Subj : Re: How much should I charge for fixed-price software contract? To : comp.programming From : Randy Howard Date : Tue Aug 23 2005 07:53 pm gswork@mailcity.com wrote (in article <1124785014.564171.281760@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>): > Randy Howard wrote: >> Especially these days. I have heard it claimed that there are >> so many laws, in fact many of them are contradict each other, >> that practically anyone (in the US anyway) could be arrested at >> any time on something. They basically have the entire space >> covered, and you are, simply be existing, guilty of something. >> I wish I was joking, but I suspect it is far more true than I >> like to contemplate. > > Although i am sure laws proliferate partly because modern societies > become more complex i am also sure this is deliberate. everyone is > likely to be breaking a law in some way during a given month, say. All > it takes is some time to find out which one/s and then there's a reason > to question you, search your house etc. No doubt that is a common result. I am not sure whether it was premeditated or the law enforcement folks figured it out at some point. Doesn't really matter, it's a weapon they use now either way. > Of course it is impractical and pointless to do this to an endless > array of hapless citizens who may be commiting minor misdemeanours, but > can be used against suspected criminals where stronger evidence is > needed for there more serious crimes. Think Capone and tax evasion. > At least i think that's part of it. It can be used against anyone that the government decides to use it against. Think of Clinton sicking the IRS on people that protested at campaign stops, for example. You use that freedom of speech too loudly, (perhaps even on Usenet) and you find yourself the victim of what is described above. > the rest is just proliferation growing out of thousands of groups and > politicians saying 'why there should be a law...' Some of the most > ridiculous laws ever come from the USA's own past when the federal > government wasn't as powerful and local legislation could enact all > kinds of foolishness. Sorry, but I actually disagree here. States' rights have all but disappeared, despite the Constitution really being clear about the issue. State governments and citizens both have folded on this one, and got the results they deserve for doing so. There is zero reason why voting majorities in larger states like California, Texas, New York, Florida, Ohio, etc. should be telling people in Wyoming, New Mexico, Alaska, etc. how to run their local affairs. It's mob rule (the nature of a true democracy) versus the intended governmental structure in the US, a Republic. People that claim the US is a democracy are tragically misinformed. Opinion polls of course just encourage this sort of ridiculous thinking. >> Even more depressingly, nobody in the US Government is going to >> pay the slightest attention to my opinion either. Unless I can >> come up with about 40 million registered voters that all loudly >> and violently share my opinion after waking up from their >> television and high-fructose corn syrup induced coma, the feds >> couldn't care less. It's all part of their plan to help us, >> because they are convinced that they know better than we do how >> we should live our own lives. > > Were doing politics on comp.programming again - i don't mind, we're > deep in-thread and its interesting. Yes, I was thinking earlier how OT we are now, but one of the advantages of having this sort of discussion amongst this readership as compared to one of the huge political newsgroups is that the signal/noise ratio is much better, and the screaming and ad hominem attacks seem to be all but missing. >> Civil liberties groups don't care about much beside minority >> rights today. > > Interest groups of all kinds focus on the group of interest to them, > unsuprisingly. Using a simplistic illustration - if there were 10 > people in a population of 100000 who could form a pressure group to get > themselves a benefit out of the government from taxpayers at a cost of > $100k they have plenty of incentive to go ahead and do it. And the federal government is trying to make such attempts (not the success, but the attempt itself) illegal. Of course, the dirty little secret to most political advocacy groups (lobbies, whatever) is that they become extinct if they actually achieve their goal. It takes little time for a new group to realize that if they put out lots of press releases and newsletters their contributors will think they are working hard and keep sending them money. However, if they actually get the law(s) passed that they want to, they will cease to be needed and the funding will dry up. :-) > It's fairly understandable that people generally spend more time > choosing a dvd player or a holiday than researching and challenging > this law or that state handout - the effect of their personal decisions > on their life are easier to understand and in fact greater than each > individual law or tax alteration. The cumulative effect of laws and > taxes on everyone is enormous of course, but it consists of so many > little grains that most folks wouldn't know where to start untangling > it. No doubt. Part of it has to be they feel no power to change it anyway. Even with /millions/ of people upset over an issue, it doesn't get changed. > You could model this proliferation in a computer program (yippee, on > topic again!) but without barriers and 'push back' forces it just > explodes exponentially. You'd need to factor in push-back from > voters, some politicians, the economy and the threat of revolution. I am terrified at what the results might be of a model of governmental power, authority and (il)legal actions might look like down the road. It would be interesting to figure out how to construct with any hope of accuracy such a model. -- Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) .