@BrianFagioli, please substantiate the comment: "Microsoft could easily be the world's biggest vendor of open source software." Is there any data to back that up?
Remember when Microsoft had Windows for Workgroups?
Yes....
The Internet put them at risk of a end run past them. They had to adapt or die.
So they stole from IBM. Yes, it's coming back to me now. OS/2. Thanks for clearing that up.
Oh wait, I see the problem - you're equating networking and internet. Networking was easy - little resistance from Bill there, the "internet" was something he hoped was a passing fad (tcp stack was trickier than cifs, and then their was the whole browser thingie - damn standards). Netscape, Mosaic, that's a whole 'nuther barrel of fish in the sun.
heck look at what we did to the wolf: all those weird mutant dog shapes, sizes, and coats
Are you simply retarded or serving a Monsanto agenda? Burbank did no genetic engineering. The Chihuahua was the result of selection over a long period of time and comes without patents or engineered infertility.
Good science is not claiming that designing monkeys that glow in the dark is the same things as selecting wolves that aren't scared of humans.
Selection over successive generations for desirable characteristics != genetic engineering. Claiming that it is, is either ignorance (the enemy of science) or sophism (the enemy of intelligent discussion). The only things stupider and more dishonest is: equating those that differentiate between the two methods of engineering a desirable change in an organism are somehow the enemies of progress/science; claiming that all engineered change is good.
The Romans had a quaint habit of making those the made bridges sit under them while a legion marched overhead. The same should be considered for genetic engineering. Not all bridges should be trusted just because the builders say it's safe.
Trust if you want - but verify. Anyone who lobbies to have the new bridges kept secret should have a legion set on their arses. If it's so fucking safe what do the builders have to hide?
The right to self-defense is not seriously questioned by any valid system of ethics.
Translation: Any system of "ethics" that contradicts my beliefs I deem invalid
Reality: No "system of ethics" denies you the right to self-defence, but I'll ignore that by redefining "self defence" to mean "my right to carry firearms" (and relegate police duties to traffic control only).
Anyone who would deprive free men of the means of self-defense
Strawman: No guns != No self-defence
Anyone who would deprive free men of the means of any means of "self-defense" TFTFY
Can you point to the issue of Hansard showing the legislation that says I can't exercise "self-defense"? No? (there's a surprise).
We Americans have had these concepts enshrined in law since the beginning of our republic, which under any definition is "civilization."
Ironically - that is an excellent example of flawed logic. Did you miss the "well regulated" bit of your constitution? How's that confirmation bias working out for you?
When your logic leads to illogical conclusions, it is time to check your premises.
Excellent advice - do try it.
From the land where we've had one mass shooting. Which was, before the gun restrictions. A country where we still have a "right" to self-defense - we just don't equate self-defense with arsenals (we just call the police). Obviously us colonial subjects of the Queen would have even less Sandy Hook episodes if guns were not "well regulated" (less tiger attacks if we carried magic tiger rocks, and less rapes in the military if those women had access to firearms). Thanks for the lesson in logic.
One major difference is that is it's rare for Australians to propose that arming women will reduce the problem - quite the reverse.
The only possible reason for rejecting the clear logic of self-defense is if you are under the mistaken impression that women are too scatterbrained to learn how to operate a simple mechanical device. So which is it, do you reject the notion of self-defense or are you a misogynist?
You logic is flawed. If self-defense is a requirement for any section of society: only those prepared to shoot first will benefit; you can kiss civilisation goodbye. And before you trot out that tired old cliche about how you "can't rely on the police", maybe you should make the system work before advocating the return to a system that was abandoned in favour of law and order.
How do you make the rifled barrels for your AR-15s and AK-47s?
In the US you may be able to easily buy one but in Australia getting a barrel seems to be just as hard as getting a full gun (at least from my understanding)
Rifling is done the same way in both countries - most fitters and turners consider it a basic skill.
I've got a mate who's a gunsmith - he buys his barrels from the US and assures me I could import them without difficulties - no license required (the law does require a certificate - but the sellers don't want one and it's just steel to Customs)..50 calibre? New or used? eBay if you're lazy.
The problem with that idea is that it assumes that firearms are something that are uncommon or rare in the first place. Firearms are incredibly easy for anyone to produce with or without a 3D printer. A used drill press, lathe, or CNC costs the same as a good 3D printer. The scary black rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47s can partly be made with nothing more than a jig and a Dremel or a drill press.
Agreed. I've seen plenty of firearms in PNG and Indonesia that were made by people without lathes. Not as lethal as those turned out by trained and well equipped gunsmiths - but the people they were used to shoot looked just as dead to me.
Australia doesn't have a multi billion dollar drug and contraband smuggling economy walking across its borders every year from Mexico.
Not from Mexico, no. And not one way either (we ship drugs both ways - hello Rio, how's the marmalade? - hello France, how's the green skins? - etc). It's true we don't ship a lot of guns to Mexico. We do bust large quantities of drugs coming in (occasionally going out), and while we do blame China and North Korea for the origin of some of those drugs - we also recognize they are just trying to compete to satisfy the demand. Australia does have a history as a being used to route weapons through to other parts of the world - but as far as I know Mexico isn't one of those places (I suspect Virginia has a monopoly on that).
Didn't I read somewhere that the rate of rape in AU is like 3X that of the US?
You're trying to compare apples and oranges. It's hard enough to compare any two US states given the huge differences in reporting methods and laws on rape, and damn difficult to compare any US state and Australia. There is very little difference between Australian states in law on rape, the gathering of crime statistics (all based on convictions), and police training and qualification. Most Australians who visit the US are stunned by your bizarre laws and "police". It's not rape if you're married?!! Some states vote to see which untrained people get to play police!!
If you only get your news from Slashdot you might believe a growing percentage of Australians don't think we have a cultural problem with attitudes to women (unfortunately not a majority), and that that's the root cause of the rape problem (though not only women get raped). If so, you'd be mistaken.
One major difference is that is it's rare for Australians to propose that arming women will reduce the problem - quite the reverse. I suspect that may have something to do with huge difference in the amount of money gun manufacturers make in the two countries. Apropos of little - which industries fund the anti-gun lobbyists? (bullet proof vest are illegal for citizens here - so I'm guessing it isn't the ballistic protection manufacturers).
Oh and you might want to take a look at the huge percentage of "sex offenders" in the US. Given the bizarre laws you have in many States it's hard to tell whether you simply cannot be trusted around other people or you're just mostly batshit crazy religious nutjobs. Probably a bit of both.
Meth labs and hydroponic setups are banned too, but that does not stop them.
So is murder and child rape. What was your solution?
Generally, the point of the law is to indicate what is OK and what is not OK, and to provide punishments for those that break the law.
Not a solution
Not relevant
Do you have an authoritative reference that shows the "point of law is to indicate what's OK and not OK"?? And while your at it - find out why we all haven't been getting our weekly Hansard 'cause I don't know what's OK and not OK. OK?
If a guy gets a gun and blows a bunch of holes in a piece of paper, who is the victim?
The people who inhale the paper dust? The people whose peace is shattered by the gun shot?
Do you have a point? Or is this simply a "baffle'm with bullshit" exercise?
If a woman gets a gun to protect her from her crazy ex-husband, who is the victim?
On the basis of the example given - no one. There's an assertion that the gun will protect the woman. The false logic that a gun is an equaliser. Another assertion that the "ex-husband" is "crazy". Yet another unsubstantiated assertion that somehow being "crazy" means the ex-wife is at risk from something that only a gun can protect her. Emotive, speculative, logically flawed, and totally irrelevant to the legislation that wasspeculatively proposed.
The point here is that OWNERSHIP of a gun is NOT bad. It is what you DO with the gun that actually matters.
Maybe to you, but real life not so much. If you removed all the gun laws tomorrow it'd still be an offence to shoot someone (assault). Gun laws are there to keep voters happy as a measure designed to reduce the risk that someone might do "something bad" with a gun. Ownership of a gun, or explosives etc is a risk of behaviour and exposure. "You" might only shoot paper without adversely affecting anyone else but as long as you have a gun and ammunition there's a risk they could get into the wrong hands - so no, the current gun laws are not just about what you might do with a bullet. It's about limiting the number of firearms and ammunition and attempting to "guess" in advance which owners are likely to misuse the bullets (or point the guns at the wrong people - which is anyone).
Keeping voters happy means (amongst
other things) limiting the embarrassment suffered by public officials when someone insists on wearing petrol pants to a barbecue. e.g. "Three times that person assaulted ex-partners with a weapon - now someone is dead. How come you allowed that person to get a weapon?".
Good and Bad are personal opinions - like Right and Wrong. Confusing them with what's legal and illegal won't end well. Leads to other stupid expectations like Justice and Meaning (sigh). It's the same sort of flawed logic that says possession of guns means the government won't be evil. 'cause we'll arm up - form a militia, vote for leaders, shoot the government and form our own government. That'll take care of that problem of outsourcing responsibility... (yup, if at first ya don't succeed keep doing exactly the same thing thing in the vain hope that blind optimism will triumph over experience.)
Cracking down in ownership really only affects the honest people.
Bullshit. I'm relatively honest - how does the "cracking down on ownership" negatively affect me? It doesn't unreasonably affect me. (I'm assuming that part of your problem is the inability to differentiate between "law-abiding" and "honest". "Honesty" doesn't mean you obey the law - it just means you'll admit breaking it if asked.)
I'm a rural property owner without a criminal record or mental health problem. I legally own all the guns I reasonably nee
according to Wikipedia, flatulence is simply gas. there is no particulate component of farts.
No particulate component - ever? Unlike your "wikipedia" source I referenced mine with an authoritative source that's not in denial. Good luck convincing your mother those airbrushed brown stains in your shorts are just because you're too lazy to wipe, just keep hanging with your mates, telling bitch jokes and pulling each other's fingers.
When has justice ever had anything to do with the law?
When did I say it did?
When you said "an unjust law is no law at all".
Which means - justice and the law are mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite of the meaning you take away.
Sure, I vote a nearly straight third party ticket, preferring those whose policies I actually agree with when available
Which, does nothing to change the influence of lobbyists or force parties to actually listen to voters when setting the agenda. If you keep picking from the offered cards hoping for a game that you control you're just hoping for the triumph of optimism over experience.
So then oh wise master, what exactly are you trying to suggest?
That in a two party system you can't win. No amount of legislation will stop corporate interests from profitably influencing candidates in a two party system. Donate to both and any time either party wants to do the corporate bidding they simply need enough support from the other party to push the legislation through - which is already bought and paid for. But if the balance of power is held by a large number of candidates/parties the only way to ensure all their support is to influence all of them - which is kind of hard to do without increasing the size of the total influence budget, and damn near impossible to do if the parties/candidates who win changes every election. If the majority of voters give their vote to candidates who "don't stand a chance" - those that get elected will serve a wide range of masters. For them to get any legislation through they'll need extensive negotiation with other politicians to get their support. It'll mean politicians will need to do more work, and spend more time with their electorate, and most of the time they'll have to do things they don't want to do (but no one said democracy was meant to be easy).
The only way a constantly changing mixture of candidates can be elected is if people don't vote for one of the major parties. If everyone votes for a candidate they believe won't get enough votes to be elected the major parties won't hold a balance of power between them and will have to reach a broad compromise with a wide range of interest - and keep searching for an agenda for the next election that might gain them enough extra votes to gain a better negotiating position. If people don't vote for someone who already holds office... the corporate interests have very little power to influence outcomes. i.e. If you own ChicknLickn and want to get a better deal for you company you only need to "support" maybe two candidates. Say half a million each to ensure "support" across every state - and maybe a ChicknLickn store on every Army base. But if almost any candidate on the ticket might get elected - across the nation, you'd need to give a lot smaller share of the "support" to cover all the possibilities. Now the size of your "contribution" to local candidates is no bigger than what the local taco stand is donating (and he only wants a larger car park permit - not nationwide franchising favours).
You cannot legislate against influence. Aside from being like trying to get foxes to create laws to protect chickens, it's virtually impossible to properly define - hence impossible to prohibit. "Fancy that bellhop with the tight pants at the Majestic?", "Want a winning tip at the dogs?", "Want your children to stop getting bullied at school?", "Want your brother to get a pay rise?", "Want your church to get funding for chapel repairs?". There's an almost infinite number of ways to influence candidates. Trying to pass laws to stop it happening at all is like pissing up a rope and hoping to stay dry - or passing laws against taking drugs. Business will seek to influence candidates, gravity will affect urine, people will
When has justice ever had anything to do with the law?
When did I say it did?
"Deal with it." has historically been the most common long-term option.
"Deal with it" is a Claytons option. If you take the time to actually read what you're responding to - you'd get that.
I disagree that capitalism and democracy are a contradiction in terms - one refers to the flow of wealth, the other to the flow of power.
Which would be "A phrase or expression in which the component words contradict one another".
Capitalism is voting with your wallet, Democracy is voting with your ballot. If Capitalism drives legislation (and I think it does) then laws are passed according to the influence of lobbyist groups - an effective mechanism as any politician wants to be re-elected and previous sources of funds are the key to funding a re-election. The "numbers" person for any party is only the person who can organise the "numbers" (votes) because they know all the "numbers" (telephone numbers for donors).
Does a "political mandate" (platform elected on by voters) take precedent over lobbyists? No - get elected because you say you'll do something about better eating and bury that mandate because the Beef Farmers lobby steps up and threatens to remove funding next election. Does a political mandate to increase employment take precedence over some country suing because the minimum wage was raised? No - to that too (Trans Pacific Trade Agreement). If it was a "democracy" then voters would take precedence over industry. Remember corporations can't vote, that only "voters" vote is the core of Democracy. The fact that in effect corporations do vote, and their vote counts for more than a "voters" is what I'd call "a contradiction in terms".
As for your description of how the parties set their agenda - certainly they adjust their declared agenda based on "lost votes", but you're leaving out the biggest power brokers in the game - their sponsors.
Nope - not ignoring it. That's just "how it works", the following paragraph (which you had trouble comphrending also) explained how to leverage that.
But as individuals we can make the major backers investments much less profitable.
How, exactly?
[slowly] By making their investments much less profitable.
If Koch brothers have $25 million to invest in political lobbying they can "invest" $12.5 in each of the main parties. That means they get no return on that investment for every vote that doesn't go to the major parties. The more votes that goes to parties that aren't backed by Koch, the worse the return on their investment.
Now read my original post again - you seem to have trouble comprehending the obvious.
Sure, I vote a nearly straight third party ticket, preferring those whose policies I actually agree with when available
Which, does nothing to change the influence of lobbyists or force parties to actually listen to voters when setting the agenda. If you keep picking from the offered cards hoping for a game that you control you're just hoping for the triumph of optimism over experience.
Tell that to the guy who was just shot for violating it.
Tell what? An unjust law is no law at all?
Clearly you neither understood what I wrote (read it again). I've never said fixing the problem was easy or simple. Freedom doesn't come for free, it's gained at the cost of security. The security of being able to outsource responsibility and sit on the couch making a contribution no greater than whining. A pre-requisite for positive change is loss of social time, safety, and an investment in education (basically the result of trusting nothing and verifying everything - anytime someone says "but...." it's a cop out). If that's sounds like anarchy without the destruction it's because it is (libertarianism is bullshit).
Yours is a nice sentiment, but the reality has always been that the law is whatever the people with the power to enforce it say it is.
Only when you seek definition of rules from those that set the game. Try reading the context of Augustine's quote.
In a democracy that power is supposed to flow from the people
There's the problem (flawed logic) - you don't live in a democracy. Capitalism (which I support) and democracy are contradictions in terms.
, but if the people lose control of their government then that just becomes a feel-good talking point to distract them.
Kind of, maybe. More accurately "the people who can be bothered voting" - don't make an informed choice or understand the system. The system is simple - "the people" basically pick from two choices. Both choices are lies that don't get called. Neither do the choices get forced on the candidates. Education (not outsourced to institutions) is a pre-requisite to solve all those problems (voting, informed voting, setting the agenda, making candidate responsible for meeting the agenda).
Making an agenda requires understanding how the agenda is set. Each of the major parties want an increased majority. They seek that by looking at the results of the last election and playing lip service to issues that they percieve as votes they lost last time. So an agenda (platform) is influenced by a previous election. Knowing that, the solution is to not for any party that stands a chance of being elected - this forces the agenda. Pick an issue that you support as part of a platform by someone who will not win enough votes to gain power. It has the two-fold result of forcing an agenda for the last election and making the incumbent responsible for failing their mandated position (if they fail to hold or increase their power they are dumped by their financers).
Money wins elections (basically). You can't, as individuals, set an agenda by throwing money at candidates (individual candidates or parties) - only business/groups can do that as individuals do not all want the same thing. But as individuals we can make the major backers investments much less profitable.
Once that happens there are really only three basic options:
- Take back control of the government (lots of strategies to be attempted...)
Only one - which I've briefly outlined above. All others lead to failure via either bloodshed or disapointment. History demonstates this more than adequately. Increase accountability by legislation and you only exacerbate the exisiting problem. Overthrown the oppressors and learn firsthand what they were trying to oppress (trust me - that ain't a pretty revelation (hint: evolution is far from horizontal, many people will only be happy if they get to burn the entire planet to save the tiny backyard that they'll tire of tomorrow)
- Take control of the enforcers (e.g. get the police to identify with their local communities rather than the government that's offering them lots of power and cool toys to play with)
The only "stupid" assumption at this point is that the law has any real power or meaning behind it.
Lex iniusta non est lex An unjust law is no law at all.
It seems the degree of instrusion and control is directly related to the ratio of forum flooding disguised as trolling. Cue the gun debate/Republican/Democrat/Oh Look Shiny thing flood (sigh)
A judge's jurisdiction is a judge's jurisdiction. Attempting to change that would change our entire legal system. Just no.
Agreed - time changes nothing. If it wasn't OK a hundred years ago for a judge to issue a similar warrant to raid the house of someone who visits or recieved mail from his jurisdiction - but didn't reside in it, why should it be OK now? And if the judge doesn't even know which jurisidiction the target lived in he couldn't approve a warrant for everywhere the target might go - on the offchance the target might be there one day.
This link that attracted all the slushpot comments earlier summarised the syndrome and problem well.
Yes - it happens all the time (changing projects, rejecting code and terminating employment). We don't need contracts that specify the quality of the code - but they do exist e.g. secure code standards.
OK. Now I'm confused:
:) It's both. Most commonly coders are either employees or contractors - they can be terminated for a number of reasons. Generally it's simplest to simply say "you are surplus to requirements". Less often coders (or companies) are contracted to produce code to a standard (i.e. named security standards) - if the code is not up to standard it's a simple breach of contract. The usual process (best practise) when dismissing an employee or contractor is to give them the required notice but escort them out the door, pay them to the end of the notice period, and remove their code and network access immediately. HTH
With Open Source we just block their write access and send their messages to nul. The OP is talking out his arse when he conflates any can submit to Open Source therefore all submissions are automagically added.
We don't need contracts that specify the quality of the code
If you're saying that at some point during the contract you realise it's not working out, pay for the time spent and terminate early then that's fine. If you're saying that you'll pay based on some evaluation of the end product then the criteria for success need to be very clearly defined at the outset so that the contractor can assess the risk of failure and decide whether to take the contract.
If a certain benchmark is required then yes - it's written into the contract. Otherwise it's no different to hiring a forklift driver - there's no benchmark but you fire the bastard if he does no work or fails to move product in a suitable manner.
I don't have any direct experience,
Neither have many of the other commenters - but they lack the honesty to admit it. My apologies for being harsh.
I've just chatted to people who are contractors on other projects in our office and the people who hired them. They have been hired because there's an immediate need and no one available with either the time or skills required. The specification is written as well as it can be under the circumstances but it's never perfect. There are some very good contractors who keep getting rehired because they're trusted to deliver without a lot of management and there are some who are over their heads who get let go early. In the middle are the people who delivered as well as could be expected under the circumstances but the results aren't perfect and that's where it gets messy. There's a hard deadline to be met and so something has to be shipped, if the project gets funded for the next stage then they'll try to fix the bugs later, otherwise they'll stay.
There's a host of difficulties - some times we have to deliver the impossible, most of the time we don't get to do the hiring (ever seen ads for impossible skill sets and experience? Those ads are written by the wittling fools in HR - or worse - wish lists by employment agencies). Regardless of those difficulties as a general rule - crap code gets rejected regardless of the licence model because it defeats the purpose of the project and costs time (in Closed Source time is money - and review and wages costs money). The politics of "next project" is even messier - too many managers leave before the end of doomed projects, still get paid, and move on to other projects they'll doom, others stay and manage badly while putting the blame on the coders. In the long term good management means good coders - and good code means the company/project succeeds for a long time. Government projects are a land of lollipops devoid of market forces (except maybe brown paper bags) but I'm biased by cynicism that is the product of experience. All of which doesn't have much to do with "Open Source has to accept crap code" or "Closed Source has to accept crap code" - both of which are bullshit.
If they are paied employees, then having them write code that is barely ever accepted, is a waste of money.
Open source projects you have unpaied sources, so rejecting code isn't any cost.
Trying something like paying only for accepted code may work... However you will need to pay them more to account for the higher risk working for you.
Rubbish. I don't know everything about software development - but I have spent thirty odd years doing it, both FLOSS and closed source, and your opinion as contrary to most of my experience. Sure there are corner cases where you're told to keep Dumbo on because the major shareholder is their parent - they're the companies you don't want to work for and are no more useful as a guide than your opinions about bubonic plague and automobiles or "other countries" where people smoke one or two cigarettes a day (novel, but rubbish).
The problem is that in FLOSS, rejecting code may bruise somebody's ego, but that is it. In commercial development a whole slew of contractual issues come in.
So write the contract accordingly, then. Such as "Code will be rejected or accepted based on merit. When the product ships, payment only for code that got in."
You'll have a hard time putting something that subjective into a contract, you could change your mind about the project half way through and just reject all their code.
Yes - it happens all the time (changing projects, rejecting code and terminating employment). We don't need contracts that specify the quality of the code - but they do exist e.g. secure code standards. Don't know what planet you live on where that doesn't happen (Planet Couch?).
The problem is that in FLOSS, rejecting code may bruise somebody's ego, but that is it.
Wrong. It's wastes valuable time. And the only difference between commercial and FLOSS software development is that FLOSS doesn't always pay coders - both styles (closed and open) cost time (time == money), both can produce crap code and miss deadlines, and both can have butt-hurt contributors whose code was rejected. That's why we pay them to piss off and suspend their access rights when we've had enough of their crap code - at least in sane, consistently profitable companies doing closed source software development. (note: I've never worked in a Communist country - YMMV)
Dude, I know we work with binary quite a bit, but equating a lack of 100% veto power to complete indifference toward quality of code is taking "all or nothing" a bit too far! (Sorry; I couldn't resist the pun)
Dud - why reply to my post? Don't you understand sarcasm/satire/irony - or do you just not understand how to reply to posts? FLOSS and closed source can, and should reject crap code. Just because I pay someone doesn't mean I can't reject their code - at least where I live (consistent crap code == termination, either for crap coders or projects that deploy crap code/miss deadlines).
Slashdot Mirror
@BrianFagioli, please substantiate the comment: "Microsoft could easily be the world's biggest vendor of open source software." Is there any data to back that up?
Is it even possible? Seller of free stuff....
Remember when Microsoft had Windows for Workgroups?
Yes....
The Internet put them at risk of a end run past them. They had to adapt or die.
So they stole from IBM. Yes, it's coming back to me now. OS/2. Thanks for clearing that up.
Oh wait, I see the problem - you're equating networking and internet. Networking was easy - little resistance from Bill there, the "internet" was something he hoped was a passing fad (tcp stack was trickier than cifs, and then their was the whole browser thingie - damn standards). Netscape, Mosaic, that's a whole 'nuther barrel of fish in the sun.
heck look at what we did to the wolf: all those weird mutant dog shapes, sizes, and coats
Are you simply retarded or serving a Monsanto agenda? Burbank did no genetic engineering. The Chihuahua was the result of selection over a long period of time and comes without patents or engineered infertility.
Good science is not claiming that designing monkeys that glow in the dark is the same things as selecting wolves that aren't scared of humans.
Selection over successive generations for desirable characteristics != genetic engineering. Claiming that it is, is either ignorance (the enemy of science) or sophism (the enemy of intelligent discussion). The only things stupider and more dishonest is: equating those that differentiate between the two methods of engineering a desirable change in an organism are somehow the enemies of progress/science; claiming that all engineered change is good.
The Romans had a quaint habit of making those the made bridges sit under them while a legion marched overhead. The same should be considered for genetic engineering. Not all bridges should be trusted just because the builders say it's safe.
Trust if you want - but verify. Anyone who lobbies to have the new bridges kept secret should have a legion set on their arses. If it's so fucking safe what do the builders have to hide?
The right to self-defense is not seriously questioned by any valid system of ethics.
Translation: Any system of "ethics" that contradicts my beliefs I deem invalid
Reality: No "system of ethics" denies you the right to self-defence, but I'll ignore that by redefining "self defence" to mean "my right to carry firearms" (and relegate police duties to traffic control only).
Anyone who would deprive free men of the means of self-defense
Strawman: No guns != No self-defence
Anyone who would deprive free men of the means of any means of "self-defense" TFTFY
Can you point to the issue of Hansard showing the legislation that says I can't exercise "self-defense"? No? (there's a surprise).
We Americans have had these concepts enshrined in law since the beginning of our republic, which under any definition is "civilization."
Ironically - that is an excellent example of flawed logic. Did you miss the "well regulated" bit of your constitution? How's that confirmation bias working out for you?
When your logic leads to illogical conclusions, it is time to check your premises.
Excellent advice - do try it.
From the land where we've had one mass shooting. Which was, before the gun restrictions. A country where we still have a "right" to self-defense - we just don't equate self-defense with arsenals (we just call the police). Obviously us colonial subjects of the Queen would have even less Sandy Hook episodes if guns were not "well regulated" (less tiger attacks if we carried magic tiger rocks, and less rapes in the military if those women had access to firearms). Thanks for the lesson in logic.
One major difference is that is it's rare for Australians to propose that arming women will reduce the problem - quite the reverse.
The only possible reason for rejecting the clear logic of self-defense is if you are under the mistaken impression that women are too scatterbrained to learn how to operate a simple mechanical device. So which is it, do you reject the notion of self-defense or are you a misogynist?
You logic is flawed. If self-defense is a requirement for any section of society: only those prepared to shoot first will benefit; you can kiss civilisation goodbye. And before you trot out that tired old cliche about how you "can't rely on the police", maybe you should make the system work before advocating the return to a system that was abandoned in favour of law and order.
Must be much easier to be right when you just ignore any statistics that you don't like. I wish that I could do that. Alas, I am too honest.
Didn't seem to stop you misusing the ABS stats.
How do you make the rifled barrels for your AR-15s and AK-47s? In the US you may be able to easily buy one but in Australia getting a barrel seems to be just as hard as getting a full gun (at least from my understanding)
The problem with that idea is that it assumes that firearms are something that are uncommon or rare in the first place. Firearms are incredibly easy for anyone to produce with or without a 3D printer. A used drill press, lathe, or CNC costs the same as a good 3D printer. The scary black rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47s can partly be made with nothing more than a jig and a Dremel or a drill press.
Agreed. I've seen plenty of firearms in PNG and Indonesia that were made by people without lathes. Not as lethal as those turned out by trained and well equipped gunsmiths - but the people they were used to shoot looked just as dead to me.
Australia doesn't have a multi billion dollar drug and contraband smuggling economy walking across its borders every year from Mexico.
Not from Mexico, no. And not one way either (we ship drugs both ways - hello Rio, how's the marmalade? - hello France, how's the green skins? - etc). It's true we don't ship a lot of guns to Mexico. We do bust large quantities of drugs coming in (occasionally going out), and while we do blame China and North Korea for the origin of some of those drugs - we also recognize they are just trying to compete to satisfy the demand. Australia does have a history as a being used to route weapons through to other parts of the world - but as far as I know Mexico isn't one of those places (I suspect Virginia has a monopoly on that).
Didn't I read somewhere that the rate of rape in AU is like 3X that of the US?
You're trying to compare apples and oranges. It's hard enough to compare any two US states given the huge differences in reporting methods and laws on rape, and damn difficult to compare any US state and Australia. There is very little difference between Australian states in law on rape, the gathering of crime statistics (all based on convictions), and police training and qualification. Most Australians who visit the US are stunned by your bizarre laws and "police". It's not rape if you're married?!! Some states vote to see which untrained people get to play police!!
If you only get your news from Slashdot you might believe a growing percentage of Australians don't think we have a cultural problem with attitudes to women (unfortunately not a majority), and that that's the root cause of the rape problem (though not only women get raped). If so, you'd be mistaken.
One major difference is that is it's rare for Australians to propose that arming women will reduce the problem - quite the reverse. I suspect that may have something to do with huge difference in the amount of money gun manufacturers make in the two countries. Apropos of little - which industries fund the anti-gun lobbyists? (bullet proof vest are illegal for citizens here - so I'm guessing it isn't the ballistic protection manufacturers).
Oh and you might want to take a look at the huge percentage of "sex offenders" in the US. Given the bizarre laws you have in many States it's hard to tell whether you simply cannot be trusted around other people or you're just mostly batshit crazy religious nutjobs. Probably a bit of both.
Come back when you have facts.
Clearly you wouldn't recognize a fact if it flew back from Mexico and shot you in the foot. (statistical anomaly, ow, not murder, don't count).
Meth labs and hydroponic setups are banned too, but that does not stop them.
So is murder and child rape. What was your solution?
Generally, the point of the law is to indicate what is OK and what is not OK, and to provide punishments for those that break the law.
If a guy gets a gun and blows a bunch of holes in a piece of paper, who is the victim?
The people who inhale the paper dust? The people whose peace is shattered by the gun shot?
Do you have a point? Or is this simply a "baffle'm with bullshit" exercise?
If a woman gets a gun to protect her from her crazy ex-husband, who is the victim?
On the basis of the example given - no one. There's an assertion that the gun will protect the woman. The false logic that a gun is an equaliser. Another assertion that the "ex-husband" is "crazy". Yet another unsubstantiated assertion that somehow being "crazy" means the ex-wife is at risk from something that only a gun can protect her. Emotive, speculative, logically flawed, and totally irrelevant to the legislation that was speculatively proposed.
The point here is that OWNERSHIP of a gun is NOT bad. It is what you DO with the gun that actually matters.
Maybe to you, but real life not so much. If you removed all the gun laws tomorrow it'd still be an offence to shoot someone (assault). Gun laws are there to keep voters happy as a measure designed to reduce the risk that someone might do "something bad" with a gun. Ownership of a gun, or explosives etc is a risk of behaviour and exposure. "You" might only shoot paper without adversely affecting anyone else but as long as you have a gun and ammunition there's a risk they could get into the wrong hands - so no, the current gun laws are not just about what you might do with a bullet. It's about limiting the number of firearms and ammunition and attempting to "guess" in advance which owners are likely to misuse the bullets (or point the guns at the wrong people - which is anyone).
Keeping voters happy means (amongst other things) limiting the embarrassment suffered by public officials when someone insists on wearing petrol pants to a barbecue. e.g. "Three times that person assaulted ex-partners with a weapon - now someone is dead. How come you allowed that person to get a weapon?".
Good and Bad are personal opinions - like Right and Wrong. Confusing them with what's legal and illegal won't end well. Leads to other stupid expectations like Justice and Meaning (sigh). It's the same sort of flawed logic that says possession of guns means the government won't be evil. 'cause we'll arm up - form a militia, vote for leaders, shoot the government and form our own government. That'll take care of that problem of outsourcing responsibility... (yup, if at first ya don't succeed keep doing exactly the same thing thing in the vain hope that blind optimism will triumph over experience.)
Cracking down in ownership really only affects the honest people.
Bullshit. I'm relatively honest - how does the "cracking down on ownership" negatively affect me? It doesn't unreasonably affect me. (I'm assuming that part of your problem is the inability to differentiate between "law-abiding" and "honest". "Honesty" doesn't mean you obey the law - it just means you'll admit breaking it if asked.)
I'm a rural property owner without a criminal record or mental health problem. I legally own all the guns I reasonably nee
Meth labs and hydroponic setups are banned too, but that does not stop them.
So is murder and child rape. What was your solution?
Instructing someone else is already a crime
Instructing them in what is a crime in this country? (or are conspiracy and incitement synonyms for instruction?).
according to Wikipedia, flatulence is simply gas. there is no particulate component of farts.
No particulate component - ever? Unlike your "wikipedia" source I referenced mine with an authoritative source that's not in denial. Good luck convincing your mother those airbrushed brown stains in your shorts are just because you're too lazy to wipe, just keep hanging with your mates, telling bitch jokes and pulling each other's fingers.
When has justice ever had anything to do with the law?
When did I say it did?
When you said "an unjust law is no law at all".
Which means - justice and the law are mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite of the meaning you take away.
Sure, I vote a nearly straight third party ticket, preferring those whose policies I actually agree with when available
Which, does nothing to change the influence of lobbyists or force parties to actually listen to voters when setting the agenda. If you keep picking from the offered cards hoping for a game that you control you're just hoping for the triumph of optimism over experience.
So then oh wise master, what exactly are you trying to suggest?
That in a two party system you can't win. No amount of legislation will stop corporate interests from profitably influencing candidates in a two party system. Donate to both and any time either party wants to do the corporate bidding they simply need enough support from the other party to push the legislation through - which is already bought and paid for. But if the balance of power is held by a large number of candidates/parties the only way to ensure all their support is to influence all of them - which is kind of hard to do without increasing the size of the total influence budget, and damn near impossible to do if the parties/candidates who win changes every election. If the majority of voters give their vote to candidates who "don't stand a chance" - those that get elected will serve a wide range of masters. For them to get any legislation through they'll need extensive negotiation with other politicians to get their support. It'll mean politicians will need to do more work, and spend more time with their electorate, and most of the time they'll have to do things they don't want to do (but no one said democracy was meant to be easy).
The only way a constantly changing mixture of candidates can be elected is if people don't vote for one of the major parties. If everyone votes for a candidate they believe won't get enough votes to be elected the major parties won't hold a balance of power between them and will have to reach a broad compromise with a wide range of interest - and keep searching for an agenda for the next election that might gain them enough extra votes to gain a better negotiating position. If people don't vote for someone who already holds office... the corporate interests have very little power to influence outcomes. i.e. If you own ChicknLickn and want to get a better deal for you company you only need to "support" maybe two candidates. Say half a million each to ensure "support" across every state - and maybe a ChicknLickn store on every Army base. But if almost any candidate on the ticket might get elected - across the nation, you'd need to give a lot smaller share of the "support" to cover all the possibilities. Now the size of your "contribution" to local candidates is no bigger than what the local taco stand is donating (and he only wants a larger car park permit - not nationwide franchising favours).
You cannot legislate against influence. Aside from being like trying to get foxes to create laws to protect chickens, it's virtually impossible to properly define - hence impossible to prohibit. "Fancy that bellhop with the tight pants at the Majestic?", "Want a winning tip at the dogs?", "Want your children to stop getting bullied at school?", "Want your brother to get a pay rise?", "Want your church to get funding for chapel repairs?". There's an almost infinite number of ways to influence candidates. Trying to pass laws to stop it happening at all is like pissing up a rope and hoping to stay dry - or passing laws against taking drugs. Business will seek to influence candidates, gravity will affect urine, people will
When has justice ever had anything to do with the law?
When did I say it did?
"Deal with it." has historically been the most common long-term option.
"Deal with it" is a Claytons option. If you take the time to actually read what you're responding to - you'd get that.
I disagree that capitalism and democracy are a contradiction in terms - one refers to the flow of wealth, the other to the flow of power.
Which would be "A phrase or expression in which the component words contradict one another".
Capitalism is voting with your wallet, Democracy is voting with your ballot. If Capitalism drives legislation (and I think it does) then laws are passed according to the influence of lobbyist groups - an effective mechanism as any politician wants to be re-elected and previous sources of funds are the key to funding a re-election. The "numbers" person for any party is only the person who can organise the "numbers" (votes) because they know all the "numbers" (telephone numbers for donors).
Does a "political mandate" (platform elected on by voters) take precedent over lobbyists? No - get elected because you say you'll do something about better eating and bury that mandate because the Beef Farmers lobby steps up and threatens to remove funding next election. Does a political mandate to increase employment take precedence over some country suing because the minimum wage was raised? No - to that too (Trans Pacific Trade Agreement). If it was a "democracy" then voters would take precedence over industry. Remember corporations can't vote, that only "voters" vote is the core of Democracy. The fact that in effect corporations do vote, and their vote counts for more than a "voters" is what I'd call "a contradiction in terms".
As for your description of how the parties set their agenda - certainly they adjust their declared agenda based on "lost votes", but you're leaving out the biggest power brokers in the game - their sponsors.
Nope - not ignoring it. That's just "how it works", the following paragraph (which you had trouble comphrending also) explained how to leverage that.
But as individuals we can make the major backers investments much less profitable.
How, exactly?
[slowly] By making their investments much less profitable.
If Koch brothers have $25 million to invest in political lobbying they can "invest" $12.5 in each of the main parties. That means they get no return on that investment for every vote that doesn't go to the major parties. The more votes that goes to parties that aren't backed by Koch, the worse the return on their investment.
Now read my original post again - you seem to have trouble comprehending the obvious.
Sure, I vote a nearly straight third party ticket, preferring those whose policies I actually agree with when available
Which, does nothing to change the influence of lobbyists or force parties to actually listen to voters when setting the agenda. If you keep picking from the offered cards hoping for a game that you control you're just hoping for the triumph of optimism over experience.
Tell that to the guy who was just shot for violating it.
Tell what? An unjust law is no law at all?
Clearly you neither understood what I wrote (read it again). I've never said fixing the problem was easy or simple. Freedom doesn't come for free, it's gained at the cost of security. The security of being able to outsource responsibility and sit on the couch making a contribution no greater than whining. A pre-requisite for positive change is loss of social time, safety, and an investment in education (basically the result of trusting nothing and verifying everything - anytime someone says "but...." it's a cop out). If that's sounds like anarchy without the destruction it's because it is (libertarianism is bullshit).
Yours is a nice sentiment, but the reality has always been that the law is whatever the people with the power to enforce it say it is.
Only when you seek definition of rules from those that set the game. Try reading the context of Augustine's quote.
In a democracy that power is supposed to flow from the people
There's the problem (flawed logic) - you don't live in a democracy. Capitalism (which I support) and democracy are contradictions in terms.
, but if the people lose control of their government then that just becomes a feel-good talking point to distract them.
Kind of, maybe. More accurately "the people who can be bothered voting" - don't make an informed choice or understand the system. The system is simple - "the people" basically pick from two choices. Both choices are lies that don't get called. Neither do the choices get forced on the candidates. Education (not outsourced to institutions) is a pre-requisite to solve all those problems (voting, informed voting, setting the agenda, making candidate responsible for meeting the agenda).
Making an agenda requires understanding how the agenda is set. Each of the major parties want an increased majority. They seek that by looking at the results of the last election and playing lip service to issues that they percieve as votes they lost last time. So an agenda (platform) is influenced by a previous election. Knowing that, the solution is to not for any party that stands a chance of being elected - this forces the agenda. Pick an issue that you support as part of a platform by someone who will not win enough votes to gain power. It has the two-fold result of forcing an agenda for the last election and making the incumbent responsible for failing their mandated position (if they fail to hold or increase their power they are dumped by their financers).
Money wins elections (basically). You can't, as individuals, set an agenda by throwing money at candidates (individual candidates or parties) - only business/groups can do that as individuals do not all want the same thing. But as individuals we can make the major backers investments much less profitable.
Once that happens there are really only three basic options: - Take back control of the government (lots of strategies to be attempted...)
Only one - which I've briefly outlined above. All others lead to failure via either bloodshed or disapointment. History demonstates this more than adequately. Increase accountability by legislation and you only exacerbate the exisiting problem. Overthrown the oppressors and learn firsthand what they were trying to oppress (trust me - that ain't a pretty revelation (hint: evolution is far from horizontal, many people will only be happy if they get to burn the entire planet to save the tiny backyard that they'll tire of tomorrow)
- Take control of the enforcers (e.g. get the police to identify with their local communities rather than the government that's offering them lots of power and cool toys to play with)
Yes - it's par
The only "stupid" assumption at this point is that the law has any real power or meaning behind it.
Lex iniusta non est lex An unjust law is no law at all.
It seems the degree of instrusion and control is directly related to the ratio of forum flooding disguised as trolling. Cue the gun debate/Republican/Democrat/Oh Look Shiny thing flood (sigh)
A judge's jurisdiction is a judge's jurisdiction. Attempting to change that would change our entire legal system. Just no.
Agreed - time changes nothing. If it wasn't OK a hundred years ago for a judge to issue a similar warrant to raid the house of someone who visits or recieved mail from his jurisdiction - but didn't reside in it, why should it be OK now? And if the judge doesn't even know which jurisidiction the target lived in he couldn't approve a warrant for everywhere the target might go - on the offchance the target might be there one day.
This link that attracted all the slushpot comments earlier summarised the syndrome and problem well.
Yes - it happens all the time (changing projects, rejecting code and terminating employment). We don't need contracts that specify the quality of the code - but they do exist e.g. secure code standards.
OK. Now I'm confused:
:)
It's both. Most commonly coders are either employees or contractors - they can be terminated for a number of reasons. Generally it's simplest to simply say "you are surplus to requirements". Less often coders (or companies) are contracted to produce code to a standard (i.e. named security standards) - if the code is not up to standard it's a simple breach of contract. The usual process (best practise) when dismissing an employee or contractor is to give them the required notice but escort them out the door, pay them to the end of the notice period, and remove their code and network access immediately. HTH
With Open Source we just block their write access and send their messages to nul. The OP is talking out his arse when he conflates any can submit to Open Source therefore all submissions are automagically added.
We don't need contracts that specify the quality of the code
If you're saying that at some point during the contract you realise it's not working out, pay for the time spent and terminate early then that's fine. If you're saying that you'll pay based on some evaluation of the end product then the criteria for success need to be very clearly defined at the outset so that the contractor can assess the risk of failure and decide whether to take the contract.
If a certain benchmark is required then yes - it's written into the contract. Otherwise it's no different to hiring a forklift driver - there's no benchmark but you fire the bastard if he does no work or fails to move product in a suitable manner.
I don't have any direct experience,
Neither have many of the other commenters - but they lack the honesty to admit it. My apologies for being harsh.
I've just chatted to people who are contractors on other projects in our office and the people who hired them. They have been hired because there's an immediate need and no one available with either the time or skills required. The specification is written as well as it can be under the circumstances but it's never perfect. There are some very good contractors who keep getting rehired because they're trusted to deliver without a lot of management and there are some who are over their heads who get let go early. In the middle are the people who delivered as well as could be expected under the circumstances but the results aren't perfect and that's where it gets messy. There's a hard deadline to be met and so something has to be shipped, if the project gets funded for the next stage then they'll try to fix the bugs later, otherwise they'll stay.
There's a host of difficulties - some times we have to deliver the impossible, most of the time we don't get to do the hiring (ever seen ads for impossible skill sets and experience? Those ads are written by the wittling fools in HR - or worse - wish lists by employment agencies). Regardless of those difficulties as a general rule - crap code gets rejected regardless of the licence model because it defeats the purpose of the project and costs time (in Closed Source time is money - and review and wages costs money). The politics of "next project" is even messier - too many managers leave before the end of doomed projects, still get paid, and move on to other projects they'll doom, others stay and manage badly while putting the blame on the coders. In the long term good management means good coders - and good code means the company/project succeeds for a long time. Government projects are a land of lollipops devoid of market forces (except maybe brown paper bags) but I'm biased by cynicism that is the product of experience. All of which doesn't have much to do with "Open Source has to accept crap code" or "Closed Source has to accept crap code" - both of which are bullshit.
and it doesn't end with "and they lived happily ever after".
Apparently you have a reading comprehension issue. Obviously I was _not_ talking about the cost to the contributor.
Neither was I - try re-reading, though you might need to rest your lips a bit first.
If they are paied employees, then having them write code that is barely ever accepted, is a waste of money. Open source projects you have unpaied sources, so rejecting code isn't any cost. Trying something like paying only for accepted code may work... However you will need to pay them more to account for the higher risk working for you.
Rubbish. I don't know everything about software development - but I have spent thirty odd years doing it, both FLOSS and closed source, and your opinion as contrary to most of my experience. Sure there are corner cases where you're told to keep Dumbo on because the major shareholder is their parent - they're the companies you don't want to work for and are no more useful as a guide than your opinions about bubonic plague and automobiles or "other countries" where people smoke one or two cigarettes a day (novel, but rubbish).
The problem is that in FLOSS, rejecting code may bruise somebody's ego, but that is it. In commercial development a whole slew of contractual issues come in.
So write the contract accordingly, then. Such as "Code will be rejected or accepted based on merit. When the product ships, payment only for code that got in."
You'll have a hard time putting something that subjective into a contract, you could change your mind about the project half way through and just reject all their code.
Yes - it happens all the time (changing projects, rejecting code and terminating employment). We don't need contracts that specify the quality of the code - but they do exist e.g. secure code standards. Don't know what planet you live on where that doesn't happen (Planet Couch?).
The problem is that in FLOSS, rejecting code may bruise somebody's ego, but that is it.
Wrong. It's wastes valuable time. And the only difference between commercial and FLOSS software development is that FLOSS doesn't always pay coders - both styles (closed and open) cost time (time == money), both can produce crap code and miss deadlines, and both can have butt-hurt contributors whose code was rejected. That's why we pay them to piss off and suspend their access rights when we've had enough of their crap code - at least in sane, consistently profitable companies doing closed source software development. (note: I've never worked in a Communist country - YMMV)
.
Dude, I know we work with binary quite a bit, but equating a lack of 100% veto power to complete indifference toward quality of code is taking "all or nothing" a bit too far! (Sorry; I couldn't resist the pun)
Dud - why reply to my post? Don't you understand sarcasm/satire/irony - or do you just not understand how to reply to posts? FLOSS and closed source can, and should reject crap code. Just because I pay someone doesn't mean I can't reject their code - at least where I live (consistent crap code == termination, either for crap coders or projects that deploy crap code/miss deadlines).