At least in proprietary software, people are paid to do it.
If you really believe that is true, I suggest you provide a list of all the companies advertising on Dice looking for "source code vulnerability auditors." Can't find any? That's because companies pushing out commercial software don't give a crap. It's hard enough just getting the get-the-features-out-focused managers to get why you're spending time writing tests, much less doing code reviews to look for vulnerabilities. I've even heard them say things like "It's not necessary because I found this free tool on the Internet that scans all your code for that, so we don't need to do manual work like that."
Am I supposed to be offended that you call me a "statist"? I think you need to define the term, because what I'm seeing there is "someone who thinks there's a role for the state in protecting an individual's rights". In which case, you are right.
From Webster's:
statism
noun \st-ti-zm\
: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry
That's how it's been used since 1947 (it's not something newly made-up), and seems to fit your viewpoint. I only use it because there are totalitarians on the left and the right, and it seems to be the only term to fit both. It also implies the view that there should be no hard limits on the authority of the central state (like the Constitution was intended to impose), and that also seems to fit your viewpoint ("compromise" means the state wants control of 100% of your time, and when you object they "compromise" by allowing you to have some free time).
No, just NO. No one has a "right" for protection from insults, whether open, subtle, or anything else..
Totally agree, insults cause no harm and are therefore free speech. Even when someone insults children who have cancer by calling them "fails at life" (which I do often on internet forums), I'm expecting you to find that totally acceptable.
I find your statement disgusting and completely unacceptable. But I will defend to the death your right to say it. You'll probably have to start your own forum that nobody visits in order to say things like that though, as you will be summarily banned from forums owned by others. Exercising a right does not absolve you from responsibility or consequences.
Because 99% of libertarians (at least 100% of the ones I've met) believe people have no rights, only property has rights, and all "human rights" are derived from property and property rights
That's some pretty crazy world view filters you have on, there. Libertarian ideas expressed in simple terms (for simpletons, like you), often use "you own you" to explain how property rights flow from individual rights. Your most important property right is your body. That doesn't mean the libertarians you've met think there are no individual rights, just that you can't get out of your own bag enough to grok anyone else's viewpoint. So you latch onto some phrase so you can create ludicrous interpretations of what they say in order to justify your hatred of them.
No, it's a question of degrees. If you think people are stupid now, do away with education and see how bad it gets. I guarantee you that eventually the population will make Honey Boo Boo look like a PhD.
So requiring state education (a.k.a. banning home schooling and private schools) is the same as "doing away with education"? How does that work? You SAY "it's a question of degrees", yet you reject any notion of individual rights. You clearly want no compromise at all, and have no interest in limiting the authority of the state. That's why I called you a statist and it's clearly completely accurate.
I only read the journal abstract but it appears you're using personal definitions for those terms if you don't think it fits.
Well according to Wikipedia:
A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular disease. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins or one of its surface proteins. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as foreign, destroy it, and keep a record of it, so that the immune system can more easily recognize and destroy any of these microorganisms that it later encounters.
So this is not a vaccine, unless you use a really lose (personal) interpretation of that definition to make it fit.
How about we give no one authority over anyone except themselves, and everyone authority over their own body and life.
That's different from anarchy how, exactly? Who resolves conflicts between two people? Who enforces contracts? Who sanctions destructive behavior?
Oh, right, magically everyone will act with total respect for everyone else's well-being. Nobody will act selfishly to the detriment of others at all. I had forgotten that Ayn Rand was God.
Regardless of your ludicrous biases, I am not an Objectivist or anything like it. There is a difference between having a government respectful of individual rights, and one that justifies enforcing every aspect of everyone's life because they by claiming every activity affects all the taxpayers. You can have things like taxes that pay for education, without telling everyone their children will be wards of the state every day for eight hours or you go to jail, or that no one can smoke a plant because somewhere down the line the state has to pay for the consequences.
WTF ever happened to personal responsibility? Dismiss that, and you live under tyranny.
The many impose their will on the few. That's the difference between a productive society and anarchy.
Actually, it's called the "tyranny of the majority", and it's how we got things like slavery, bans on gay marriage, prohibition, and the Third Reich.
Depends on how you define "better". We could give one person absolute authority over all (which is the ultimate expression of individual rights) and that person would probably say it's a pretty damn good outcome. Everyone else would probably think it sucks.
You're imposing a false dichotomy. How about we give no one authority over anyone except themselves, and everyone authority over their own body and life. THAT is what is meant by valuing the rights of the individual. Or... we do it your way, create a "society", put someone in charge, and THEN you have one person with absolute authority over all.
Why do statist always think that when someone objects to elevating the rights of the state to impose its will on people, they always assume that the person objecting must be some crazy anarchist or something?
Because they inevitably start using terms like "statist" to describe non-Randians.
Does "they" refer to anarchist-leaning (or "Randians"), or does it refer to anyone that is both fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and is opposed to further centralization of authority and growth of the police state, military industrial complex, and mult-trillion-dollar debt?
They're activating the immune system to attack nicotine. Sounds pretty vaccine-like to me.
It does (what, you expected me to read the summary before posting?). But there is nothing like a natural immunity to nicotine - in fact it works because it matches brain receptors that normally bind naturally to acetylcholine. It seems like a dangerous idea to mess around with a person's immune system that way. Autoimmune diseases are nasty, and many of them are deadly.
Nicotine is not a disease, and this is not a vaccine. The only reason I can think of for calling a drug a "vaccine" is to be able to use the blanket immunitiy from law suits and prosecution that pharmaceutical companies get for vaccines.
Yep staying at home when you're sick and having some time off is such a privilige. Over here it's considered a right and is codified in law.
... Sick time is treated pretty similarly in the US. The big difference is the (enforced by law) mandatory vacation (holiday) time which the US doesn't have, and differences in the way part-time workers are treated as far as benefits (they usually don't get any).
Why don't you take your 'sovereign citizens", "objectivist", "Atlas Shrugged is the word of God", "OMG RULES!" ass and get a job, or something.
Why do statist always think that when someone objects to elevating the rights of the state to impose its will on people, they always assume that the person objecting must be some crazy anarchist or something?
Individual rights always result in better outcomes than collectivist rights. You seem to think the latter is preferred, even when I pointed out where using such a principle can lead.
I think the United Nations' "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" has some excellent stuff in it - except near the bottom the invalidating disclaimer: "(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
The tablet war is already over (tablet sales are dropping FAST)
Yea, I wish that were the case. I've been looking for a Galaxy Tab 4 10 inch to replace my aging 9 inch android tablet the price on those things has been going up for the past few months.
Smaller tablet prices may be coming down, but that's because they're just the wrong size for anything. Too big for your pocket, but too little screen real estate for anything I can't do with my phone.
Have they solved the cross platform compatibility problems yet? Office isn't even compatible with iteself. Used to spend a lot of time repariing documents and PowerPoints on the Mac that got balled up when coming from the PC side.
If you are trading files between MS, MAC, and Linux systems, how does Microsoft Office do?
I use Office 2007 on Windows and Office for OSX on the Mac (Maverick). I write technical documents, using plenty of advanced formatting features, for publication using Word, and they render exactly the same in the office and Mac version. That's using the.docx format. So that seems to work well, anyway.
As far as Linux, there is no MS Office version, and Libre and related systems have formatting issues in both directions.
one of the rights that is given to individuals by society,
Who is this "society" that "gives" rights to people? Hmm? How is that handled? What rights can "society" take away? What if "society" is threatened by some individual because of what he does? What about what he says? Maybe he his spreading dangerous ideas. Maybe because of that he should be eliminated.
I think you are smart enough to see where this leads. "Society" needs to be protected - from dangerous ideas spread by some individual. So "society" implements a change to the "contract" (that nobody signed) and now "dangerous" speech is a death sentence.
Because most of our immigrants are Mexican and Hondoran Christians, not Middle Eastern Muslims, and most of those are not documented, so employers can just pay them under the table for cheap instead of cow-towing to privilege-seeking employees.
You seem to misunderstand that statistics apply to populations. Not individuals. The flu vaccine (along with everything to do with those messy moist biological systems) are not 100% effective.
You know what the most reliable outcome of the annual distribution of flu vaccines actually is? Pharmaceutical company profits. For companies with total blanket immunity from law suits or prosecution for ANY ill effects from those vaccines.
You have a choice. You can always leave society. I didn't have any choice of where I was born or what civilization I was born into, either. I got over it.
"Society" is not a thing, it does not have rights. Individual people have rights, including the right to associate (or not) with other people. When you create some arbitrary definition of a collective and give it rights over individuals, you are on the road to tyranny. You split people into collectives, create nationalism, start wars over it, etc.
Well, first, you're responding to the wrong person. I assumed you were trying to say something insightful about the law. Unfortunately it's just more of the same partisan drivel.
I get there are many people happy about the ACA, and they like justifying all the bad things that have been done in the past six years with deflection about how it "Not as bad as the Iraq war", etc. Hard to argue with that, which I guess is why it's used, but of course the ACA is bad law, for many reasons, but most compelling is that the costs are far greater than the benefits. But that's what happens when the "leaders" have clearly stopped representing the people, and the only goal is power, through whatever means possible.
You can dismiss the Constitution by looking at the founders through the lens of modern culture if you like, but frankly considering the way countries were run in the rest of the world at the time, it was a vast improvement. And it's still law. If somethings wrong with it, there are provisions for changing it. But frankly the biggest problem is that Congress puts a lot of effort into getting around it, not following it. ACA and bi-annual NDAA are no different in that regard.
Slashdot Mirror
At least in proprietary software, people are paid to do it.
If you really believe that is true, I suggest you provide a list of all the companies advertising on Dice looking for "source code vulnerability auditors." Can't find any? That's because companies pushing out commercial software don't give a crap. It's hard enough just getting the get-the-features-out-focused managers to get why you're spending time writing tests, much less doing code reviews to look for vulnerabilities. I've even heard them say things like "It's not necessary because I found this free tool on the Internet that scans all your code for that, so we don't need to do manual work like that."
Am I supposed to be offended that you call me a "statist"? I think you need to define the term, because what I'm seeing there is "someone who thinks there's a role for the state in protecting an individual's rights". In which case, you are right.
From Webster's:
statism noun \st-ti-zm\ : concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry
That's how it's been used since 1947 (it's not something newly made-up), and seems to fit your viewpoint. I only use it because there are totalitarians on the left and the right, and it seems to be the only term to fit both. It also implies the view that there should be no hard limits on the authority of the central state (like the Constitution was intended to impose), and that also seems to fit your viewpoint ("compromise" means the state wants control of 100% of your time, and when you object they "compromise" by allowing you to have some free time).
No, just NO. No one has a "right" for protection from insults, whether open, subtle, or anything else..
Totally agree, insults cause no harm and are therefore free speech. Even when someone insults children who have cancer by calling them "fails at life" (which I do often on internet forums), I'm expecting you to find that totally acceptable.
I find your statement disgusting and completely unacceptable. But I will defend to the death your right to say it. You'll probably have to start your own forum that nobody visits in order to say things like that though, as you will be summarily banned from forums owned by others. Exercising a right does not absolve you from responsibility or consequences.
Because 99% of libertarians (at least 100% of the ones I've met) believe people have no rights, only property has rights, and all "human rights" are derived from property and property rights
That's some pretty crazy world view filters you have on, there. Libertarian ideas expressed in simple terms (for simpletons, like you), often use "you own you" to explain how property rights flow from individual rights. Your most important property right is your body. That doesn't mean the libertarians you've met think there are no individual rights, just that you can't get out of your own bag enough to grok anyone else's viewpoint. So you latch onto some phrase so you can create ludicrous interpretations of what they say in order to justify your hatred of them.
Oh yay, let's all compare a 13 year old bit of software to an unknown version of SquirrelMail (but I'm sure it won't be a comparably old version...)
SquirrelMail has changed in the last 13 years?
Compared to Squirrel Mail that our competitor uses, OWA is great.
I call bullshit. SquirrelMail rocks. Especially compared to the craptastic load of mega ass crap that is the OWA of 2002.
No, it's a question of degrees. If you think people are stupid now, do away with education and see how bad it gets. I guarantee you that eventually the population will make Honey Boo Boo look like a PhD.
So requiring state education (a.k.a. banning home schooling and private schools) is the same as "doing away with education"? How does that work? You SAY "it's a question of degrees", yet you reject any notion of individual rights. You clearly want no compromise at all, and have no interest in limiting the authority of the state. That's why I called you a statist and it's clearly completely accurate.
I only read the journal abstract but it appears you're using personal definitions for those terms if you don't think it fits.
Well according to Wikipedia:
A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular disease. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins or one of its surface proteins. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as foreign, destroy it, and keep a record of it, so that the immune system can more easily recognize and destroy any of these microorganisms that it later encounters.
So this is not a vaccine, unless you use a really lose (personal) interpretation of that definition to make it fit.
That's different from anarchy how, exactly? Who resolves conflicts between two people? Who enforces contracts? Who sanctions destructive behavior?
Oh, right, magically everyone will act with total respect for everyone else's well-being. Nobody will act selfishly to the detriment of others at all. I had forgotten that Ayn Rand was God.
Regardless of your ludicrous biases, I am not an Objectivist or anything like it. There is a difference between having a government respectful of individual rights, and one that justifies enforcing every aspect of everyone's life because they by claiming every activity affects all the taxpayers. You can have things like taxes that pay for education, without telling everyone their children will be wards of the state every day for eight hours or you go to jail, or that no one can smoke a plant because somewhere down the line the state has to pay for the consequences.
WTF ever happened to personal responsibility? Dismiss that, and you live under tyranny.
The many impose their will on the few. That's the difference between a productive society and anarchy.
Actually, it's called the "tyranny of the majority", and it's how we got things like slavery, bans on gay marriage, prohibition, and the Third Reich.
Depends on how you define "better". We could give one person absolute authority over all (which is the ultimate expression of individual rights) and that person would probably say it's a pretty damn good outcome. Everyone else would probably think it sucks.
You're imposing a false dichotomy. How about we give no one authority over anyone except themselves, and everyone authority over their own body and life. THAT is what is meant by valuing the rights of the individual. Or ... we do it your way, create a "society", put someone in charge, and THEN you have one person with absolute authority over all.
Why do statist always think that when someone objects to elevating the rights of the state to impose its will on people, they always assume that the person objecting must be some crazy anarchist or something?
Because they inevitably start using terms like "statist" to describe non-Randians.
Does "they" refer to anarchist-leaning (or "Randians"), or does it refer to anyone that is both fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and is opposed to further centralization of authority and growth of the police state, military industrial complex, and mult-trillion-dollar debt?
They're activating the immune system to attack nicotine. Sounds pretty vaccine-like to me.
It does (what, you expected me to read the summary before posting?). But there is nothing like a natural immunity to nicotine - in fact it works because it matches brain receptors that normally bind naturally to acetylcholine. It seems like a dangerous idea to mess around with a person's immune system that way. Autoimmune diseases are nasty, and many of them are deadly.
Nicotine is not a disease, and this is not a vaccine. The only reason I can think of for calling a drug a "vaccine" is to be able to use the blanket immunitiy from law suits and prosecution that pharmaceutical companies get for vaccines.
privilege-seeking employees
Yep staying at home when you're sick and having some time off is such a privilige. Over here it's considered a right and is codified in law.
... Sick time is treated pretty similarly in the US. The big difference is the (enforced by law) mandatory vacation (holiday) time which the US doesn't have, and differences in the way part-time workers are treated as far as benefits (they usually don't get any).
Why don't you take your 'sovereign citizens", "objectivist", "Atlas Shrugged is the word of God", "OMG RULES!" ass and get a job, or something.
Why do statist always think that when someone objects to elevating the rights of the state to impose its will on people, they always assume that the person objecting must be some crazy anarchist or something?
Individual rights always result in better outcomes than collectivist rights. You seem to think the latter is preferred, even when I pointed out where using such a principle can lead.
I think the United Nations' "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" has some excellent stuff in it - except near the bottom the invalidating disclaimer: "(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
I expect the future to be more like Brazil than like Star Trek.
Wait, as I live in Brazil, am I living inthe future allready?
I doubt you live in this one.
The tablet war is already over (tablet sales are dropping FAST)
Yea, I wish that were the case. I've been looking for a Galaxy Tab 4 10 inch to replace my aging 9 inch android tablet the price on those things has been going up for the past few months.
Smaller tablet prices may be coming down, but that's because they're just the wrong size for anything. Too big for your pocket, but too little screen real estate for anything I can't do with my phone.
Have they solved the cross platform compatibility problems yet? Office isn't even compatible with iteself. Used to spend a lot of time repariing documents and PowerPoints on the Mac that got balled up when coming from the PC side. If you are trading files between MS, MAC, and Linux systems, how does Microsoft Office do?
I use Office 2007 on Windows and Office for OSX on the Mac (Maverick). I write technical documents, using plenty of advanced formatting features, for publication using Word, and they render exactly the same in the office and Mac version. That's using the .docx format. So that seems to work well, anyway.
As far as Linux, there is no MS Office version, and Libre and related systems have formatting issues in both directions.
one of the rights that is given to individuals by society,
Who is this "society" that "gives" rights to people? Hmm? How is that handled? What rights can "society" take away? What if "society" is threatened by some individual because of what he does? What about what he says? Maybe he his spreading dangerous ideas. Maybe because of that he should be eliminated.
I think you are smart enough to see where this leads. "Society" needs to be protected - from dangerous ideas spread by some individual. So "society" implements a change to the "contract" (that nobody signed) and now "dangerous" speech is a death sentence.
Why is the "land of the free" not similar?
Because most of our immigrants are Mexican and Hondoran Christians, not Middle Eastern Muslims, and most of those are not documented, so employers can just pay them under the table for cheap instead of cow-towing to privilege-seeking employees.
You seem to misunderstand that statistics apply to populations. Not individuals. The flu vaccine (along with everything to do with those messy moist biological systems) are not 100% effective.
Or 90%, or 80% or 70% or ... well, this year, it's actually hardly effective at all.
You know what the most reliable outcome of the annual distribution of flu vaccines actually is? Pharmaceutical company profits. For companies with total blanket immunity from law suits or prosecution for ANY ill effects from those vaccines.
You have a choice. You can always leave society. I didn't have any choice of where I was born or what civilization I was born into, either. I got over it.
"Society" is not a thing, it does not have rights. Individual people have rights, including the right to associate (or not) with other people. When you create some arbitrary definition of a collective and give it rights over individuals, you are on the road to tyranny. You split people into collectives, create nationalism, start wars over it, etc.
The entire guilty until proven innocent is for criminal and civil trials
Actually, it's only for criminal trials. Civil trials are decided on the basis of "the preponderance of evidence."
Well, first, you're responding to the wrong person. I assumed you were trying to say something insightful about the law. Unfortunately it's just more of the same partisan drivel.
I get there are many people happy about the ACA, and they like justifying all the bad things that have been done in the past six years with deflection about how it "Not as bad as the Iraq war", etc. Hard to argue with that, which I guess is why it's used, but of course the ACA is bad law, for many reasons, but most compelling is that the costs are far greater than the benefits. But that's what happens when the "leaders" have clearly stopped representing the people, and the only goal is power, through whatever means possible.
You can dismiss the Constitution by looking at the founders through the lens of modern culture if you like, but frankly considering the way countries were run in the rest of the world at the time, it was a vast improvement. And it's still law. If somethings wrong with it, there are provisions for changing it. But frankly the biggest problem is that Congress puts a lot of effort into getting around it, not following it. ACA and bi-annual NDAA are no different in that regard.
Good post, but you should have added, 'man' after the last sentence. as in, "That's not my bag, man.", and written it sounding like Tommy Chong.
Excellent point. To sound like a professional, you have to say "That's not in our wheelhouse."