Suppose I and my friends have all the money, all the property, and all the food, and you don't have any of it. What exactly are you free to do?
I am not taking away your freedoms. You are absolutely free in every sense of the word. Now how are you going to live without somehow infringing on my and my friends freedom.
- tell me, how did you arrive to a situation in a free market capitalist economy where you and your friends have 'all the money' and 'all the property' and 'all the food'?
You are building a strange enough hypothetical situation, which falls apart once you realise that in a free market capitalist economy you could not arrive at that destination. You can't own everything around you while the rest of the people own nothing, that's not possible within an actual free market system, which requires that government is not preventing people from competition.
The only thing that actually creates real monopolies is government threat of violence. Today in Toronto UberX is being fought by the city government to try and protect the existing business models that the city is involved in (taxi licensing, etc.) and they do it under the guise of 'protecting the people'. Well sure, they are protecting some people at the expense of everybody else, who would rather do business with UberX than with government protected and licensed monopolies.
You create a hypothetical out of vacuum while pretending that a situation like that arises in a free market capitalist system, it does not.
In a free market capitalist system you are born a free person, a family or a charity is taking care of you or you while you are a child and eventually you learn from peers and become an apprentice in a business, studying it, learning the skills necessary to provide others within the same market conditions with the output of your own labour. You don't 'own everything', you only own what you can earn and with time your earning potential increases.
A situation with too much labour and not enough jobs only arises in government manipulated economies, which are not free market economies. In a free market capitalist economy markets discover prices that allow markets to clear, that means the prices adjust accordingly to the supply and demand for all things, including all types of labour and capital and land and other assets and resources.
So my argument doesn't fall apart, you can pretend that a situation that you describe will arise in such settings, but it does not, a situation that you describe arises in a non-free economy, in a non-capitalist economy.
A capitalist economy means private ownership and operation of property, this includes your own body and that is what gives us self determination - ability to operate our bodies free from government intervention and manipulation and our bodies extend to the fruits of our labour, which required us to input some kind of work, taking away from our leisure and doing work that somebody finds useful and is willing to exchange fruits of his/her for your productive output voluntarily.
In a situation when a person appears out of nowhere who has nothing and is in need of some help, people never refused others some help, but this is absolutely different from all forms of government tyranny, the tyranny of the State, that steals from us supposedly to 'help'.
It is unacceptable to declare some form of moral authority based on theft and initiation of violent force.
Capitalism (private ownership and operation of property) in a free market system (system free of government intervention) has proven to be the best system for generating profits while improving the overall economy for all people involved. People tossed out the free market and they are trying really hard to toss out capitalism as well, they saw all the wealth generated in a free market capitalist system and believe that that wealth is gained somehow immorally, however I argue that making profits in a capitalist free market system is the most moral way to run an economy.
I say the most moral and I mean exactly that:profit motive in a free market capitalist system is the most moral way to run an economy. All other ways to run an economy require reduction of freedoms (bigger government) and reduction of property rights (move from capitalism to any form of dictatorship, be it socialism or fascism, which are almost the same thing exactly or be it just a singular ruler or a feudal system). Anything that reduces individual freedoms is less moral than anything that increases individual freedoms. Anything that reduces private property rights and self determination through these rights is less moral than than anything that increases private property rights and self determination.
AFAIC the profit motive is the most moral way to run a society because it is the most moral way to run an economy without stealing and without using collective violence against an individual.
Lovely display of logical fallacies, one piled up on top of another. Every type of logical fallacy one can imagine, it's amazing how much nonsense is accumulated in your posts, it's quite a troll show you have performed here.
There are also no flying spaghetti monsters, talking flying unicorns, mice that turn into princesses when the clock hits 12. I don't have to prove any of it, I can come up with a million things that don't exist and are only a figment of my imagination, exactly in the same way that people that believe in 'souls' have done.
I claim knowledge that there is no pink flying spider octopus macaque with a huge diamond for a brain. I just invented that fantasy, it exists in my imagination but not outside of it. I don't have to prove that it doesn't exist, I can claim that it doesn't exist and the probability of my claim being wrong is in such low numbers as to being absolutely insignificant.
Clearly I am dealing with an attempt at trolling here, because there is no way somebody is this dense. So give it up already, ad hominem, appeal to authority, burden of proof fallacy, etc.etc.
I am certain that you believe you are having a ton of fun, it's nice to see somebody who has nothing better to do than to go through an alphabet list of fallacies while pretending they have an argument.
There are no souls any more than there are flying fire-breathing dragons and if you want to prove that there are fire-breathing that's fine, but you can't demand that everybody proves that there are no dragons, you have to prove their existence. Same applies to your 'soul' fantasies.
Wrong, the claim is that we have no such thing as 'sou' that was ever measured or displayed in a measurable, repeatable way.
There is no measurement of 'soul', there is no place in our bodies where 'soul' resides, so that when a person dies the 'soul' continues existing. There is no reason to invent soul, it doesn't answer any physical question, it was invented just like trolls and gnomes and orcs were invented to give certain subset of population some comfort.
Comfort without any evidence, without any measurements, without any knowledge, it's self deception. So I can claim knowledge that this is self deception and was created for the purpose of self deception and control, but it was never measured, it was never observed, it was never present anywhere except for people's imaginations.
If we make creatures that are sentient and are able to argue for their rights then they should do so and it will be up to the courts, until such time that they can understand the concept of rights and courts and until the courts recognise their claims as valid, they are machines that we created and we may destroy on a whim.
Wrong. We know that there is not a single shred of evidence to give us even a slightest reason to think that there is such a thing as 'soul', so we do not need to bother ourselves trying to prove anything about it until such a moment that someone presents evidence of measuring this 'soul' in any shape way or form.
We 'do not know' about soul in the same exact way, in which we 'do not know' about underpants gnomes or flying firebreathing dragons or a magic goat that lays golden eggs on the Moon every Thursday. None of these things exist until there is more than a belief but instead there is measurable repeatable falsifiable evidence that is more than some 'vision' by some believer. Oh, and the part of your statement that is an ad hominem falacy is just precious. I take it you are trolling.
Naming conventions are what they are based on historical precedent, nothing else. If we devise a machine that can do all the things that many other living creatures can do (probably procreate, grow, learn, feed to sustain itself) under normal circumstances (excluding edge cases that we can compare things to, like people in coma who are still alive but cannot do many things that normal people not in coma can do), then there is no difference between that machine and another living creature. However we kill living creatures on daily basis, hundreds of millions of them, most large ones are killed to eat, the invisible ones are killed because we don't care and we have to do what we have to do in life (sterilise stuff, burn stuff, whatever).
So the reality is that none of these questions matter, we are the ones in charge and as long as we can stay in charge such questions will only be a curiosity that our minds are capable of engaging into, but they won't stop us from using our inventions in whichever way we see fit.
What do you mean 'prove it'? Wrong, you have to prove that such a thing is even a remote possibility, I have to prove shit, absolutely nothing, nada, zilch. There is no soul. I don't have to prove anything because it is an extraordinary claim to make that there is a soul and so those who make extraordinary claims have to come up with all the proof in the world to back those up.
Why are you concerned with the 'soul' question? The answer is no, you don't have a soul, there is no such thing as a soul. Also there is no god. We made you to be what you are but we are not gods, you are a machine that is very complex but can be understood completely and here are the schematics.
You are looking at it all wrong, those people that are calling you are all potential customers of your business. Offer to them something they are looking for: satisfaction. They are calling you to complain. Sell them something, like a way to kick ass of somebody, who you can present as the guy that placed that call they are complaining about. I am sure many would give you their money for some type of a moral satisfaction. Learn to sell, life gives you a lemon, make lemonade.
If you are actually concerned with people not being slaves, then you have to reject democracy, because it is mobocracy, where the majority turn minorities into slaves. That's why there are so called 'progressive income taxes' in the first place, the majority votes to steal more money from a minority and that is also slavery and if you are as against it as you say, then you can't be for democracy at all.
I am against democracy of-course and I am against slavery, which is not a contradiction once you realise that it is what a constitutional republic supposed to be, but it devolved from that into a mobocracy and slavery due to human element. So the answer is to remove the power from government. The problem is government, its very existence leads to slavery one way or another. Voting for something always means using violence against some people to get something from them (to steal from them, to use them), there is no difference between voting and dictatorship if the dictator was always on the side of majority, which is what happens in democratic politics anyway. So the actual answer is anarchy as a political system and capitalism as an economic one.
People must be able to discriminate against who they want for any reason whatsoever, government has no authority to punish people for any of it, all of this 'authority' is actually usurpation of unauthorised power. As to insurance, etc., you are assuming that the people cannot make their own choices in life and that government must be there, holding everybody's hands as if they were children. Guess what, adults are not children and they do not need government to make their every day choices for them. It is about time that the technology opens eyes of so many to this trivial fact.
I was under impression we are talking about a technical problem here, however if you want to take it to the next level of/. conversation, Ok, let's do that. My answer: most people shouldn't be voting anyway, a vote of one informed intelligent person is cancelled by thousands of uninformed idiots, so what's the difference? AFAIC democracy killed the Republic, the only correct answer is stop playing the game and remove the government judiciously.
Right, but you wouldn't be in any different position if any government regulations were enforced, you would have false sense of security and less competition for your money by fewer retailers. As a customer right now you can avoid Target and/or Home Depot and that is the market pressure that the companies would have to consider to improve and become more transparent if enough people care and stop buying there. With government regulations you would just have no choices at all, Target and Home Depot would be the only stores if they could get government to destroy their competition with regulations. Would Target and Home Depot be more secure and more transparent with government regulations? No, they just would have less competition.
Obviously this is the correct interpretation of what is being demanded here. Yes, some retailers want government to help destroy their competition for them. The reality is that there is plenty of market forces at play here. If you know that a particular retailer doesn't take your information seriously enough and a breach happens and there is no adequate timely response to your satisfaction, you are not going to buy through this retailer anymore. What this regulation would do is make sure that there is LESS competition, not more, this way the security breaches will still happen with the large retailers, but the smaller ones will not be there anymore because the government will regulate them out of this type of business so the consumer will have no choices left.
A general purpose code generator with a simple enough meta-code configuration does not know your business logic, you will have to plug your business logic into the generated code, that's first.
Secondly yes, we have a number of omissions in the generated code on purpose, they cause compilation errors exactly in the locations in the code where the coder needs to do some manual work, this is the best way to ensure that the developer takes a look at every one of these.
I would argue that so called 'mainstream economists' are doing great damage by spreading misinformation on the topic of economics, probably because such a huge number of them actually don't understand it themselves at all. I think they are causing more damage than an earthquake. At least with the scientists in this situation it was not deliberate, in case of 'mainstream economists' I think large problem is that they are political beasts first of all and are there to push certain propaganda that the governments want to be pushed.
For example most 'main stream economists' agree that inflation is what is needed in the economy and that without at least 2% inflation the economy will be in trouble (a magic number pulled out of ass of-course).
Few people that talk about the reality of the situation are considered 'fringe'.
Very few laymen can understand the real nature of what is happening in the economy and the so called 'economists' are to blame for this and the damage that is done in this case is many orders of magnitude greater than that of an earthquake to the entire human race. How about suing the people who are doing this type of damage deliberately?
I train all the new people that I hire and so I made it a very conscious decision from the very beginning to make sure that they understand the underlying technologies that they are trained in. If it is a build procedure, use ant, not maven, make sure they write build scripts by hand first of all, no generated scripts. Ensure they understand every configuration file that we use, require that they use as much simple code as possible as opposed to configuration heavy frameworks, etc. The exception are code generators that we create, we automate away large tasks by creating code generators that use meta code to generate a bunch of source code for a specific type of use case. But in this case you are not looking at running a configuration, you are running the generated source code and when source is generated it has to be fixed by hand in a number of ways that requires that the developer reads the code.
This produces developers that can debug, and if you can't debug you are not actually a developer.
Slashdot Mirror
Suppose I and my friends have all the money, all the property, and all the food, and you don't have any of it. What exactly are you free to do?
I am not taking away your freedoms. You are absolutely free in every sense of the word. Now how are you going to live without somehow infringing on my and my friends freedom.
- tell me, how did you arrive to a situation in a free market capitalist economy where you and your friends have 'all the money' and 'all the property' and 'all the food'?
You are building a strange enough hypothetical situation, which falls apart once you realise that in a free market capitalist economy you could not arrive at that destination. You can't own everything around you while the rest of the people own nothing, that's not possible within an actual free market system, which requires that government is not preventing people from competition.
The only thing that actually creates real monopolies is government threat of violence. Today in Toronto UberX is being fought by the city government to try and protect the existing business models that the city is involved in (taxi licensing, etc.) and they do it under the guise of 'protecting the people'. Well sure, they are protecting some people at the expense of everybody else, who would rather do business with UberX than with government protected and licensed monopolies.
You create a hypothetical out of vacuum while pretending that a situation like that arises in a free market capitalist system, it does not.
In a free market capitalist system you are born a free person, a family or a charity is taking care of you or you while you are a child and eventually you learn from peers and become an apprentice in a business, studying it, learning the skills necessary to provide others within the same market conditions with the output of your own labour. You don't 'own everything', you only own what you can earn and with time your earning potential increases.
A situation with too much labour and not enough jobs only arises in government manipulated economies, which are not free market economies. In a free market capitalist economy markets discover prices that allow markets to clear, that means the prices adjust accordingly to the supply and demand for all things, including all types of labour and capital and land and other assets and resources.
So my argument doesn't fall apart, you can pretend that a situation that you describe will arise in such settings, but it does not, a situation that you describe arises in a non-free economy, in a non-capitalist economy.
A capitalist economy means private ownership and operation of property, this includes your own body and that is what gives us self determination - ability to operate our bodies free from government intervention and manipulation and our bodies extend to the fruits of our labour, which required us to input some kind of work, taking away from our leisure and doing work that somebody finds useful and is willing to exchange fruits of his/her for your productive output voluntarily.
In a situation when a person appears out of nowhere who has nothing and is in need of some help, people never refused others some help, but this is absolutely different from all forms of government tyranny, the tyranny of the State, that steals from us supposedly to 'help'.
It is unacceptable to declare some form of moral authority based on theft and initiation of violent force.
Capitalism (private ownership and operation of property) in a free market system (system free of government intervention) has proven to be the best system for generating profits while improving the overall economy for all people involved. People tossed out the free market and they are trying really hard to toss out capitalism as well, they saw all the wealth generated in a free market capitalist system and believe that that wealth is gained somehow immorally, however I argue that making profits in a capitalist free market system is the most moral way to run an economy.
I say the most moral and I mean exactly that:profit motive in a free market capitalist system is the most moral way to run an economy. All other ways to run an economy require reduction of freedoms (bigger government) and reduction of property rights (move from capitalism to any form of dictatorship, be it socialism or fascism, which are almost the same thing exactly or be it just a singular ruler or a feudal system). Anything that reduces individual freedoms is less moral than anything that increases individual freedoms. Anything that reduces private property rights and self determination through these rights is less moral than than anything that increases private property rights and self determination.
AFAIC the profit motive is the most moral way to run a society because it is the most moral way to run an economy without stealing and without using collective violence against an individual.
All of your claims are wrong and yes, you are using a ton of fallacies while making these wrong claims.
Lovely display of logical fallacies, one piled up on top of another. Every type of logical fallacy one can imagine, it's amazing how much nonsense is accumulated in your posts, it's quite a troll show you have performed here.
The irrational only wall here is you, don't talk about science, you don't know what it is and why we have it in the first place.
There are also no flying spaghetti monsters, talking flying unicorns, mice that turn into princesses when the clock hits 12. I don't have to prove any of it, I can come up with a million things that don't exist and are only a figment of my imagination, exactly in the same way that people that believe in 'souls' have done.
I claim knowledge that there is no pink flying spider octopus macaque with a huge diamond for a brain. I just invented that fantasy, it exists in my imagination but not outside of it. I don't have to prove that it doesn't exist, I can claim that it doesn't exist and the probability of my claim being wrong is in such low numbers as to being absolutely insignificant.
You can carry on with your fallacies now.
Clearly I am dealing with an attempt at trolling here, because there is no way somebody is this dense. So give it up already, ad hominem, appeal to authority, burden of proof fallacy, etc.etc.
I am certain that you believe you are having a ton of fun, it's nice to see somebody who has nothing better to do than to go through an alphabet list of fallacies while pretending they have an argument.
There are no souls any more than there are flying fire-breathing dragons and if you want to prove that there are fire-breathing that's fine, but you can't demand that everybody proves that there are no dragons, you have to prove their existence. Same applies to your 'soul' fantasies.
So it would be okay to torture infants for our amusement
- hmm, I never said that, why are you putting words into my mouth that I never said?
Infants have rights because their parents want them to have rights and so their parents ensure their rights. You are a very strange individual.
Wrong, the claim is that we have no such thing as 'sou' that was ever measured or displayed in a measurable, repeatable way.
There is no measurement of 'soul', there is no place in our bodies where 'soul' resides, so that when a person dies the 'soul' continues existing. There is no reason to invent soul, it doesn't answer any physical question, it was invented just like trolls and gnomes and orcs were invented to give certain subset of population some comfort.
Comfort without any evidence, without any measurements, without any knowledge, it's self deception. So I can claim knowledge that this is self deception and was created for the purpose of self deception and control, but it was never measured, it was never observed, it was never present anywhere except for people's imaginations.
If we make creatures that are sentient and are able to argue for their rights then they should do so and it will be up to the courts, until such time that they can understand the concept of rights and courts and until the courts recognise their claims as valid, they are machines that we created and we may destroy on a whim.
Wrong. We know that there is not a single shred of evidence to give us even a slightest reason to think that there is such a thing as 'soul', so we do not need to bother ourselves trying to prove anything about it until such a moment that someone presents evidence of measuring this 'soul' in any shape way or form.
We 'do not know' about soul in the same exact way, in which we 'do not know' about underpants gnomes or flying firebreathing dragons or a magic goat that lays golden eggs on the Moon every Thursday. None of these things exist until there is more than a belief but instead there is measurable repeatable falsifiable evidence that is more than some 'vision' by some believer. Oh, and the part of your statement that is an ad hominem falacy is just precious. I take it you are trolling.
Naming conventions are what they are based on historical precedent, nothing else. If we devise a machine that can do all the things that many other living creatures can do (probably procreate, grow, learn, feed to sustain itself) under normal circumstances (excluding edge cases that we can compare things to, like people in coma who are still alive but cannot do many things that normal people not in coma can do), then there is no difference between that machine and another living creature. However we kill living creatures on daily basis, hundreds of millions of them, most large ones are killed to eat, the invisible ones are killed because we don't care and we have to do what we have to do in life (sterilise stuff, burn stuff, whatever).
So the reality is that none of these questions matter, we are the ones in charge and as long as we can stay in charge such questions will only be a curiosity that our minds are capable of engaging into, but they won't stop us from using our inventions in whichever way we see fit.
What do you mean 'prove it'? Wrong, you have to prove that such a thing is even a remote possibility, I have to prove shit, absolutely nothing, nada, zilch. There is no soul. I don't have to prove anything because it is an extraordinary claim to make that there is a soul and so those who make extraordinary claims have to come up with all the proof in the world to back those up.
Why are you concerned with the 'soul' question? The answer is no, you don't have a soul, there is no such thing as a soul. Also there is no god. We made you to be what you are but we are not gods, you are a machine that is very complex but can be understood completely and here are the schematics.
You are looking at it all wrong, those people that are calling you are all potential customers of your business. Offer to them something they are looking for: satisfaction. They are calling you to complain. Sell them something, like a way to kick ass of somebody, who you can present as the guy that placed that call they are complaining about. I am sure many would give you their money for some type of a moral satisfaction. Learn to sell, life gives you a lemon, make lemonade.
If you are actually concerned with people not being slaves, then you have to reject democracy, because it is mobocracy, where the majority turn minorities into slaves. That's why there are so called 'progressive income taxes' in the first place, the majority votes to steal more money from a minority and that is also slavery and if you are as against it as you say, then you can't be for democracy at all.
I am against democracy of-course and I am against slavery, which is not a contradiction once you realise that it is what a constitutional republic supposed to be, but it devolved from that into a mobocracy and slavery due to human element. So the answer is to remove the power from government. The problem is government, its very existence leads to slavery one way or another. Voting for something always means using violence against some people to get something from them (to steal from them, to use them), there is no difference between voting and dictatorship if the dictator was always on the side of majority, which is what happens in democratic politics anyway. So the actual answer is anarchy as a political system and capitalism as an economic one.
People must be able to discriminate against who they want for any reason whatsoever, government has no authority to punish people for any of it, all of this 'authority' is actually usurpation of unauthorised power. As to insurance, etc., you are assuming that the people cannot make their own choices in life and that government must be there, holding everybody's hands as if they were children. Guess what, adults are not children and they do not need government to make their every day choices for them. It is about time that the technology opens eyes of so many to this trivial fact.
I was under impression we are talking about a technical problem here, however if you want to take it to the next level of /. conversation, Ok, let's do that. My answer: most people shouldn't be voting anyway, a vote of one informed intelligent person is cancelled by thousands of uninformed idiots, so what's the difference? AFAIC democracy killed the Republic, the only correct answer is stop playing the game and remove the government judiciously.
so how about not running an http server but instead using an https connection? Here, solved this one for you.
Right, but you wouldn't be in any different position if any government regulations were enforced, you would have false sense of security and less competition for your money by fewer retailers. As a customer right now you can avoid Target and/or Home Depot and that is the market pressure that the companies would have to consider to improve and become more transparent if enough people care and stop buying there. With government regulations you would just have no choices at all, Target and Home Depot would be the only stores if they could get government to destroy their competition with regulations. Would Target and Home Depot be more secure and more transparent with government regulations? No, they just would have less competition.
Obviously this is the correct interpretation of what is being demanded here. Yes, some retailers want government to help destroy their competition for them. The reality is that there is plenty of market forces at play here. If you know that a particular retailer doesn't take your information seriously enough and a breach happens and there is no adequate timely response to your satisfaction, you are not going to buy through this retailer anymore. What this regulation would do is make sure that there is LESS competition, not more, this way the security breaches will still happen with the large retailers, but the smaller ones will not be there anymore because the government will regulate them out of this type of business so the consumer will have no choices left.
Everybody is free to do what they want to do, you don't have to follow anything, anybody for any reason whatsoever. YMMV, where is the problem?
A general purpose code generator with a simple enough meta-code configuration does not know your business logic, you will have to plug your business logic into the generated code, that's first.
Secondly yes, we have a number of omissions in the generated code on purpose, they cause compilation errors exactly in the locations in the code where the coder needs to do some manual work, this is the best way to ensure that the developer takes a look at every one of these.
I would argue that so called 'mainstream economists' are doing great damage by spreading misinformation on the topic of economics, probably because such a huge number of them actually don't understand it themselves at all. I think they are causing more damage than an earthquake. At least with the scientists in this situation it was not deliberate, in case of 'mainstream economists' I think large problem is that they are political beasts first of all and are there to push certain propaganda that the governments want to be pushed.
For example most 'main stream economists' agree that inflation is what is needed in the economy and that without at least 2% inflation the economy will be in trouble (a magic number pulled out of ass of-course).
Few people that talk about the reality of the situation are considered 'fringe'.
Very few laymen can understand the real nature of what is happening in the economy and the so called 'economists' are to blame for this and the damage that is done in this case is many orders of magnitude greater than that of an earthquake to the entire human race. How about suing the people who are doing this type of damage deliberately?
I train all the new people that I hire and so I made it a very conscious decision from the very beginning to make sure that they understand the underlying technologies that they are trained in. If it is a build procedure, use ant, not maven, make sure they write build scripts by hand first of all, no generated scripts. Ensure they understand every configuration file that we use, require that they use as much simple code as possible as opposed to configuration heavy frameworks, etc. The exception are code generators that we create, we automate away large tasks by creating code generators that use meta code to generate a bunch of source code for a specific type of use case. But in this case you are not looking at running a configuration, you are running the generated source code and when source is generated it has to be fixed by hand in a number of ways that requires that the developer reads the code.
This produces developers that can debug, and if you can't debug you are not actually a developer.