PureAbsolute

Mocks, Stubs and Fakes: it’s a continuum – Daniel Cazzulino's Blog

Woo Hoo -- Love having my n00b instincts validated:

http://blogs.clariusconsulting.net/kzu/mocks-stubs-and-fakes-its-a-continuum

 

He makes the same points I do, but with much better english and clarity.  However, a nitpick still exists. 

"As you can see, knowing the categorization helps at the conceptual level, but in practice it doesn’t add much value, as you navigate the range of options depending on the specific testing needs. And that’s a good thing, as they will always adapt to what you need, not the other way around."

I need my "categorizations" to have distinctions.  I hate arbitrary lines, and slippery slopes.  Basically, there is one concept that includes all of the others: a Mock.  Everything else is just a functionality add on.  Test for this state. Make sure these procedures were called in order.  Add more logic to the test method depending on the parameters, or what was called before.  Add support for call backs.

Those 'capabilities' are worth making distinctions about.  But not the object that is used in a similar way each time, where the differences can be plotted on a continuum.

Mocks, Stubs, Fakes, and Dummys.

Ahh, Terminology and Distinctions.  I was getting into a little TDD learning, and came upon Martin Fowler's very good page about Mocks vs Stubs: Mocks Aren't Stubs

The content is great. A very concise explanation that left me very satisfied.

Where the nit picking begins is the use of these terms -- Dummy, Fake, Stub, and Mock.

Ironically (ish), Dummy is the only one of the 4 that matches its plain english meaning, and therefore how you use it is intuitive.  A dummy is a place holder, usually in argument lists but also in other lists where it helps position other elements.

A fake is defined as something that has the functionality needed, but perhaps takes shortcuts or perhaps isn't what would be used in production.  Well, with all due respect, why is that a 'fake'.  I'm not going to put myself out there and recommend a word (perhaps later..), but something that does the job, even if it isn't what will be used in production, is real.

A stub is a little closer.  It is just the wrong side of the equation.   A stub is the part that needs to be filled in.  Or implemented. Or connected to.  It isn't the part that actually connects, implements, or fills in.  In addition, my other reason to not like a "stub" is that aside from an artificial definition, there isn't really any difference between a stub and a mock.

A Mock.  The biggest and baddest of all the test doubles (this term I totally agree with). A Mock, aside from all of the other definitions..  means Fake.  Sigh.. 

Now TDD people are making a big distinction between a Mock and a Stub.  I have two issues with this.  The first is that a Mock seems to be a *subset* of Stub.  A stub is a placeholder that doesn't do any real work, and can record state.  The verification process involves testing that state and making sure you get what you expected.  You can record the times a procedure was called, or the parameters that were sent in, or all of the items that were 'manipulated', etc.

A Mock is a stub, and also add the ability to test behavior. You somehow set what your expectations are, execute the SUT (system under test), and then verify that your expectations were met.  There are a couple of fundamental ways of doing this, but it boils down to the same thing.  How is behavior *verified*?  *State* is kept that represents what we expect.  This involves keeping a list of calls that will be made in order.  Parameters can be checked, so that list will include the parameters.  Functionality needs to happen (like adding to a count), so there is a way to execute call backs.

As I go through the list of things that have been added to Mock libraries (I'm still a N00B, so perhaps there is *something* I'm missing..), I keep generalizing these new features into the equivelent of "Stub + Neat Auto Feature".  The usage of the two concepts (Mock VS Stub) is exactly the same.  In face, the usage of the Dummy is exactly the same -- its just a simplified version of a stub that doesn't need to keep track of anything.

So I really only have a breakdown into two concepts:

1) A Scab -- This is a replacement for the item that might have a different implementation in production.  But otherwise it has a working interface.  Or more specifically, the interface items that are needed for the test implement the fundamental logic.  A Scab might actually be a testable version of the same object to be used (meaning it may have ways to confirm a state, or detect differences).

2) A Mock -- (aka Test Double) This stands in for the object its basic functionality is to allow method calls and to return good values so that the test may continue.  I'm including the dummy here who basically does not need to implement an interface.  The calls to the object could be recorded and verified -- testing the final state, or going deeper and making sure the methods were called in the correct order.

I suppose a distinction could be made between "final state testing", and "expected calling" testing.  But to me these are just two ways of doing the same thing, since there is no real functionality behind it.  A Mock (old terminology) can be considered a process checker whereas the Stub would be considered a checksum.   But since a Mock can have state too, and a Stub could keep a state that would indicate a particular order to the calls made to it, I cannot see enough of a distinction to merit two different concepts.

In fact, once a Mock library was created, I see no reason that someone would add a Stub library, or even provide a dummy.  A Mock object can do it all without breaking the Mock paradigm, which indicates to me that they are birds of a feather.

Some just have more feathers.

 

On the Obamacare abortifacient provisions vs Religious liberty

Can Democrats and Republicans be so wrong on the exact same issue?

http://bit.ly/PQ0924

"The Obama administration today argued in court that the government can make a requirement that violates religious beliefs and that a company cannot reflect the religious faith of its owners."

Wow. Two very strong statements, one being very correct, and the other being very wrong. First, the government can make laws that are general, and that also violate someone's particular religion. Obviously the law has to be constitutional. In addition, the law cannot mention a specific religion. I would even go so far as to say that even when the law only applies to the practices of one particular religion (as a fictional example, the banning of intentional scarring of children under 10), as long as the encoding of the law was done in a way that described what it was banning in non religious ways, it should be allowed.

Second, the second statement is quite a doozy. *OF COURSE* a company will reflect the will of its owners. Or in the case of a Corporation, the will of the board that is elected by the owners. There is nothing magical about the term 'Corporation'. It exists as a way for owners to provide a third party bound by the rules they set for it to manage property and other assets. This is handy when there are many stakes in the business. But reduce a Corporation down to its essentials. A sole proprietorship. Which has hired workers working for it. Would the Federal government be able to force the sole proprietor to provide a service that the owner considers against his religion?

The answer is… Yes. But not because the company does not reflect the religion of its owners. Rather because of the first principle: The government can pass laws that some religions find objectionable.
So are the Republicans wrong in their case against the implementation of Obama's abortifacient provisions? Yes. Lastly then, should that provision in Obama's health care law stand… NO. This is again where both sides are very wrong. The Federal government has absolutely no right, since there is no enumerated power that covers this, to force a private company to provide anything. Notice that this has *nothing* to do with the first amendment and religion. 

The Government might argue that it is allowed this ability under the 'regulation of interstate commerce' clause. The courts, and of course progressives, disagree with me. But if you do, then there isn't *anything* that government cannot regulate, and I'm *sure* the founders didn't mean that. Rather, the clause was meant to regulate how commerce was executed amongst the states, not regulated the items of commerce themselves. Basically, this was a power loosely defined, but also limited in scope to those things which interfered in the right of citizens and states to do commerce. This includes for example blocking the way, or giving special treatment to one company and not the other, or blocking things like waterways.

On a good day, it could arguably be applied to things like pollution and radio signals.

But not something like a Corporation, nor something like Healthcare. In this case, both!

So to recap: The democrats are wrong for trying to force something unconstitutional upon private corporations, but they are correct that laws that are passed by them (which are otherwise legal) *can* violate the tenants of a particular religion. They are wrong to separate the Corporation from its owners. If an owner should be allowed a right or a privilege, then the corporation, in exercising the will of the owner/owners, even if through a vote, should be allowed that same right or privilege.

And the Republicans are wrong for arguing that the government cannot create a law that hurts a religion, but are correct in defending the rights of the Corporation. They are correct in their fears that if the Federal government can do these things, they can do anything. But their defense is misplaced. The founders didn't create the first amendment to hold back the tide of regulations that a runaway government would try to implement. Would the republicans argue that a private Corporation owned by Libertarian Atheists be properly subject to this law? I hope not, and thus I demonstrate that the issue is much more fundamental. The Obamacare law itself is unconstitutional. In this case it is the very powerful but not mentioned as much lately 10th Amendment that is there to save the day.

While being a constitutionalist is all that is required to take this opinion as your own, I am also helped by my views as a libertarian. We enjoy free markets, and for us it is easy to see when a free market violation is at fault, as well as when a personal freedom such as religious liberty is being violated. This was a great showcase for how market freedom protects most of our rights and freedoms, and this is why libertarians wear the mantle of free-marketers proudly.

 

#scdebate

The GOP South Carolina debate was awesome.  I loved the energy.  Here are my takeaways.

To start it off, lets choose a winner.  There are three criteria I use for a winner of a debate, especially in the primary.  The first is obvious: who argued their case the best.  The second is only slightly less obvious: who argued their case the best to me.  And the third proceeds from there: who argued their case best for the audience.

Ron Paul killed it over all.  By that I mean, he owned. By that I mean he did the best job overall.  His answers were quick, they had energy, and they were deep.  I'm sure that comes with years of practice, but it is still awesome to see that practice manifest itself with the ability to answer questions in such an efficient manner.  The only skill that perhaps he didn't demonstrate was pathos, but of course that is what the private sector should provide ;).  He rocked everything having to do with legislative action.  Tort Reform, helping the economy via fixing the fed.  His only policy burp from my perspective is on interrogation.  Just because you don't believe in murder doesn't mean you don't shoot the bad guy when needed.   The same goes for interrogation.  Torture for its own sake is a horrific thing.  But an interrogation is different.  And let's face it.  The US's version of Torture doesn't leave lasting scars, on top of which we would only use it when needed to save lives.  Paul's answers on the Union Busting (bringing in the interstate commerce clause) was perfect.  His defence of Isreal, while awkward with respect to talking about the Jewish position, was otherwise absolutely spot on.  His defence of drug legalization, something he shares with Johnson, was spot on and entertaining and passionate.

The second place would have to go to Gary Johnson.  He didn't quite have the positive aggression that Paul has, but he maintained his head and answered the questions fairly well.  He got caught by the clock a couple of times, and his 'ripostes' could have been less defensive.  I'm speaking currently about the abortion issue.  Someone tweeted that Gary had a Beta posture.  I laughed, because I love that language.  And it seems true.  He seems like he is absorbing the atmosphere, and at least at this outing seemed lesser than the stage.  Unfortunate, and this is why Paul gets the A+.  Johnson also gave the best answer on immigration.  Herman Cain explained it in terms of government action.  Johnson actually proposed a solution.  The only one to do so.  Of course the debate format limited people's ability to all answer the same question, but you still got the sense it was really the only solution out there.  And it doesn't hurt that it is exactly my position on the issue.  I am all for Gary's position on abortion, but I thought his answer could have been much better.  A Liberty defence of the issue.  Again, this is where Ron Paul shines.

I clearly come from the Libertarian or Classical Liberal perspective.  Which means that these two took the 'best job arguing their case to my point of view" award.  Winners by a land slide.  It is totally enjoyable to see the liberty perspective representing a huge part of this debate. 

Herman Cain gave a great statement about defining the mission in afghanistan.  Great answer to contrast with Obama or any NeoCon, but not good in that he doesn't have an idea of what the mission would be.  Paul answered this question directly.  Herman failed with the economy question.  He used energy indepence as something the president could do to lower prices.  But then he mentioned that the speculators would start speculating down if we introduced our own energy.  Speculators have nothing to do with long term pricing, and in fact help to stabilize pricing, even if you pay more in the short term.  Mentioning them as an issue is Democrat red meat.  Herman Cain wants to abolish the IRS, which is just a talking point.  But he presented the FairTax instead.  I love how knowlegeable he was about the issue, but he needs to realize that the fairtax is unconstitutional.  Why?  Because it is a tax on a non privelged activity that isn't avoidable.  The other reason would be that when services are taxed, it becomes the equivelant of a direct tax, which must be apportioned by the population of the states.  The 16th amendment does not affect this since this is not an income tax.  Anyway he lost points because his answers, while solid, weren't definitive policy statements.  He clearly won the 'best while appealing to the audience' criteria.  I agree with the audience that he came across as cool and collected.  But I don't put too much stake in that.  I just want a candidate to feel definitive, which Paul and Johnson also did.

I thought Santorum did a good job style wise.  He showed plenty of energy.  He also had one Liberty oriented idea -- change SS and Medicare into a voucher system.  Of corse he is unfortunately standing next to two libertarians who have a much more radical solution.

I thought Pawlenty was the weakest of the candidates in terms of showing.  The panel hammered his weak spots, and he defended as opposed to apologized for them.  And by apology, he would have had to explain how his thinking has changed on the issue, so that the audience can get a sense that the 'mistake' won't happen again.  He didn't.  And his style, while comfortable (moreso than Johnson's), seemed too polished for pathos.  Next to the fire of paul, and the solid cain, it created a bad impression.  And without Johnson's awesomeness on the issues, it brought him down.

There you go.  Great discussion over all (can you really call that a debate?).

The results s seen in a fairly concise twitter post: Paul > Johnson > Cain > Santorum > Pawlenty.

 

Antitrust suit puts Apple at heart of pay-limiting scheme

http://bit.ly/j4Qr6A

Our world is going crazy!  An agreement to not 'cold call' is called an antitrust violation?  What?

First, on the merits themselves.  The original suit argued that it artificially limited workers wages.  Huh?  Couldn't the workers make phone calls themselves?  Couldn't Microsoft *still* poach people?  I'm not sure of the wording of the contract, but I'm sure either party party could end the contract if they wished.  And that is assuming that it was a contract and not just a simple handshake agreement.

Business wise, it makes sense *beyond* stabilizing each employers employment pool.  It helps each company work with the other company in *intimate* ways.  Apple could send a coder to Google, and Adobe could send a salesman for training to Apple.  Imagine if Apple were to consider every contact with google not only a collaboration (is this antitrust?  Not!), but also a chance to recruit people away and do damage to a competitor.  Microsoft employed this strategy with a wonderful company called Borland.  It basically destroyed Borland.

Not that I'm against Microsoft being able to do this.   But it does affect how companies collaborate. 

But again, the point overall is moot, simply because each employee can inquire about jobs themselves.

This is in addition to the fact that it didn't prevent a company from attempting to get an employee from another company.  All it did was make the interested company notify the 'victim' company about their interest, and to limit the amount of offers to one.  So presumably the offer would be the market rate, or slightly above the market rate.

Second, on the so called 'damages'.  Huh?  How are you going to prove that an employee was worth more than what he is getting paid right now?  In fact, since a single offer is allowed, presumably your reasonable first offer was at least a market rate offer.  The victim company, in order to retain you, probably matched the offer.  Is the plaintiff going to offer proof that if he could have played one company off of the other company that he would have been paid more?  If so, how much?  An arbitrary 10% higher?

Did he ask a competitor like Microsoft if his wage could be higher?  Did Microsoft hire him?

This had better be tossed out of court.  Unfortunately, the companies didn't stand their ground in the initial Anti-Trust investigation.  Sucks to be a company who hypocritically believes in a high degree of anti-trust action, and still wants the flexibility to make money.  Microsoft was a victim of this also.  In addition they probably believe in a high tax rate for rich people, and then promptly do over seas profit manipulation to lower their personal tax burdens.

Can one of these companies show what it means to exist in a capitalist country?

 

 

 

 

@YALiberty "Have we forgotten 9/11?"

 http://bit.ly/kx1KPp

The campaign for Libertty supports this position: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/bucks/2011-05-02-douglasroberts_N.htm

Was it worth it:  http://www.independent.org/blog/index.php?p=10419

Other Libertarians weigh in: http://exm.nr/l7aAkR

 

It seems the entire Libertarian - o - sphere is alive with comments about the troops and how necessary they were to the capture of Bin Laden.  Included in these columns are comments about how relevant the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were to the capture of Osama Bin Laden.

Aren't we Libertarians allowed to think about more than one issue at a time?

Yes, I love peace, and I am in general an anti-interventionalist.  But I also know human nature, more specifically the human nature of the Bully.  Backing down *encourages* them.  They don't think of you backing down as a fight that they don't have to have.  They think of it as 'what else can I get away with in addition to getting to fight'.

That is what Afghanistan was.  They gave Bin Laden a safe harbor.  No 'police action' was going to help.  Even in pakistan, without being engaged in the area in my opinion we would not have tracked down Bin Laden.  Worse, if they knew that we knew that he was there, they may have prevented us from capturing him or killing him.  So we attacked, and then set up a new government, which with great cajoling helped us to apply pressure on both Taliban, and the Al-Qaida network.  We also did some nation building, which I'm totally against.  Was Bin Laden worth 10 years?  I'm on two minds.  Yes, in that we needed to make a statement.  But no in that the Taliban being ousted from power should be enough of a statement.  Later on, the Taliban would have probably reconstituted, but that wouldn't be the US's problem.  If we leave now, they will probably reconstitute.  So not having our troops and our money in harms way, in addition to removing an irritant might have been a good thing.  As a Libertarian, I would lean that way no problem.

Iraq is a little different.  Saddam Hussein was a mad man with alot of resources.  We already had a no-fly zone, and we had to make a decision about leaving.  Saddam played as if he had a WMD program, on top of which during Gulf War I the paperwork showing him getting rid of all of his chemicals was not complete.  He supported in small ways some terrorists, including some Al Qaida.  We didn't want him shipping advanced technology to terrorist cells.  So we came up with the ultimatum that he fully disarm of all WMD.  He refused.  Yes, technically there were inspectors, but he never let them do their job.  So we finished the job.  Notice that I didn't say OBL once, although there is that very small connection between giving material help to terrorists, and Al-Qaida being terrorist.  Post 'invasion', however, Iraq became one of the hotbeds for Al-Qaida.  People came from all around the world to attack the Americans.  We killed alot of them.  We nation built.  As a libertarian, I believe we should not have.  Invading to finish the job should have been fine.  But GW believed that a Democracy was possible.  At every step of the way Al-Qaida friendly people attacked.  They harmed and killed their own citizens in an attempt to make the population both fear them and hate us.  And we killed them.

But none of that had anything to do (except incidentally if there were sources of information) with finding Bin Laden.  In fact, you can add the current war in Libya in that category, although this is worse since we don't have a rational side in this war.

So except in Libya (although we keep hitting both sides so maybe we are pulling a Jerry Lewis: somehow accomplishing our goal even though we are incompetent), both wars had their own rational, and they have both accomplished alot.  Perhaps not all of the objectives, or perhaps at too much cost, in addition to too much nation building, but objectives very separate from the actual kill or capture of Bin Laden.  It was never attack with masses of troops to kill one guy.  It was attack with troops to kill and disrupt the terrorists, in addition to looking for Bin Laden and killing or capturing him if we get the chance.  Hopefully with one action allowing for the other action.

Conservatives are more correct on this issue in general (but unfortunately negative points for Nation Building).

Democrats are currently correct on this issue, but we all know that this is mostly political posturing.  They don't support anything  that was done to catch Bin Laden.  The one war they are responsible for (Libya) has much less to do with terrorism than any other, and the one place where they might have stemmed terrorism (egypt) they did nothing but encourage the fall.

Libertarians are the righteous pacifists here.  Which of course makes them smugly wrong.   Being absolutely non-violent never works unless you are surrounded by other people who are willing to do the dirty work for you.  The USA used to fill that role, and we were villified for it.

We will be retreating soon due to our financial stupidity, and probably will see very soon people asking for our help in a much friendlier way.  We need to let them grow up and stop hating us before we give them help.  And then it should only be our citizens that contribute to causes as they see fit.  So while pacifism is wrong in general, Libertarians will get their day in court simply because the conservatives overstepped their bounds with foreign policy, and the liberals overstepped their bounds with domestic spending.

Sorry, back to my point.  All of these *wars* are not bacause we were trying to catch one man.  In fact, GWB said this.  If this were true, then we would not have invaded Iraq, and Obama would not have attacked Libya.   So adding up all of the deaths (including the enemy deaths and deaths caused by the enemy!) and cash spent over the last 10 years and dividing it it by one goal does not make sense.  It is only used by political pacifists.

The Libertarian Party has nexus' with both the republicans and the democrats.  This pacifist strain, while not shared by everyone, is a definite philosophical failure.  Much like Bible based laws from the Republican's Christian Coalition (abortion being the most obvious offender), and the Democrat's socialist redistribution schemes.  But since the Main Stream Media, as well as those currently in power, are largely Democrat, positions that are anti-conservative or anti-GWB will be hyped.  So that strong pacifist Libertarian message is getting alot of air time.

Yuck.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review: Atlas Shrugged part 1:

I thought the movie was horrible.

Obviously I like the subject matter, but it seems both in production, and in capturing the novel it was horrible. However I did like the way it was re-presented in the present. In my opinion, a 1950's version should have been done long before a modern rewrite.

Production wise, I would suggest that it felt DVD ready, or Made for TV. Descriptive events and their implications felt rushed. There was a lack of intensity or power in any scene. I did like the choice of actors except for Ellis Wyatt. The John Galt scenes seemed old school cheesy. How about the over done Francisco as playboy scenes.

Book wise, plot development seemed non existent. Missing was the behind the scenes scheming of the artist, poets, philosophers. Francisco was supposed to be about the perceived grand conquest, but he hung out with groupies. The party missed several plot development statements by the stars. Dagny's exchange of the bracelet didn't feel as horrible as the book had it. She wasn't wearing the correct dress, where the Rearden Metal chain on her naked side was supposed to make her look like she was owned by the bracelet, accompanied by a violent stare by Rearden as he is taken to the limit of both lust and shame. How about the scene at Ellis Wyatt's house where Dagny has to ask Rearden why he wasn't doing what he clearly wanted to do. I seem to remember a violent sex scene at this point... And the bridge designing scene was non existent, and yet the final result of the suggestion of using rearden metal for its construction was clearly a showcase for that part of the movie.

I brought a non-initiate (someone who hasn't read the book, nor is too involved with politics) and by the end I had to apologize. I was hoping I could show it off to people, and perhaps buy a copy on Blu-Ray to cherish. Instead it will not be mentioned except in mentioning what I happened to do last weekend, and promptly forgotten about.

I'm hoping this version ends here, and someone from one of the Objectivist foundations takes an active interest.

Another Equal Pay Day? Really? - Marlo Thomas http://bit.ly/hIf1ga

Interesting article. And not one bit of supporting evidence. What about all of those wonderful statistics? Statistics are not proof. They are not an argument. They can indicate that there may be a problem to check out, but in the end conclusions based on facts and logic must be reached.

The first problem I see here is that no alternate points of view are given. I remember a statistic whereby when a woman has the same life experience as a man going for the same job, she actually gets paid more. Pretty damning for the case. Notice the change in the parameters for the statistic. Marlo Thomas quotes statistics for the same job. I changed it to include experience as a determining factor.

Of course, that exposes the other problem with the article. No facts in support of her point. She demonstrates the difference in pay with respect to the Senior Vice President level jobs. But she never shows that these particular women, even anecdotaly, *deserved* to be paid more. What was their experience level? How many years on the job? Were the locations of the walmarts determining factors? How many years at that particular job did they spend? Were there market factors that were different during the hiring?

I've had a friend that got hired during a market crunch that was offered 33% less than what a current co-worker was making, despite the fact that he was much more senior (and smarter). When the market picked up, he tried to get his salary to a more consistent level. They gave him a generous 10% raise. He left the company for greener companies. Or shall I say a company that offered more green.

Which leads us to the basic issue. The company had a right to be stupid. They had the privilege of losing an awesome skilled worker. The skilled worker had the right to demand the higher salary. The skilled worker had the right to go to a company that paid him a good market value. Is this no longer true? Or is it still true, but not if you are a so called protected class?

At issue is also how markets work. A woman who is willing to do the same work for 77% less money has a job, and she beat out someone who wanted more. A company became more profitable because they were able to attract good talent for less money. Their competitor, paying more money for men for some not market oriented reason, is making less money. They will lose, all other things being equal.

Lets look at it from the other side now. A woman somehow learns what the average man makes at a particular job. She applies, and asks for the same wage, even though she has 30% less experience. Assuming she isn't bringing other things to the table (a feather in the diversity cap for example), she will not get the job. Assuming that the hiring manager is a standup guy, he may even tell her why she isn't getting the job. At this point, she could lower her salary requirements until she becomes 'worth it' to the hiring manager. Is there anything wrong with this process?

The article itself is collectivist in nature. It didn't compare two individuals. It compared two classes. The law she supports asks the employer to defend the disparities based on job descriptions. So it isn't comparing why Marie is getting paid less than Jorge, but rather why Marie + Joan + Olivia are getting paid less than Jorge, Scott, and Harry. I suppose there are ways at arriving at some aggregate statistic that would make sense, but until you look at an individual case...

As mentioned before, it is proper that a company have pay discrimination. Therefore having the department of labor uncover the discrimination doesn't actually do anything (justice wise; obviously the protected class would rejoice). Perhaps in an ideal world where the Government properly finds arbitrary discrimination it might be good. But realistically, we all have different criteria for who is worth more, and most are not based on things like race or sex, but it might be dismissed by the government. Someone might like someone who dresses in a suit over someone who dresses in a sport jacket. Sport Jacket guy wanted to stay relaxed and thought the compensation was enough to accept the job at a lower rate so that the hiring manager could justify the hire. But the Dept. of Labor doesn't account for something as simple as Suit or Not, and an injustice would occur.

There is one good thing about the law -- Remove obstacles to class action lawsuits. For whatever reason. Not just discrimination. Anyone should be able to sue, and attempt to find a class. However in my humble opinion it should fail in court.

Anyway, I think I've made my point. For free. Even though other bloggers are getting paid for their opinions.. Never mind.

Balanced budget amendment:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/52020805/GOP-Balanced-Budget-Amendment-Text

It seems like a reasonable amendment, but I have some reservations:

1) I am not sure I like a law that talks about 'results', and not actions. Basically, what exactly is against the law? If the total outlays are greater than the total receipts.. Who has violated the law? And if Congress does not 'remedy' the situation, then are they violating the law? Yes, the budget is is violation of the law.. Does this mean that the last budget to pass is rejected? Even if it was some other circumstance that caused the situation?

Normally A law should say what prohibited, what is allowed, and what someone or some body shall do. Or even a law dealing with something physical. Then each action or item can be scrutinized as being lawful or unlawful. Reality can not be lawful or unlawful. So when someone measures the outlays and receipts, and determines that it violates the Balanced Budget Amendment.. Well.. Can you get rid of the results? Was the conclusion, or the measurement unlawful?

I'm sure congress will determine what is lawful and unlawful, or the actual remedies when the situation arises. But if they don't? If someone finds a loophole? Is it illegal for congress to *not* pass laws that implement the requirements of the amendment?

2) I don't like numbers in the constitution unless they are based on some principle. 18% is clearly arbitrary. This should be a congressional decision.

3) Is there any reason that a spending limit should be in the same amendment as a Balanced Budget requirement?

4) Why does the President propose a budget. Why is this a requirement. What happens if Congress spends money?

5) Why is a modification to how one raises taxes in this bill?

6) Why should the constitution care if it is the aggregate revenue that is increased? Again, it shouldn't be working with a result. It should only be working with the action. In this case, the raising of the tax rate. What if some bill were to pass that because of its restrictions, cases people to do something that raises tax revenue. Is that particular bill illegal even though it wasn't passed by a 2/3's majority?

7) How does this amendment deal with Bills that increase inflation? If this causes revenue increases, is it illegal? This may be the best part of the amendment!

Ok, I change my mind. It is a horrific amendment. It does too much, and isn't principled enough. Shame on the republicans, including good people such as Ron and Rand Paul, for supporting this.

Antitrust Cry From Microsoft http://nyti.ms/dV37Ew

Is there any other sign needed the Microsoft is Evil? Really? You argued back in the past that all of your bundling schemes were 'innovations'. That was when that line of argument benefited you. Now you argue against Google's 'innovations'. Because this now benefits you. Have you ever heard of principle?

Microsoft is the only company that makes money off of their office suite. They are the 800lb gorilla in the OS department, although not in the mobile department. They have cash coming out of their ears. Not that this matters for anti-trust, but it does make their whining annoying.

I know that one of the selling points of the windows 7 phones is a tight integration with XBox 360 games. Are you willing to give that up to make your point?

Instead, your point should be something along the lines of asking for the release from anti-trust restrictions, because they are harming your ability to compete. That is a more principled point. Although as we can see, you may not be able to compete. Which is why you went this route.

One of your complaints is that Google places its services above other services of similar type. Has anyone thought to ask google to at least create a system where a competitor can bid to place itself first? Then google would have to decide if the extra umph of promoting its own site is better than accepting a payoff from a competitor. Now, there are other search engines out there. If google refuses to be 'objective' and or reasonable about their search results, then the selling tag line in the other search engine commercials would indicate that you serve up the best, or that you can be trusted, unlike Google. Compete.

The first anti-trust issue attacks Google for not allowing you to index products that Google controls. Why don't you pay Google to allow you to index those services? Then you would be paying Google for any lost advertising revenue they would incur. I know you want to make money off of indexing YouTube. How can you justify it taking money away from Google?

Perhaps you could arrange it so that your search bar can be used, but for youtube results you display Googles search results. Then you would just need Google's search API. And perhaps an agreement. What a concept!

In fact there are several anti-trust items issues that seem aimed toward preventing Google from leveraging its assets. Microsoft, why don't you just compete?

For example, with respect to scanning and digitizing books, why don't *you*, microsoft, scan and digitize books. You have more money than Google, and even if you have to buy the technology, you can get it done.

With respect to ITA, *you* can try to buy it. It is only 700 million dollars. Pennies compared to your cash position. Or you can invest in it with the condition that it stays independent. You could make a deal with Orbitz and Kayak to do the same. Or you could create your own ITA.

"Microsoft, he added, plans to make sizable investments and efforts in the European market. “But if we’re going to get a more competitive market there, European regulators are also going to have to take steps to establish a level playing field.” "

What kind of nonsense is this? So all of Google's investment with respect to marketing should dissappear? What if the reason that Europe is 90% Googlized is because there is a backlash against you, Microsoft? Would you require some companies to not use Google so that you could move in? Even though they want to use Google? Or what are you going to do if noone switches to you? Is that a further sign of anti-trust?

I'm not involved with either company, so I don't know all the issues involved on both sides.  I'm speaking as a Libertarian, a capitalist.  Which is why I can see so many potential solutions. And which is why I don't want the heavy hand of the government to interfere.  And it is also why I care.  I haven't seen any good anti-trust rulings yet.  And places where they may theoretically help, I see no sign of its application.  Basically there are both political and arbitrary reasons that anti-trust laws get applied, none of them good for the rule of law nor for capitalism.

If the Microsoft culture does not reflect the example their executives are setting for them, I'll have no problem limiting my 'Evil' judgement. But then, the small people aren't the ones with the power to abuse some of the unprincipled aspects of our court system. But they do choose who to work for...