighting the decisions of the previous administration the current one would be busy with it's own projects.
There is no reason to do long term projects with public funds. Private companies are not subject to the vagaries of democracy and can plan as long-term as they want.
Except funding is not everything that's needed for long term projects. There are other resources - workforce, supply chain integrity, legal entitlements and approvals, etc, that are all contributing to "plannable delivery" of long-term projects. And quite a few of these are very much subject to the vagaries of democracy.
Unless, of course, you assume (the ideal to be) an entirely anarchist business environment where whoever-with-resources can do whatever. Democracy, though, is not that.
China benefited greatly from the US-led globalism order that's been going on since WWII.
Another way of saying it is China took the most advantage. And it has gone way overboard in taking advantage. So the backlash is expected and necessary.
Part of fixing things involve doing things that seem like it's destroying the order that the US created itself.
This precisely. What started out as a way of rewarding authorship (of text, software, or other things) has mainly become a way of extracting rent -- see the music, movie, and software industries. In the digital age, when the cost of making copies of such works is approximately zero, copyright law ceases to make sense.
Note that this does not mean you cannot make money selling software or software-related services. For example, game developers could still sell keys for online play on their servers even if they couldn't copyright the binaries.
Copyright law is hundreds of years old and originally was intended to prevent owner-operators of mechanical printing presses from printing and selling copies of some author's books without paying them or getting permission.
It was created when there was a scarcity of content, so state violence was used to encourage production of content.
But now we don't live in the age of scarcity of content. On the contrary, content creators are competing for a possibility to get into consumers' attention span and push their agenda (ads). Everything has changed.
Removing all copyright restriction will not decrease the amount of content available for a person through their lifetime even a few percent.
> originally was intended to prevent owner-operators of mechanical printing presses from printing and selling copies of some author's books without paying them or getting permission.
We agree that that was its initial stated intention.
However, what we have seen in practice is that it has resulted in the owner-operators of those machines banding together to restrict access to the machines unless authors sign exploitative contracts assigning their rights to the operators (which they interpret as "getting permission").
The world has changed substantially since the 1710 Statue of Anne; there's a thousand things that you could call the modern-day equivalent of mechanically printing a book, with myriad capital and operating costs and availability. Many ways an independent author or artist can publish their work are extremely cheap and effective. I'm relatively anti-copyright, but that doesn't mean that everyone currently benefiting from copyright law is rent-seeking in an exploitive way.
No it's not. GPL is quite the opposite. GPL means that "you own what you buy", which is the foundation of capitalism. You own what you buy, including programs, which you can buy, replicate, modify, and sell.
Due to the nature of software, especially in the 80s, it existed in both text and binary form, which made it easy to perverse the nature of selling software from selling code to selling binaries, and big companies went even further in their collusion with the government socialists by making even re-selling even your own binaries illegal.
GPL is just trying to fight this madness with its own weapon. The GPL is an attempt to go back to capitalism of small business owners and individual service providers.
Well, none of the implementations of Marxism in the XX century worked like this, so I dare to disagree.
Of course, you can always say that America is exceptional, and she will have "Marxism with American characteristics", just like China switched from true socialism to "socialism with Chinese characteristics", but would still recommend avoiding the word which associates with GULAG and mass starvation.
It's all bug fixes it seems. What is surprising is that so many bugs remain even after all this time and effort. And no, for the most part these are not the kinds of bugs that are squashed by a rewrite in Rust.
Things have changed quite a bit in the past 30 years!
I encourage you to peek at their changelog (https://www.sudo.ws/releases/changelog/) for more insight into why this project is still under active development.
Yes, because the federal government can't assume that everyone has an ID, since they don't issue a universal ID. Any attempt to fix the fact that Americans don't have universal federal identification has met stiff resistance from a variety of angles, from privacy proponents to religious nuts who think universal identification is the mark of the beast.
It ties into why we still have to register for the draft (despite not having a draft since the 70s, and being no closer to instituting one than any other western country), and why our best form of universal identification (the Social Security card) is a scrap of cardstock with the words "not to be used for identification" written on it.
So, there's no universal ID, it's illegal to mandate people have ID, and freedom of movement within the United States has been routinely upheld as a core freedom. Thus, no ID required for domestic flights.
It's a deep-seated cultural paranoia that the federal government is out to get us. Initially, the US tried to be a confederation like the EU or Canada, but it turned out that we needed slightly more federal power than that to stay as a unified country. But the tension between "loose coalition of independent states" and "unified government that grants some powers to the states" is a pretty fundamental theme throughout US politics.
It isn't paranoia, it's an actual thing that they have and continue to do. They regularly terrorize the people of the United States. Ask your nearest nonwhite citizen, they will tell you.
It's out to get you whether you have a credit card sized piece of plastic or not. Dying on that hill just creates so much wasted time and money for everyone.
Stop with the gaslighting. It's not paranoia when it's happening plain as day with an authoritarian regime arresting journalists, pointing guns at civilians, threatening retaliation by placing on lists for 1a-protected activities, and arresting people for not being white without a judicial warrant.
> deep-seated cultural paranoia that the federal government is out to get us.
And yet when the Federal government deploys paramilitaries to a city to do sweeps of everybody who isn't carrying papers, while also using 2nd-amendment lawful carry as a pretext to murder someone, those same people are very quiet.
Assuming illegal immigrants should be deported as they broke the law and the government has been doing since Obama, wouldn’t having a standardized national id like every other country in the world simplify things? People only have their passport as a national id is strange, as that’s for usage in other countries.
Where I’m from you carry it everywhere like a credit card.
And funnily enough, all legal immigrants in the USA have a national standardized id, it’s called the green card, so that makes it extra funny that citizens don’t have one.
I've been noticing the same category of oddity for a while now.
Bill Gates and a poorly thought out brainfart about vaccine microchips becoming a conspiracy, vs. Musk and an explicit plan with a funded company to make brain-computer interfaces to merge humans an AI met with barely a peep.
Government spying on all of us was an awful dystopian nightmare right up until Snowden showed us they already had been.
Conspiracy theorists claiming contrails changing the climate, but the actual climate change from the invisible CO2 etc. of the same planes being dismissed as if it were the conspiracy.
Or the one about 5G sending mind-control signals, ignoring the real mind-control (such as it is) coming from accessing social media on your phone… via 5G.
I was about to wonder what pizzagate would turn out to be, then I remembered the Andrew formerly known as Prince and specifically the attempt at using Pizza Express as an alibi.
At this point, given what we've witnessed from them regarding injecting bleach and so on, I wouldn't be surprised if someone in the Trump administration will turn out to have done the conspiracy-theory version of adrenochrome even though it has been produced by organic synthesis since at least 1952. And if they are, it will be brushed aside.
I don't know whether it's organically muddled thinking as ideas get repeated and blurred without proper thought or evidence, or whether this in itself is "chaff" to hide things (given the allegations around Epstein and 4chan, maybe there's something to that), or whether it's a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.
In most of the modern world, it's impossible to go through life without a bank account at the minimum (which requires an ID), but not so in the USA, there you can live your whole life, paying with, and accepting cash, storing it in your matress.
Among the man weird corners of US national ID politics, is the set of Americans who think a national ID is an unforgivable invasion of liberty but that an ID should be required to vote.
That sort of makes sense though? It's the minimal level of government involvement required. Presumably you can't carry out a fair election without some form of gatekeeping. Whereas why exactly should ID be required to do mundane daily things including traveling long distances?
That said I'm generally fine with the current voting laws and don't see any need to increase scrutiny. But all states have at least some level of verification to get added to the voter rolls.
A lot of people are making general statements, and I'm not sure how valid they are. For example, in my neck of the woods (Canada), I have flown without ID and without passing through security. I would be surprised if the same wasn't true in the US. What I left out: the flights weren't through an international airport and didn't connect to an international airport. Same airport, different flight (one that did connect to an international airport) and passing through security was a requirement. In that case, as well as domestic flights through international airports, ID checks were the domain of the airline.
We do have smaller regional airports in the US, but those smaller airports do still have TSA-staffed security if they serve commercial flights. The TSA considered eliminating security at those smaller domestic-only airports back in 2018, but after it hit the media, they reversed course on it.
The only exception would be airports solely for things other than commercial flights, like hobbyist pilots/flight schools where people are flying their own planes, or airports serving only government/medical/whatever "essential" traffic. Airports that don't have TSA-staffed security are still under TSA jurisdiction, and have to pass regular inspections by TSA to ensure their own security's at a sufficient level.
Within the Schengen area, you don't really need an ID to get on a plane either. In fact you can go through security screening in many places without an ID or a valid ticket.
There are whole catagories of people without "ID" as such, like say underage children or people unable to drive. ID's in the USA have traditionally been either drivers licenses or passports. Many states have added non-drivers license IDs for handicapped, elderly, etc, but AFAIK they aren't particularly popular since those catagories of people don't tend to need them until they suddenly find themselves in a situation needing one.
EU technically doesn’t require government-issued ID to fly either. They often don’t check for ID at all, and in cases where they do, legally any card with your name and photo on it would work for this „identification“. EU generally doesn’t legally require you to carry ID - but they can and will hassle you more and more if you don’t.
It is, but it’s difficult. I am down visiting New Zealand and 3 times I have flown domestically here and there no ID check. I buy a ticket online, check in online, and scan a barcode at the gate. Is New Zealand an exception, or do a lot of countries not require an ID for domestic flights, and the US is the exception?
Usually you go to either a police station or an embassy and receive a temporary permit that has a validity of one week, just enough to get to the place of registration and re-issue your ID.
IDs are a state-level concern in the US federal system. California IDs are issued by California. It’s like going into a Spanish government building to get your Belgian passport replaced. They will have no records of you, and nothing to do.
>It’s like going into a Spanish government building to get your Belgian passport replaced.
The police are not expected to replace the ID. They are expected to give you a proof that you have indeed lost one. In fact Russian embassy won't give you a "returnee permit" unless you go to a Spanish police station and declare your loss of a document.
Even foreign police cannot be expected to just generate documents on a whim.
In the US states don't have embassies, but surely a police station in New York can ask the registration office in California to send them your picture by WhatsApp and have at least a vague kind of proof that you are who you claim to be.
>This is a terrible argument. First, NAT doesn't provide the security behavior users want.
Try breaking into my machine. Login:pass are administrator:pa$$w0rd, external ip 58.19.1.129, internal ip is 192.168.1.124, the system is Windows xp, and firewall is turned off on both the computer and the box the ISP gave me.
Sure, okay. You're using RFC1918 on the internal network, so I'll need to connect to your router's WAN interface to do it, but after that it's just a matter of doing `ip route add 192.168.1.0/24 via 58.19.1.129` and then connecting to whatever I want.
How do you want to get me onto your WAN interface? Unless you happen to live near me it'd probably be easiest if you give me a tunnel. Alternately, if you change the internal network to a properly-routed non-RFC1918 range, I can demonstrate this over the Internet too.
I offered to do this once before, and the person I was talking to replied with "so, you're refusing to do it then" and blocked me. So just for the avoidance of doubt: I'm offering to do this, but if you're going to provide the test environment, you're responsible for making sure I can actually reach the test environment. Otherwise you aren't going to learn anything about NAT.
Right, and in a similar situation, if the internal device was given a routable ipv6 address by the ISP's cable modem, you could directly access that device.
This isn't a hypothetical. There are ISPs who do this out of the box. I plugged a linux box into my ISP's cable modem/router in Amsterdam and immediately noticed my ssh port was getting hammered by port scanners. This isn't what most customers, especially those who aren't technically sophisticated, expect.
I could do it if it was using a routable v4 address too, and I can do it with either RFC1918 or ULA as well (which are both routable, just not over the Internet) if I can get close enough to send the relevant packets. NAT provides no protection against any of these.
You don't normally see many SSH brute force attempts on v6, let alone getting hammered by them. I do see some, but it's mostly to obvious addresses like <prefix>::2, ::3 etc which I don't use, or to IPs you can scrape from TLS cert logs. If you set an ssh server up on an IP that you don't publicize, finding it is hard.
>How do you want to get me onto your WAN interface?
I've already given you _all_ information you could have realistically squeezed from me. The only thing left for you is to prove that NAT is not a security measure and break into my machine, given that you already have both login and pass.
If you had exactly those parameters with ipv6, you would have already broken in.
And like I said, I can do that if you get me into a place where I can demonstrate it.
If you want me to demonstrate that the lock on your safe isn't doing anything, you have to let me into the room where the safe is. Otherwise you won't learn anything about the lock on the safe.
That's an abuse of the judicial system. Politicians are elected exactly because the voters perceive a need to change the execution of government's functions.
The thing is, you cannot beat human moral qualities with formalist means. People who come to power by raising hatred towards their political opponents will always find a way to subvert policies even if not cancel them.
Long-term policies should be established through consensus among all parties, not though legalistic bureaucracy.