oneJob

Can't fix stupid.

And not all states are the 50 U.S. A German state is not bound by our constitution. They have the right to enter international trade agreements.

First of all, the broader issue is super complicated. There is no way we can cover it all here. No way. Take for instance: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/745/1/Chapter8_Introduction.pdf [0]

Also, we are all wrong on certain points given certain assumptions. For instance, given the assumption that a state is defined as a political entity with absolute sovereignty, the 50 U.S. States could not be termed states. I'm very well aware of that and probably should not have been authoring a response a bottle of Zinfandel into the awesome "Fortitude" series, from Amazon.

I was fortunate to be able to take a class, "The State and Sovereignty", with Richard Ashley, who more or less wrote the book (or paper) on post-modern or post-structural International Relations [1]. From another site: "Ashley is concerned with how concepts like the state, sovereignty, and war are rarely questioned as problematic in international politics (Ashley 1989: 302). If the state is the central unit of analysis in IR and yet it is rarely thoroughly examined, how accurate are the assumptions that realism and liberalism rest on?" [2]. My thesis for this class was on this exact topic. Titled "Sovereignty: A Non-Sequitur", I used a lot of words to reference a lot of other people who used even more word to call bs on the very concept of state sovereignty.

But, hey, that's what you get when you approach a complex topic in a blunt fashion. But let's not stop now, let's go to Wikipedia:

State (polity) := "A state is an organized political community living under a single system of government. Speakers of American English often use state and government as synonyms, with both words referring to an organized political group that exercises authority over a particular territory. States may or may not be sovereign. For instance, federated states that are members of a federal union have only partial sovereignty, but are, nonetheless, states." [3]

Federation := "A federation (from Latin: foedus, gen.: foederis, "covenant"), also known as a federal state, is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions under a central (federal) government. " [4]

"The component states are in some sense sovereign, insofar as certain powers are reserved to them that may not be exercised by the central government. However, a federation is more than a mere loose alliance of independent states. The component states of a federation usually possess no powers in relation to foreign policy, and so they enjoy no independent status under international law. However, German Länder do have this power, which is beginning to be exercised on a European level." [4]

U.S. State := "A state of the United States of America is one of the 50 constituent political entities that shares its sovereignty with the United States federal government. Due to the shared sovereignty between each state and the federal government, Americans are citizens of both the federal republic and of the state in which they reside.[3] State citizenship and residency are flexible and no government approval is required to move between states, except for persons covered by certain types of court orders (e.g., paroled convicts and children of divorced spouses who are sharing custody)." [5]

German Länder (States of Germany) := "Though international relations including international treaties are primarily the responsibility of the federal level, the constituent states have certain limited powers in this area: in matters that affect them directly, the states defend their interests at the federal level through the Bundesrat (literally Federal Council, the upper house of the German Federal Parliament) and in areas where they have legislative authority they have limited powers to conclude international treaties 'with the consent of the federal government'." [6]

[1] http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag... [2] http://polisciprof.blogspot.com/2006/03/some-thoughts-on-pos... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_Germany

So, we have, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned but surely others will say the issue is more complicated [0], that: federated states that are members of a federal union are indeed states, there is such a thing as state citizenship, and that states belonging to a Federation do enjoy independent status under international law.

Now, in practice, how do U.S. States feel about Trade agreements. Let me google that for you:

https://www.citizen.org/documents/States_Rights_and_Trade.pd...

https://www.citizen.org/documents/SovereigntyFactSheet09.pdf

http://leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/CDHT/Documents/JLOCTP.pdf

http://www.ncsl.org/ncsl-in-dc/standing-committees/labor-and...

It's a real issue, that is not always clear, that is becoming ever more important with treaties such as the TPP.

I don't know what else to give you.

is that an assertion? based on your say so? or was there some reasoning behind that statement, that you'd like to share?

a state can only not make international treaties if it give up that right. states can give out citizenship based on their own criteria (http://patriotaction.net/profiles/blogs/texas-naturalized-ci...).

can states impose import duties? yes (http://www.dutycalculator.com/dc/187995051/food-drinks/fruit...)

federal structure... wt-what.. seriously, i've no idea where you're going with that one.

the "full faith and credit clause", i.e. article iv, sec. 1 of the u.s. constitution, was written after the constitutions of the states that would eventually sign onto the constitution (clearly), and a long (long) time after the term "state" was being used (c.1300 [1]).

Given that a cursory reading of the wikipedia page on this clause states that"At present, it is widely agreed that this Clause of the Constitution has little impact on a court's choice of law decision," I'm at a loss as to how I'm to interpret your one line response as relates to your argument that U.S. states are not as sovereign as a state such as Germany or China.

idk, maybe you were just bored and threw this out into the universe, to see if it would stick, or something.

[1] http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=state

This diatribe is regarding the media's handling of one of many recent whistleblower stories, and an atypical one at that. After beginning with a historical expiation of the etymology of the term, the author goes on to discard other current whistleblower stories, the vast majority of which the media has covered in a starkly different manner, and commits the sin they are condemning, that of sesationalizing the Snowden case.

Sure, a US citizen could, but it would just be one citizen's point of view, and a citizen is not the same as his or her government, which is why a U.S. citizen can be critical of their government without being schizophrenic. We're each allowed our own point of view (and may be punished or rewarded commensurately). Since our laws are not centrally planned and individual rights are dearly cherished (though not universally respected), well, you get this sort of "cognitive dissonance " effect.

International Law is concent based, meaning, it's more a guideline than a law. Sovereignty, at the state level, still reigns supreme. Until states voluntarily bind themselves this will be the case. Here in the U.S. of A. most folks misunderstand the term "state" to mean a political unit that is subservient to the federal level of government. This is only true for certain areas of law, and it is only true because the states bound themselves by voluntarily ratifying the constitution (well, enough of them ratified it and a few went along for the ride). Most folks here are unaware that each state is, politically speaking, still as sovereign as Germany or China. Arkansas = Australia. New York = Bolivia. Texas = France (except, Texas is bigger than France). So, no, between two states, unless there is a binding, not concent based, agreement between the parties, and even then it's fairly common to break these agreements and settle the outcome in court, well states can do pretty much whatever they want. And they do.

Edit: On the subtle points being missed or misunderstood by the replies so far, maybe do some research before sounding off. I've a B.S. in Political Science and am married to a person currently working on their dissertation for their Political Theory Ph.D. whose advisor is ranked above Foucault for the most influential political theorists, and I was able to double check my claims as correct simply by reading some Wikipedia.

Not even going to read this. The "end of politics". No such thing. As long as there are people we will be complaining about politics, but there will never be people without politics. It is what we do. Facism, technocracy, theocracy, monarcy, democracy, anarchy, it's all politics. Just because the process is not exhibited in a format that is recognizable by Western ideals or easily packaged and showcased on Fox News or some of us get lazy and acquiesce or some are forcibly disenfranchised does not mean we've seen the end of politics.

I just moved from Baltimore to Austin. I've also live in Corpus Christi, Phoenix, and New York City each for at least 5+ years. I already miss Baltimore. I new nothing about it, besides being familiar with the stereotypes, before moving there (spouse got into Hopkins, so Baltimore was part of the package deal), and I fell in love with it. I was sad to move away. Maryland in general was beautiful. But Baltimore, beyond the affordable cost of living, being on the water, and the bonus of living near D.C. and NYC, well, Baltimore is a rad, raucous, beautiful, sad, historic, electric, harsh, real fucking American city. I was there, and participated in, the uprising (as well as the months of peaceful protests leading up to that time that received zero national press), and have never experienced such a beautiful and powerful response to such a horrible challenge in any of the other cities I have lived. Baltimore, I fucking love/miss you.

Not my government.

What is it about programming as a profession that attracts people who believe they are all things? When becoming a civil engineer do you take a large number of business courses? When becoming an electrical engineer do you take a large number of business courses? When becoming a doctor do you take a large number of business courses? When becoming an astrophysicist do you take a large number of business courses?

Why are you not suggesting that ethics should be a larger portion of the programmer's training and skill set. Perhaps while building the infrastructure for the next century we should all think long and hard about the ethical implications of what we're building rather than just racing to get the next round of funding or a positive report by some Wall Street analyst on the other side of the country.

Most code bases look as though they've been built by business analysts rather than professional software engineers. The number of security exploits is a testament to this in practice. What we have here is basically a repeat of Wall Street's bond market in the 80's, just in a different industry. Because of the market fundamentals most any idiot was making a killing. Most of these bond traders actually were not terribly bright, but they were making money hand over fist, and so, they thought they were geniuses. In the end it really didn't work out well for anyone. For a good overview of what I'm referring to you can read "Liar's Poker."

Eventually these idiots were replaced with professionals, and to work at any of these shops one must now first prove, through both schooling and certification, that one has a solid grasp of a large knowledge base. If you want to become a portfolio manager, and you already graduated from Columbia with a degree in finance, that's great but you still need to go get your CFA. Google CFA and then compare that to your average programming interview. Just the Level 1 exam has over 3,000 pages of material. There are 3 levels. You basically don't have a social life for 18 months. And most of the time this is something one does while holding down a full time job that already assumes they own your free time. Lawyer's bar exams and the Board Certification process are equally grueling.

I'd be very happy with more of an emphasis on classical knowledge. A strong foundation based on a knowledge base of classical knowledge is the foundation of any professional engineering society. Patronizing someone with a firm grasp on this knowledge by saying that they are "great as code monkeys" betrays an enormously immature approach to one's profession.

fuck this shit

Agreed and same. It's my opinoin that this issue is underdiscussed and that the mess that is often delivered is rationalized by "methodology" and "it's not our fault our requirements force us to deliver this".

But whatever the reason or rational, every time a story breaks about another security exploit or privacy exploit I read that as a condemnation on our profession.

In other professions, part of the certification process is gaining a basic level of understanding of the ethics one is judged against when associating one's work with that of the larger trades group, guild, or association. Often it is well understood that, to some extent, the topic is simply being paid lip service. But,it is also understood that those ethics draw a bright line which those the association serves will not tolerate when openly crossed. Take for instance investment professionals. Everyone knows insider trading happens and it's not uncommon to put profit before fiduciary duty, but when those lines are openly or egregiously crossed it is not tolerated under threat that the understanding between the client and advisor that minor infractions will be tolerated will no longer be honored.

The software engineering profession lacks this basic ethical covenant with its customer. Just look at the utter lack of product warranties. Sure there are SLAs, but there are virtually no warranties. And it shows.

As software begins to function more and more as the linchpin of our society, this issue will morph from technical debt to an Achilles heel. We complain about anachronistic laws. What about anachronistic code? We complain about absurd laws. What about absurd code? It's just as dangerous.

As the other reply says, it's a civil case. Preponderance of Evidence applies, which is a much, much lower bar. Think, millions of dollars awarded over coffee that was served too hot.

And, civil or criminal, if you think that sentiment doesn't come into play, then you probably think justice is blind, politicians don't lie they just over promise, and that the markets are rational. What a wonderfully, blissfully ignorant state to exist in.

Compare the U.S. Constitution (7,200 words) to the E.U. Constitution (76,000 words). Many comments are focusing on the mechanics and details. That approach leads down the road to 76,000 words. The goal is a macro issue, not a micro issue. Committing to a basic income is something that should be done for the same reasons we go to war or go to the moon. Not because it is easy or profitable but because it is what we want to do and believe we have a moral imperative to do. A basic income does not require that everyone become industrious. Nor does it guarantee national economic superiority. It is simply, and profoundly, a commitment to ensuring that every individual shares in the economic wealth generated by our society.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/comparing-us-eu-...

At this point, we have to ask, exactly what is require to get a legal decision that goes against these folks. Given that this case was settled after the financial crisis, and so sentiment would not be on the bankers' side, it is even more surprising.

Can someone else please write up a substantial comment so that the top comment is not a bigoted feminist bashing, logical fallacy ridden comment. It's embarrassing.

So the top comment on a thread regarding dropping community representation from a preeminent OSS project, at the time posting this reply, spends its ink sharing the authors opinion about a single individual and lays the blame at the feet of this individual for causing an entire foundation to run out of money, despite having backing from organizations like Google and Mozilla, and then further insinuates that it was all due to poorly executed and questionably justified minority outreach programs. All this is then followed up by a personal dig at another individual, again bringing up "feminist activist" issues as though that is reason or rational enough for us all to nod our head in agreement with them.

A single individual is rarely ever the reason an entire organization runs out of money or implements bad policy. Others must sign on and implement and sign off and not object.

Let's not have personal attacks on character; let's keep the thread focused on the issue. To direct attacks on an individual's character in order to make one's argument borders on bigotry and almost always qualifies as a bad argument.

How can something be compared as a competitor to spmething else that hasn't even been invented yet? It's difficult arguing the point when you keep regressing back to historically impossible what-ifs.

Applications are rarely released in explicit versions (from the user side, publicity wise, sure there is a version number in the version control process, but what percentage of Gmail users do you think know what version they are using). If Apple has an application that is successful then they will continue to iterate that code base. If Apple truly is of the opinion that Swift is the language of the future, one would expect them to utilize it going forward. In order to utilize it going forward they'd need to rewrite some of the code base when they fix bugs and change functionality or aesthetics. The remaining code base can be left alone so long as they are confident they can get the resource to work with it if needed in the future. So really, what Apple is saying is, it's still easy enough to get someone to work on Objective-C should an issue arise. When that talent pool dwindles, at that point Apple will need to look at the cost/benefit of rewriting large code bases again. That is all assuming Apple has commited to moving to Swift and away from Objective-C, which I doubt is the state of affairs just yet.

I have indeed worked at a very large (both capitalization and payroll wise) company. I've also worked at small and medium sized companies. But, as relates to my experience at the very large one, this guy would have been eaten alive for putting out that response. Perhaps your definition of large is different from mine. However, my point had nothing to do with the size of the company and everything to do with the role the company plays within the OSS movement.

don't normally do this, but, given the seriousness with which i take this topic, just wanted to say, that was an exceedingly ignorant statement.

You realize your first sentence is practically the definition for a democratic republic?

I wasn't taking issue with the proposed decision making mechanism. I was taking issue with the idea that there are purely "technical solutions". In math, the most intangible of disciplines, I was taught that when working solving an open problem, the most important question to answer will always be, "So what?" It's easy to come up with novel but trivial proofs all day long. If you can't explain why the new proof is important, then, so what? Go play with Legos.

If such an intangible discipline requires some justification part of its most foundational task, then surely there must be some broader justification in software development. And I'm being specific when I use the term 'software development'. It's not like we're talking about computer science or applied mathematics.

Software development builds things that are to be used by end users for a purpose. There is plenty of room in software development for non-technical perspectives, and non-technical discussions will never be black-or-white. Often a software development project with be built specifically for a non-expert. In that case, to say that the end-user "should not necessarily be ignored" is such a bad tenor to be set for the discussion.

Last, I'd like to mention the idea of a do-ocracy, which is what many OSS projects have organically turned into. In these cases, the technical expert and the novice alike can do whatever they want, because folks will either choose to work with them or not. But in a do-ocracy it's not likely that someone will be forced to do something they don't agree with or at least sign-on-to.

If you want a "buck stops here" set-up, then go to a company that has a hierarchy or pay people to do what you tell them to do. But otherwise, there is no Utopia where programmers can go write whatever software they want and that others will be required to use without getting to share in the decision making process.

That's exactly what happened. Initially DC was the only option because Mr. Edison personally bankrolled the first electric grids which required building power plants per section of the grid. Additionally, DC was replacing engine based industrialized factories, which indeed had on premise steam or coal engines, and so installing a power plant for just that factory would have made perfect sense. At the time particular time, granted very soon after, AC was not viable. Saying "not at all" is a bit global of a statement considering it contradicts history.

It's not the mileage. It's the fuel and lack of regulation.

"The fuel used in ships is waste oil, basically what is left over after the crude oil refining process. It is the same as asphalt and is so thick that when cold it can be walked upon . It's the cheapest and most polluting fuel available and the world's 90,000 ships chew through an astonishing 7.29 million barrels of it each day, or more than 84% of all exported oil production from Saudi Arabia, the worlds largest oil exporter." [1]

[1] http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/ [2] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-...

Sure, end disability and exacerbate inequality. Additionally, I don't see us all being the same type of cyborg. If anything, becoming cyborgs we'll realize that there is more than one way to become "physically functional" and so stop labeling everyone that is not typically physically functional as disabled.

Beautiful example of the permanence and yet fluidity of code. It takes on a life of its own once you put it out into the world.

Yeah, like GitHub. Can you believe how socialist their intro statement is:

"GitHub is the best place to share code with friends, co-workers, classmates, and complete strangers. Over 12.4 million people use GitHub to build amazing things together."

I mean, it doesn't use the word 'technical' once!