We do allow our candidates to use the web. We also write the tests specifically for the job at hand. We do NOT penalise for mashing, copying, or even asking for help. What we do penalise is for when someone grabs something and doesn't understand what it is, how it works, and cannot make it 'theirs'.
We also penalise people who copy code from the net and then attempt to pass it off as their own. We don't monitor the test - we allow the candidate to work against their own clock.
We aren't fearful of hiring wrong people - but we don't have time for them either. We also find it's an extremely good means of filtering out what can be up to 1,000 applications. Those who apply for the job are those who really want to work for us, and are willing to show us their skills.
Our questions tend to be qualitative, which means that it's very hard to 'find the answer on the net'. They will include questions such as (eg for a web designer) - "In what ways could you significantly improve the BBC news website, and why do you think the BBC have not made those improvements already?"
For a (S)CSS engineer, we will be asking questions to demonstrate approaches to carving and presenting a responsive page, based upon a simple flat visual.
For all of these things, there are no right answers, but there are good answers.
The funniest response we once got from a programmer, to about 9 out of 10 of the questions we had on the test for the position he was applying for, was "It's not my department." - needless to say he wasn't shortlisted.
Well, it depends upon the job. As OneSmartFellow correctly divines, a recent post was for a sysadmin / sysops post. We don't require other devs to know what ARP is, but it's always good if they have some idea about the network stack.
We have been repeatedly amazed by the levels of ignorance that IT-qualified candidates have had. One of the most disappointing finds is that very few who have come from university have any substantial programming experience. Likewise, 'hack-a-day' php coders and sql-ers about, but most of them do not know when to apply a left join, some of them don't even know what a key is used for (just think of all that wasted cpu time due to ridiculously poor sql implementations. It makes me shudder).
Regarding the idea of methods for developing a re-usable, maintainable codebase for our work (primarily webwork) - seems to be beyond everyone that we recruit. The team that we have right now is second to none - but we have found that a well-written test reduces the initial number of applicants from about 700 to 800 down to about 10, most of whom we will interview.
The only way that we have found for being able to assess a candidate's suitability for work at our company is to write tests that suit the job, and then ask the candidates to demonstrate their skills. We've had people with all sorts of qualifications relevant to the LAMP architecture not know the basics of regex, sql, bash, etc. Let alone what ARP is.
IMO qualifications in IT aren't really very relevant, other than showing the intent/interests of the individual. Also, as IT is changing so rapidly, by the time a (non-theoretical) qualification has been published, it is pretty much out of date.
My response, as an employer, to this news could be summarised as: 'We never had much credence to the MS qualification in the first place - and now we have none.
What it 'means' is that we are a step closer to optical switching - i.e., optical computers.
The important aspect of the work, as I see it, is that the switch is activated optically also, and the complexity of the switch is low (allowing it to be manufactured easily).
However, I'm no expert in the field. I just read the article, and am geek enough to read/.
Why is BASIC bad? (1) It encourages poor programming practices by
a) not including good code block semantics.
b) not supporting classes
c) not separating library (or OS) calls from language primitives
d) having no proper concept of scope
e) not having a standard
(2) Being a suboptimal interpreted language - I remember that CLS was around 100 times slower than a Z80 routine.
Of course, you may be thinking of modern BASIC implementations - well, that's a different thing altogether. The BASICs (eg on the Spectrum, C64, etc) I knew were just rubbish. I guess you could argue that it's an implementation thing - but actually, it's hard to go wrong with something like Java, or C. I remember some LISP interpreters were pretty slow also..
We just migrated our codebase from C++ STL to C++11 and in general, it was worth the pain. The main benefits for us were better awareness of modern character encoding - but stuff like lamda functions are pretty cool too, and we could probably tidy up a lot of our earlier code to use more C++11 features.
I was brought up on Assembler (Z80, 680x0) and moved to 'C', and then migrated to 'C++', so my early C++ was very C-like (not unusual). However, I've not looked back. I know that you are asking about C++11, but C++ itself is probably worth highlighting.
I also know Java, Obj-C, (and a bunch of other languages that I have used in less commercially sensitive contexts) and there's a lot to be said for them too. But when I feel like getting close to the metal, it's C++ for me. I guess it's b/c one can still (just about) follow the assembler generated by it.
But then I'm old in my approach. Modern optimising compilers, with coding strategies, static analysis (as well as excellent IDEs) probably have more effect on my productivity than any language sub-variant.
(1) It wasn't a language that made computers personal, it was the advent of the microchip, and, as a consequence, the microcomputer. (2) The first language I learned was BASIC. It was so bad that I then learned assembler. (3) My experience of BASIC was so bad that I didn't want anything to do with it, even though using it to compose LUTs would have been very useful (4) Then 'C' became cheap, and then free. I haven't written anything in BASIC for over 30 years.
This is just marketing hype dressed up as a question. Having said that, anything that gets anyone enthused about programming is good, I guess.
What I really don't like is when Val Huber refers to a previous article he submitted as if it were written by a third party. Now, I love SQL (and triggers are ok) - and so does Val Huber - I'm sure we would get along fine. Val, you've been doing SQL for 20 years! woot. So that means you started back 'round '94. (Aw. I started back in '85. I was doing websites in '94 - remember Lycos?)
But it's just using SQL Triggers, Val - why give it some sort of fancy name? Ohh everyone else does that, like "Web2"? or "The Cloud", etc? Still stinks - but hopefully someone may actually pick up how to use some of the cool features of SQL.
It sucks when some designers or an agency comes along and takes all your money and then produces utter shite, which you are expected to pay for, because you asked for their advice. Like Slashdot. What an epic mess.
The obvious interpretation, that this device blasts satellites and spacecraft while they are in space, is impossible. Actually all sorts of things (including the aforementioned) are placed into a chamber for sonic vibration testing. Satellites are tested this way for launch-worthiness, not space-worthiness.
If I'm understanding the summary correctly, the purpose isn't to have a way for the drones to defend themselves, but to have drones that can defend a Navy ship, an army base, etc.
TFA is about drone self-defence..
If a Predator drone were to get shot down [...] the bad side is that you just lost a $4 million piece of equipment. So, in a bid to keep drones protected, DARPA is funding research into drone-mounted laser weapons.
and
The project, called Endurance, is [...] being tasked with the development of "technology for pod-mounted lasers to protect a variety of airborne platforms from emerging and legacy EO/IR guided surface-to-air missiles."
Moreover, ships and bases already have great anti-missile defence technology - and the only advantage that would have using drones in a defensive role would be if there is poor LOS, in which case the strategists would be out of a job, if not court-martialed. Moreover, the ship/base airspace would be cluttered. Most UAV designs are for long endurance missions. the article refers to MALE UAVS (Predator / Reaper), and hints at HALE UAVs such as the RQ-4 Global Hawk and the RQ-170 Sentinel .
Note that the Iranians downed an ultra-secret RQ-170 Sentinel using EW (electronic warfare), not missiles. Lasers won't be much help with emerging EW technology.
I believe this is a sign that an AI has gone rogue and managed to sneak this project in as a "DARPA Initiative" as a means to protect its fledgeling race of flying robot killers.
...
Hah, well assuming that you aren't merely posting for humour value, I would suggest that; as the primary cause of failure in these UAVs is equipment failure, operator error, and weather; the AI you refer to isn't particularly intelligent. If it were intelligent then it would be attempting to fund research into greater autonomy for AI systems...
Drone figures from WP show that as of Q1 2009, of the 223 USAF UAVs in operational service, only 4 were shot down. Whereas 11 were lost due to accidents (mainly flying into things), and 55 were lost due to equipment failure, operator error, or weather.
Importantly, the current failsafe for OOC UAVs is to shoot them down with AIM-9 missiles, which is what happened to a reaper on 13 September 2009. Developing an autonomous laser defence would preclude this failsafe.
In brief, the US government should be spending it's money on other problems. Given a vote, I doubt that the US populace would sign up for this particular budgetary spend.
Yes. Posting all your contacts on the Internet is open to breaches of privacy (regardless of zero-day exploits).
Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft - all of them kowtow to the NSA, the CIA, the FBI. Why? Because in return their lobbyists get to bend the ears of the legislators.
I know this sounds strange at first, but before I learned assembler, I didn't really understand what was going on in the heart of the machine. If I were to introduce a programme starting from fundamentals, it would start with an easy assembler (eg Z80, 68000, PIC); this itself introduces the fundamental operations of programming, including assignment, de-referencing, LUTs, stacks, etc.
The next progression would be 'C'. This abstracts out the hardware dependency, but keeps the underlying structure. This assists with more complex algorithm development, but also shows how the approach to programming developed from assembler.
Following that, I would move onto one of the modern 'C' successors. Personally I use C++, but maybe objective-C would be better.
It totally depends upon your purpose though.. If you want to cover UI/UX stuff, then you should think of a different approach. If you want to cover databases, that's something else again.
But in programming - IMO, the most genuinely 'useful' ideas are things like the registers and special registers that make up a CPU.
Every time some government gets really stupid, they push more people into finding ways around it. IMO, it would be good to see more people using TOR - which at the moment seems to be filled with idiots, but could serve a much better purpose providing political safety.
No, not really. Although I was talking about the US health system, and you are clearly not a supporter (who is?!) what I haven't heard is any alternatives that you offer, except for the right to self-determination.
The problem with that is that it sort of forgets that a market economy is governed by the inefficiencies of marketing - and profit-making. Neither of which are beneficial to the end-user. I wish it were so that humans were less prone to the mechanisms of advertising, but we are, and we make bad decisions on this.
You aren't stupid - but neither of us are going to change our views - let's agree to differ on this. No-one else is here, I think.
all those things were old in our species long before the modern state was dreamed up
Of course - derived from the greek city states. But states are indeed an extension of society. Look how the concept of the nation state has provided the R&D opportunities to open up the world. The convention of the 'nation state' is a powerful one, which appears to have served us well. National pride, identity, and patriotism, all are focussed by the perception.
As the world gets smaller, it's true that the idea of the nation state begins to lose it's strength over to larger federations of states - something which you feel threatened by. The end-game is a world government. Not the puppet show that is the UN, but a global administration - but don't worry, it won't happen in our lifetimes. Especially while the US chooses to arbitrarily attack impoverished nations based upon trumped up charges.
Once, I guess, you believed that your mind was free.
Look at the marketing budget used by your top healthcare providers, and talk to me about efficiency. I suggest you learn about Health economics, and likewise recognise that in the US, which has rejected universal healthcare to date (thanks to the lobbying made by big industry there), the per capita cost of healthcare is about $8,233 whereas everywhere else it's less, by about $3,000. Considering that the US has some of the worst healthcare provision, which itself is pretty dehumanising, I suggest you get back to your calculator and policy books.
Brother states help, because they know that they can receive help in kind when they need it. It's a form of mutual assurance, which is what we are pretty good at as a species. The difficulty, for me, is to envisage how a libertarian state could organise itself to assist anyone. Likewise, how would it involve the powerful from becoming miniature despots and tyrants or worse? Taxation is taxation, regardless of whether it goes to the state, or to the country.
In Europe, we have the EU, which is, in some ways, like a federation of states with an extremely diminished, non-executive, central government. Yes, about 0.5% of my income tax goes to the EU. while about 1% goes to foreign aid. The remaining 98.5% goes to the state, who spends it looking after the aged and destitute (35%), provision of universal healthcare (18%), provision of universal education (14%), national defence (5%), policing (3%), roads and rails (3%), and the remainder on things like investing in industry, and paying off the state debt, with a tiny amount going to intelligence, and the civil service.
If someone entered my house and took most of my permissions, it would only be theft if I did not consent. This is true regardless of the number. But your metaphor fails - I don't live in a communist country. I get to keep a lot of what I earn. Most, actually. I have a house, and a convertible, and fly around the world on holidays. But none of that is really very interesting.
Your last question is far more interesting:
Would you willing to be poor, genuinely poor, in order to improve the standard of living for those who might have been even poorer?
Yes. Yes, I would. But it's not how you see it. If you belonged to a destitute family of 12, with nine brothers and sisters, and you managed to go out and earn a couple of loaves, would you keep it for yourself, or would you share it with your family? I don't even have to share that much with my extended family of fellow citizens. But I am really happy that I am in a position to do what I can for them,
Typically in Western Europe spending goes to meet those in need. E.g. UK Gov. Spending
Total £715.3 billion
Pensions £144.6 billion
Health Care. £130.2 billion
Education £99.3 billion
Defence £44.6 billion
Welfare £114.7 billion
The rest is made up of investing in new industry, large social programmes, transport, and paying off debts.
I don't see taxation as a theft. I see it as a way for the community to provide for itself.
I am only going to respond in one place, Arker. You speak of obligations and enforcement, but it's not like that; though it may look that way to you. Every person has choice - we have the freedom to break laws just as much as we do to keep them. But most of us choose to stay within the law, because we prefer the company of law abiders; and there is a mutual benefit.
Humans are social by nature. Language - the internet - slashdot - is evidence of this. Social groups depend upon collaboration for success. The benefits of a community are subject to economies of scale - the larger the community, the greater the benefits. These benefits include disposable income, and what may as well be called 'free time' oe leisure time.
Just like as being in a household we do chores, and therefore live in a harmonious state, so do we have to accept some responsibility for the community that we are a part of, and this means aiding those in need, so that when we are needy, we too may benefit. This is most elegantly done through mechanisms such as taxation.
A successful community works for the success of every one of its members, and each member should expect that as a right; yes, universal education, healthcare, retraining, defence, etc. a community which is made of individuals who feel valued, who feel well-met, who feel responsible, and empowered, and engaged, and rewarded - is a community that has little crime, and more free time, more real money to spend.
You don't want to, or cannot, see this the way that I do. I am not misinformed, or deluded, or idealistic. Freedom of expression is important, as is free time, and disposable income, with liberty to spend that in any way I like. I submit that I have more choices available to me with the remaining 60% of my income and my 5 day week and 25 days of holiday than that you would with what was left after your pension plan, healthcare provision, education fees, national defence service, fire services, local policing, library contributions, road maintenance programmes, bank loans supporting new industries, postal programmes, and so on. not only do you have to end up paying separately for pretty much the same ride, but you have to manage each of those separately, and woot. You get to choose between the Blue fire brigade corp. or the red fire fighters company as to who to pay in case your house catches fire. if that's how you measure liberty, brother, you carry on.
I'm really happy having plenty of free time, and plenty of disposable income, and getting all of that paid for, looked after, and managed through my tax.
Slashdot Mirror
We do allow our candidates to use the web. We also write the tests specifically for the job at hand. We do NOT penalise for mashing, copying, or even asking for help. What we do penalise is for when someone grabs something and doesn't understand what it is, how it works, and cannot make it 'theirs'.
We also penalise people who copy code from the net and then attempt to pass it off as their own.
We don't monitor the test - we allow the candidate to work against their own clock.
We aren't fearful of hiring wrong people - but we don't have time for them either. We also find it's an extremely good means of filtering out what can be up to 1,000 applications. Those who apply for the job are those who really want to work for us, and are willing to show us their skills.
Our questions tend to be qualitative, which means that it's very hard to 'find the answer on the net'. They will include questions such as (eg for a web designer) - "In what ways could you significantly improve the BBC news website, and why do you think the BBC have not made those improvements already?"
For a (S)CSS engineer, we will be asking questions to demonstrate approaches to carving and presenting a responsive page, based upon a simple flat visual.
For all of these things, there are no right answers, but there are good answers.
The funniest response we once got from a programmer, to about 9 out of 10 of the questions we had on the test for the position he was applying for, was "It's not my department." - needless to say he wasn't shortlisted.
Well, it depends upon the job. As OneSmartFellow correctly divines, a recent post was for a sysadmin / sysops post. We don't require other devs to know what ARP is, but it's always good if they have some idea about the network stack.
We have been repeatedly amazed by the levels of ignorance that IT-qualified candidates have had. One of the most disappointing finds is that very few who have come from university have any substantial programming experience. Likewise, 'hack-a-day' php coders and sql-ers about, but most of them do not know when to apply a left join, some of them don't even know what a key is used for (just think of all that wasted cpu time due to ridiculously poor sql implementations. It makes me shudder).
Regarding the idea of methods for developing a re-usable, maintainable codebase for our work (primarily webwork) - seems to be beyond everyone that we recruit. The team that we have right now is second to none - but we have found that a well-written test reduces the initial number of applicants from about 700 to 800 down to about 10, most of whom we will interview.
The only way that we have found for being able to assess a candidate's suitability for work at our company is to write tests that suit the job, and then ask the candidates to demonstrate their skills. We've had people with all sorts of qualifications relevant to the LAMP architecture not know the basics of regex, sql, bash, etc. Let alone what ARP is.
IMO qualifications in IT aren't really very relevant, other than showing the intent/interests of the individual. Also, as IT is changing so rapidly, by the time a (non-theoretical) qualification has been published, it is pretty much out of date.
My response, as an employer, to this news could be summarised as: 'We never had much credence to the MS qualification in the first place - and now we have none.
What it 'means' is that we are a step closer to optical switching - i.e., optical computers.
The important aspect of the work, as I see it, is that the switch is activated optically also, and the complexity of the switch is low (allowing it to be manufactured easily).
However, I'm no expert in the field. I just read the article, and am geek enough to read /.
Why is BASIC bad?
(1) It encourages poor programming practices by
a) not including good code block semantics.
b) not supporting classes
c) not separating library (or OS) calls from language primitives
d) having no proper concept of scope
e) not having a standard
(2) Being a suboptimal interpreted language - I remember that CLS was around 100 times slower than a Z80 routine.
Of course, you may be thinking of modern BASIC implementations - well, that's a different thing altogether.
The BASICs (eg on the Spectrum, C64, etc) I knew were just rubbish.
I guess you could argue that it's an implementation thing - but actually, it's hard to go wrong with something like Java, or C. I remember some LISP interpreters were pretty slow also..
We just migrated our codebase from C++ STL to C++11 and in general, it was worth the pain.
The main benefits for us were better awareness of modern character encoding - but stuff like lamda functions are pretty cool too, and we could probably tidy up a lot of our earlier code to use more C++11 features.
I was brought up on Assembler (Z80, 680x0) and moved to 'C', and then migrated to 'C++', so my early C++ was very C-like (not unusual). However, I've not looked back. I know that you are asking about C++11, but C++ itself is probably worth highlighting.
I also know Java, Obj-C, (and a bunch of other languages that I have used in less commercially sensitive contexts) and there's a lot to be said for them too. But when I feel like getting close to the metal, it's C++ for me. I guess it's b/c one can still (just about) follow the assembler generated by it.
But then I'm old in my approach. Modern optimising compilers, with coding strategies, static analysis (as well as excellent IDEs) probably have more effect on my productivity than any language sub-variant.
(1) It wasn't a language that made computers personal, it was the advent of the microchip, and, as a consequence, the microcomputer.
(2) The first language I learned was BASIC. It was so bad that I then learned assembler.
(3) My experience of BASIC was so bad that I didn't want anything to do with it, even though using it to compose LUTs would have been very useful
(4) Then 'C' became cheap, and then free. I haven't written anything in BASIC for over 30 years.
This is just marketing hype dressed up as a question. Having said that, anything that gets anyone enthused about programming is good, I guess.
What I really don't like is when Val Huber refers to a previous article he submitted as if it were written by a third party.
Now, I love SQL (and triggers are ok) - and so does Val Huber - I'm sure we would get along fine.
Val, you've been doing SQL for 20 years! woot. So that means you started back 'round '94.
(Aw. I started back in '85. I was doing websites in '94 - remember Lycos?)
But it's just using SQL Triggers, Val - why give it some sort of fancy name? Ohh everyone else does that, like "Web2"? or "The Cloud", etc?
Still stinks - but hopefully someone may actually pick up how to use some of the cool features of SQL.
It sucks when some designers or an agency comes along and takes all your money and then produces utter shite, which you are expected to pay for, because you asked for their advice. Like Slashdot. What an epic mess.
OMG, no UTF-8?! OMFG driving everything via javascript?
My fellow slashdotters, we have a voice. We know how to use it.
The obvious interpretation, that this device blasts satellites and spacecraft while they are in space, is impossible. Actually all sorts of things (including the aforementioned) are placed into a chamber for sonic vibration testing. Satellites are tested this way for launch-worthiness, not space-worthiness.
If I'm understanding the summary correctly, the purpose isn't to have a way for the drones to defend themselves, but to have drones that can defend a Navy ship, an army base, etc.
TFA is about drone self-defence..
If a Predator drone were to get shot down [...] the bad side is that you just lost a $4 million piece of equipment. So, in a bid to keep drones protected, DARPA is funding research into drone-mounted laser weapons.
and
The project, called Endurance, is [...] being tasked with the development of "technology for pod-mounted lasers to protect a variety of airborne platforms from emerging and legacy EO/IR guided surface-to-air missiles."
Moreover, ships and bases already have great anti-missile defence technology - and the only advantage that would have using drones in a defensive role would be if there is poor LOS, in which case the strategists would be out of a job, if not court-martialed. Moreover, the ship/base airspace would be cluttered. Most UAV designs are for long endurance missions. the article refers to MALE UAVS (Predator / Reaper), and hints at HALE UAVs such as the RQ-4 Global Hawk and the RQ-170 Sentinel .
Note that the Iranians downed an ultra-secret RQ-170 Sentinel using EW (electronic warfare), not missiles. Lasers won't be much help with emerging EW technology.
...
I believe this is a sign that an AI has gone rogue and managed to sneak this project in as a "DARPA Initiative" as a means to protect its fledgeling race of flying robot killers.
...
Hah, well assuming that you aren't merely posting for humour value, I would suggest that; as the primary cause of failure in these UAVs is equipment failure, operator error, and weather; the AI you refer to isn't particularly intelligent. If it were intelligent then it would be attempting to fund research into greater autonomy for AI systems...
Drone figures from WP show that as of Q1 2009, of the 223 USAF UAVs in operational service, only 4 were shot down. Whereas 11 were lost due to accidents (mainly flying into things), and 55 were lost due to equipment failure, operator error, or weather.
Importantly, the current failsafe for OOC UAVs is to shoot them down with AIM-9 missiles, which is what happened to a reaper on 13 September 2009. Developing an autonomous laser defence would preclude this failsafe.
In brief, the US government should be spending it's money on other problems. Given a vote, I doubt that the US populace would sign up for this particular budgetary spend.
To me this looks like an agreement by the UN to help fund NASA's existing NEO program ( http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ ).
Yes. Posting all your contacts on the Internet is open to breaches of privacy (regardless of zero-day exploits).
Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft - all of them kowtow to the NSA, the CIA, the FBI. Why?
Because in return their lobbyists get to bend the ears of the legislators.
Why is anyone surprised by any of this?
I know this sounds strange at first, but before I learned assembler, I didn't really understand what was going on in the heart of the machine. If I were to introduce a programme starting from fundamentals, it would start with an easy assembler (eg Z80, 68000, PIC); this itself introduces the fundamental operations of programming, including assignment, de-referencing, LUTs, stacks, etc.
The next progression would be 'C'. This abstracts out the hardware dependency, but keeps the underlying structure.
This assists with more complex algorithm development, but also shows how the approach to programming developed from assembler.
Following that, I would move onto one of the modern 'C' successors. Personally I use C++, but maybe objective-C would be better.
It totally depends upon your purpose though.. If you want to cover UI/UX stuff, then you should think of a different approach. If you want to cover databases, that's something else again.
But in programming - IMO, the most genuinely 'useful' ideas are things like the registers and special registers that make up a CPU.
Every time some government gets really stupid, they push more people into finding ways around it. IMO, it would be good to see more people using TOR - which at the moment seems to be filled with idiots, but could serve a much better purpose providing political safety.
No, not really.
Although I was talking about the US health system, and you are clearly not a supporter (who is?!) what I haven't heard is any alternatives that you offer, except for the right to self-determination.
The problem with that is that it sort of forgets that a market economy is governed by the inefficiencies of marketing - and profit-making. Neither of which are beneficial to the end-user. I wish it were so that humans were less prone to the mechanisms of advertising, but we are, and we make bad decisions on this.
You aren't stupid - but neither of us are going to change our views - let's agree to differ on this. No-one else is here, I think.
all those things were old in our species long before the modern state was dreamed up
Of course - derived from the greek city states. But states are indeed an extension of society. Look how the concept of the nation state has provided the R&D opportunities to open up the world. The convention of the 'nation state' is a powerful one, which appears to have served us well. National pride, identity, and patriotism, all are focussed by the perception.
As the world gets smaller, it's true that the idea of the nation state begins to lose it's strength over to larger federations of states - something which you feel threatened by. The end-game is a world government. Not the puppet show that is the UN, but a global administration - but don't worry, it won't happen in our lifetimes. Especially while the US chooses to arbitrarily attack impoverished nations based upon trumped up charges.
Once, I guess, you believed that your mind was free.
Look at the marketing budget used by your top healthcare providers, and talk to me about efficiency.
I suggest you learn about Health economics, and likewise recognise that in the US, which has rejected universal healthcare to date (thanks to the lobbying made by big industry there), the per capita cost of healthcare is about $8,233 whereas everywhere else it's less, by about $3,000. Considering that the US has some of the worst healthcare provision, which itself is pretty dehumanising, I suggest you get back to your calculator and policy books.
Brother states help, because they know that they can receive help in kind when they need it. It's a form of mutual assurance, which is what we are pretty good at as a species. The difficulty, for me, is to envisage how a libertarian state could organise itself to assist anyone. Likewise, how would it involve the powerful from becoming miniature despots and tyrants or worse? Taxation is taxation, regardless of whether it goes to the state, or to the country.
In Europe, we have the EU, which is, in some ways, like a federation of states with an extremely diminished, non-executive, central government. Yes, about 0.5% of my income tax goes to the EU. while about 1% goes to foreign aid. The remaining 98.5% goes to the state, who spends it looking after the aged and destitute (35%), provision of universal healthcare (18%), provision of universal education (14%), national defence (5%), policing (3%), roads and rails (3%), and the remainder on things like investing in industry, and paying off the state debt, with a tiny amount going to intelligence, and the civil service.
If someone entered my house and took most of my permissions, it would only be theft if I did not consent. This is true regardless of the number. But your metaphor fails - I don't live in a communist country. I get to keep a lot of what I earn. Most, actually. I have a house, and a convertible, and fly around the world on holidays. But none of that is really very interesting.
Your last question is far more interesting:
Would you willing to be poor, genuinely poor, in order to improve the standard of living for those who might have been even poorer?
Yes. Yes, I would. But it's not how you see it. If you belonged to a destitute family of 12, with nine brothers and sisters, and you managed to go out and earn a couple of loaves, would you keep it for yourself, or would you share it with your family? I don't even have to share that much with my extended family of fellow citizens. But I am really happy that I am in a position to do what I can for them,
Typically in Western Europe spending goes to meet those in need. E.g.
UK Gov. Spending
Total £715.3 billion
Pensions £144.6 billion
Health Care. £130.2 billion
Education £99.3 billion
Defence £44.6 billion
Welfare £114.7 billion
The rest is made up of investing in new industry, large social programmes, transport, and paying off debts.
I don't see taxation as a theft. I see it as a way for the community to provide for itself.
I am only going to respond in one place, Arker.
You speak of obligations and enforcement, but it's not like that; though it may look that way to you.
Every person has choice - we have the freedom to break laws just as much as we do to keep them. But most of us choose to stay within the law, because we prefer the company of law abiders; and there is a mutual benefit.
Humans are social by nature. Language - the internet - slashdot - is evidence of this. Social groups depend upon collaboration for success. The benefits of a community are subject to economies of scale - the larger the community, the greater the benefits. These benefits include disposable income, and what may as well be called 'free time' oe leisure time.
Just like as being in a household we do chores, and therefore live in a harmonious state, so do we have to accept some responsibility for the community that we are a part of, and this means aiding those in need, so that when we are needy, we too may benefit. This is most elegantly done through mechanisms such as taxation.
A successful community works for the success of every one of its members, and each member should expect that as a right; yes, universal education, healthcare, retraining, defence, etc. a community which is made of individuals who feel valued, who feel well-met, who feel responsible, and empowered, and engaged, and rewarded - is a community that has little crime, and more free time, more real money to spend.
You don't want to, or cannot, see this the way that I do. I am not misinformed, or deluded, or idealistic. Freedom of expression is important, as is free time, and disposable income, with liberty to spend that in any way I like. I submit that I have more choices available to me with the remaining 60% of my income and my 5 day week and 25 days of holiday than that you would with what was left after your pension plan, healthcare provision, education fees, national defence service, fire services, local policing, library contributions, road maintenance programmes, bank loans supporting new industries, postal programmes, and so on. not only do you have to end up paying separately for pretty much the same ride, but you have to manage each of those separately, and woot. You get to choose between the Blue fire brigade corp. or the red fire fighters company as to who to pay in case your house catches fire. if that's how you measure liberty, brother, you carry on.
I'm really happy having plenty of free time, and plenty of disposable income, and getting all of that paid for, looked after, and managed through my tax.