Government's other role would be to enforce contractual arrangements. You signed your name on the dotted line? You live up to that contract. You breach? You pay the penalty.
But that contradicts the individual freedom you're advocating. Why should I be required to do something, just because I wrote my name on a piece of paper with some formal text saying I'd do it? Why should the government have the power to penalize me?
Be careful when you answer. If you say that it's justified because contracts are a beneficial social institution... Well that argument is a whole Pandora's box of problems for libertarians.
You have an overly-simplistic view.
If you don't agree with the contract, then don't sign it. Plain and simple. If you sign the contract and breach it, then you are acting dishonorably. You are free to make or not make a promise. But if you make a promise, you are obligate to follow through.
Sigh, I must say it again. Libertarian != Lawlessness.
You live in a big country, if you really don't want anyone controlling your life why don't you move to a place where your life won't be controlled? Do it right and you won't have to pay taxes or be a hypocrite by using the things those taxes payed for.
Just pick a random spot on the Alaska highway and head into the bush.
Why is it that every time someone mentions the possibility of a better society it is immediately slammed down as "Utopian"?
We have the mess we have today *precisely* because so many have given up on a hope for something better.
And yet, what we have today may have been considered "Utopian" by societies that existed 500 years ago. I am sure many in those times probably considered improvements to be impossibly out of reach.
I am a pragmatist. I am a realist. But I am also capable of "thinking outside of the box" to see better possibilities. I am also aware that we have the annoying problem of transitioning.
But if we care, we'd consider these possibilities. Because with the way things are right now, I question if the human species will still be around 1000 years from now. The way I see it, either we achieve something better or we won't be. And too many today have no hopes for the continued existence of the human race.
So, keep the status quo, or consider something better. The choice is yours.
You're having the classic problem of any follower of an -ism...not seeing the forest for the trees.
The day you can recognize what's wrong with your advocacy is the day you won't be hated and despised.
You aren't talking about Freedom in a reasonable sense, you're talking about it like someone who doesn't recognize the concerns of others. Try seeing what other people are saying.
I know what the other people are saying, and these are old issues for me. There is much confusion, perversion, and misunderstanding. I am spending a good percentage of my time on this thread explaining that FREEDOM and LIBERTARIANISM is not the same thing as "lawlessness" and "no government". Mention the words FREEDOM and LIBERTARIAN and you get all kinds of knee-jerk reactions.
Perhaps the others should take some time to understand what those words REALLY mean. It does not enhance my freedom to punch my neighbor in the nose -- unless, of course, I am defending myself. It does enhance my freedom to have good relationships with my neighbors, that we work together in a community to help and support one-another so that we all gain a synergistic benefit. We do business with each other to enhance our mutual wealth. Chaos kills wealth, and violence kills freedom. One cannot be free if one is taking away the freedom of others. This is implicit in my definition of FREEDOM. And honestly, I thought this was obvious. Apparently, I am wrong.
Firstly, I live in New Hampshire, and there is a high degree of gun ownership here. The sociopathic teenager will think twice about entering my house, or natural selection shall take its course. Just heard that New Hampshire has one of the lowest crime rates per capita of any State in the Union. Nevada, another state similar in population to New Hampshire, has one of the highest. I betcha gun ownership there is much lower than here!:-)
Secondly, taxes at gun-point is a bad thing, because there is rarely any accountability as to how they are used. We should be on the basis of pay-as-you-go. And yes, I've heard all the stuff about the so-called "haves vs. have-nots", but I don't buy those arguments, because, today we have compulsory taxes and the have-nots are still have-nots. Funny that. There has to be an emphasis on personal responsibility, and there should be a consequence for doing things irresponsibly. One should not grow to rely on Mommy-Government for everything, because Mommy-Government cannot support irresponsible people in a sustainable manner.
Thirdly, to answer your "Again, how would you stop someone from 'unduly and unjustifiably harming someone else' without hurting someone else? " is where gun ownership comes into play. Where guns are owned by a wide percentage of the population, wayward criminals will be far less likely to bother you, whether you choose to own a gun or not. And natural selection will be in place for those few criminals that don't seem to "get it." They will cease to being a problem before long.
From what I understand about Canada, BTW, there is high gun ownership there.
The mess we have in the United States now? Cops who violate the rights of citizens, and shoot innocents, lie under oath, plant evidence to excuse a false arrest, and the list goes on. And I personally have been unfortunate to experience the darker side of cops. We have a real problem here, and there is no good way to defend yourself against a rouge cop. Women have been raped by rogue cops on pullovers. And what's such a woman to do to defend herself against that? Mace the cop? Yeah, that'll work...
The current state of legal affairs is a mess -- overly complicated, overly expensive, and has deliberately been put out of touch with the common man so that Lawyers can get fat, dumb, and happy.
A contract can be as simple as a single-sentence promise written on paper and signed by both parties involved. It need not be heavily-laden in latin, overly verbose, requiring several law degrees and the ability to diagram sentences. Contracts should be simple, to the point, succinct, and understood by all parties involved.
How many truly understand the contracts they sign today? Or can afford to take the time? Worse, how many get tripped up by unspoken contracts that the State slams over our heads, such as when we petition the State for a marriage license? You enter into a contract at that point without even seeing the terms!!!!! That's not how contracts are supposed to work!
As far as "Consumers", I hate that word -- too much baggage, and seems to encouarge wonton(sp) spending, consumption, and being a slave to debt.
This is the old adage that "Your freedom ends where my nose begins."
So you're a liberal?
I mean, if my freedom ends where my nose is, and yours is too, then you're not free to enforce your freedom on me, because it infringes on my freedom. What's the solution?
A GOVERNMENT.
Libertarianism is one logical step away from liberalism but ideologically similar to conservatism.
Again, you do not understand Libertarianism. Libertarianism is not Anarchy. There is a government, but it has a limited role. It's role is to defend the land, and to make sure there is consequence for one person slamming another person in the nose. Beyond that, it should do little else. Enforcing contracts agreed upon by mutual consent and understanding is another limited role a Libertarian Government should have.
In fact, what is now called Libertarianism used to be called Liberalism, and what is now Liberalism is really Socialism.
Even Anarchy is misunderstood, but I'm not going to bother with those details here.
For the most part, you're right. But I think most people accept a causal model based on randomization and blinding. For instance in a double-blind, randomized control clinical trial.
And you can't decide everything on one clinical trial. You need many. You need to ask new questions and test those. It's painstaking. It's laborious. It's time consuming. It's expensive, unfortunately. But at the end, you wind up with a much more through understanding, which could lead to new knowledge and understanding.
It doesn't get proven. That's the whole point of that objection. It allows the person making it to sound intellectual while tossing up a smokescreen where there's always some unspecified alternative explanation but there's never a specific one that the researchers can disprove or any point where the person chanting "correlation != causation" will ever concede anything. It's religious fundamentalism wrapped up in a pseudoscientific veneer where gosh they'd really like to believe this but their strong dedication to the skepticism prevents them from doing so.
Surely, you jest, right? You are accusing me of being a religious fundamentalist?
I'm just stating a fact. Finding a correlation simply means just that -- we have a correlation. Making assumptions is not Science. Making a hypothesis and testing that hypothesis IS science. If your assumption is to be taken as a hypothesis, it is either true or false. You can then -- hopefully -- find ways to falsify it. If you can't, then it's nothing more than conjecture.
That's the way Science works. Take it or leave it.
All we have here is a good reason to do more science to see if there is causality or not. It seems likely there is a good chance to find the causal link, but you can't just assume the causal link exists and call that Science.
In this particular case, and examination of the lungs of those that have died would provide evidence of a causal link or not. As well as looking at a control group, and what not. What's the life expectancy of the rural or suburban populations? Do they match what you would expect if the assumption of a causal link is true? What about cities and rural areas in other places around the world? Are the nature of the deaths respiratory related or not? How do the differences break down due to demographics? These questions and others can be tested and can tell you much more about what is really going on.
I am really beginning to wonder about the Slash-dot crowd. To assert mere assumption as fact -- and then beat up on anyone who dare raise questions -- is the tenet of religious fundamentalism. To ask questions and to call for more tests is the mark of a Scientist. All things -- including our most cherished beliefs -- must be open to question, or we may as well move back to the dark ages.
Wow, this is a new one for me, though. I've been accused of being "the Prince of Darkness" by real religious fundamentalists, and now I'm accused of being a religious fundamentalist by the very crowd that should understand Science. Wow. The fun never ceases.
Well, cling to your assumptions all you like. I hope you're right. Meanwhile, I will stick to critical thinking, inquiry, reason, and logic. If we can't establish a causal link, what is wrong with being honest about that, and being honest that we are making a reasoned assumption that there is -- but keeping in mind at all times that a reasoned assumption is not fact?
Unless, of course, you can't be bothered with that pesky Scientific Method anymore once you hear something you like.
Sigh, we don't despise Libertarians, many of us have just lived happened to have lived in some coutries that are libertarian (read lawless), and shudder to remember them.
Arrrgh! Libertarianism does not equal lawlessness! How these two get confused is beyond me.
Firstly remember that FREEDOM often means FREEDOM to get shot by a guy who is FREE to have an assault rifle, and FREE to kill you because there is little of the FREEDOM restricting annoyances like police and judicual system you seem to dislike. You are also FREE to not pay taxes, but then again you are also FREE to not have decent roads as no-one wants to build and maintain roads for FREE.
Again, this is perversion. The FREEDOM I speak of is FREEDOM to do whatever you want -- including owning guns -- as long as you don't unduly and unjustifiably harm someone else. But some fear this freedom and seek to paint libertarianism in a bad light, including trying to equate it with lawlessness. Nothing can be further from the truth.
No, we would like social democrats (like the ones in Finland and France) controlling our lives. Big difference.
You may, and that is your choice that you are free to make, just as long as you don't make that choice for me. I want NO ONE controlling my life but ME.
The kind of freedom I am into is freedom for the individual. You are free to do whatever you want as long as it does no unwanted harm to others.
This is the old adage that "Your freedom ends where my nose begins."
So corporations are also free as long as they do no harm to individuals. Iron Fists are excluded. And the free consumer is educated as to what the corporations are doing, and will "vote" with his wallet where he wishes to do business.
So corporations who violate these principles will find themselves out of business before long.
So everyone is free to do what he or she wants. Free to marry and engage in consensual relationships, free to do drugs, free to have sex, free to do whatever as long as it does no harm.
Government would also be out of the business of policing families, except where there is *real* harm being done, etc.
Government's other role would be to enforce contractual arrangements. You signed your name on the dotted line? You live up to that contract. You breach? You pay the penalty. Moreover, others will know you are not too trustworthy and will refuse to do business with you.
I thought this was all obvious. Because we can't have mutual freedom unless we also have mutual respect.
And the era of "big government", with all the collusion and corruption that entails, would be over.
I recently built a box with a quad core ADM 64bit processor, 4GB Ram, and a nice NvIDIA graphics card for under $500, and I use KVM/QEMU as a hypervisor, running 64-bit Vista under 64-bit Linux. Works great.
Just about any machine you can buy these days can do full virtual. If not, get your money back!
Yes, the government is truly your friend. The government always has your best interests at heart. The government would never do anything to harm you. You can trust the government. You need not worry. Government will tuck you in bed and say "Good Night".
The question is, of course, if you are able to wake up the next morning...
And that gives us a solution to the libertarian problem. Throw them all together in a small area, let them regulate themselves, and the destruction the wreck on the land and air will kill them all off.
And you hate and despise us Libertarians why? All we want is FREEDOM.
Of course, I can understand perfectly well if you would rather have fascists control your life instead.
Of course, I am wondering what this has to do with air quality.
But I am used to it.
Some hate me for being a MAN.
Some hate me for being intelligent.
Some hate me for my dermal chromatics.
Some hate me for being an Atheist.
And now some hate me for loving FREEDOM.
Well, I guess you just can't please everybody. Sigh.
It's not just one dumb legislator. It's what this country has been doing the past 8 years. Well, even beyond that, but it became more noticeable during Bush's Regime.
I am always annoyed with the popular press phrases things like this. If we find an Earth-like planet orbiting some distant star somewhere, it will not be Earth's "twin". It will be a planet similar in some respects to Earth. Similar in some respects; different in others. There is no "twin" relationship, and the intelligent inhabitants of that planet, if any, may be rather annoyed by our arrogance.
Speaking of intelligence inhabitants, it would be wonderful if we could detect such, but very unlikely, unless those inhabitants also happens to be at a technological development similar to ours, where they are leaking radio signals all over the place. Good candidates for SETI to focus its search. Maybe even the SETI@HOME crowd can put actuators on that satellite dishes to focus on said planet...
The real killer here is that even if we did find a so-called "twin Earth", we wouldn't be able to do a whole lot about it. Sending a probe there would take thousands of years. Maybe we could do a massive interferometer in space to study the planet in more detail. Forget the manned mission fantasy so many have. We have yet to put a man out past the orbit of the Moon and we're going to travel to a distant star many light-years from Earth?
The physics of Interstellar Travel is daunting, to put it mildly. When I was a kid diddling around with the Special Relativity equations, I was all elated until I realized the ENERGY required to make time dilation a useful thing -- for the travelers, anyway -- is way beyond anything we humans are likely to be able to do now and in the future -- if ever. And all those dreams I had as a young boy of going to the stars died.
Later, I got into the whole Wormhole stuff, and read some of the stuff Kip Throne and others wrote, and got depressed again. Wormholes -- if they even exist -- is far more daunting in terms of energy requirement than even lightspeed travel, by many, many orders of magnitude!!!!!!
Well, wonderful if we can find. But then we'll be more frustrated when we all have to face the realities of physics. Science Fiction lost a lot of its appeal for me because most of it turned out to be simple fantasy, impossible to achieve. My ignorance as a kid is gone.
Meanwhile, we have made tremendous strides in Science and Technology since my teen years, the stuff of Science Fiction 30 years ago. We do live in a marvelous age. It's just that Interstellar Travel will not be a part of it.:-(
You know, this doesn't sit well with me. If these $multi-million vessels can't detect the presence of each other enough to avoid these silly collisions, in a real combat situation you can use this vulnerability to your advantage if you are "the enemy".
Which goes along with my adage: You can always find a cheap low-tech means to thwart expensive high-tech. And to get around that, the high-tech becomes even more expensive and more elaborate, creating even more areas of vulnerability.
I am sure defense contractors downplay this obvious fact to the warmongers all the time. The fantasy of "my balls are bigger than your balls" works fine for the defense contractors, but in the battlefield, the battlefield, a different story emerges.
I can't help but see the scenes of "The Return of the Jedi" in my head, where the "simple-minded", "primitive" Ewoks managed to thwart the very high-tech and very destructive Empire technology.
And on top of it all, there is no protection for Common Stupidity. Spend all the billions you'd like. Stupid wins every damned time.
As one who have an enormous amount of experience with both compiled languages like C++ and Java, and scripting languages like Python, Ruby, and PHP, there is much to be said for both paradigms.
PHP sucks for real object-oriented programming, I would agree. OOP was bolted on to that language as an afterthought and it is a sad compromise between its legacy heritage and the modern world. But I have seen too much horribly written PHP code, written by lazy programmers who couldn't spell OOP if it were printed out for them in front of their eyes! Yet it's great for rapid turnaround, something essential in today's "here today, gone the next" World-Wide-Web.
Not everything merits being compiled. Today's computers are so fast that it can run many of these scripting languages faster than older processors could run compiled C code. Overhead of memory and CPU cycles are the cost for fast turnaround. But today, it doesn't matter unless you are writing something truly compute intensive.
Having said that, I will state that web programming today is a complete mess of things. You need to know too much to do it effectively. You need to know CSS, HTML, PHP/Python/Ruby, and SQL, of course. There are many frameworks to ease some of this, but then frameworks comes with its own baggage, and you get locked in big time, and can be a pain if the framework does not do what you want.
Then there's the consummate hell of making sure your results looks good on not only all the browsers in use, but all the major versions of each browser, all of which treats CSS and HTML in subtly different ways.
OH, and then there's Javascript. Don't even get me started there. And to be truly "Web 2.0", you need AJAX...
Then there's scability issues that your chosen framework may make easy or make a pain in the butt.
But you'd rather go tech support than web developer? Think carefully now. Do you REALLY want to deal with idiot users who can't figure out out to turn on their computers all day long? You must have a VERY strong constitution...
I know this will seem foreign to most of the current generation of graduates, but I would suggest a strong grounding in assembly coding for any processor. If the programmer really understands assembly, s/he should "intuitively" acquire a sound grasp of what makes a good program written in C, Fortran or whatever.
Many of the current commercial languages belong in toyland. They are designed for programmers who really don't have any idea about managing resources efficiently.
Hell, if you are going to go as far as assembly, you also should go one step further: write an OS from scratch.
Well, I did that back in 1980, in C and Assembly, and it did teach me the fundamentals of how a computer really works, and it helped later with writing efficient C code, etc.
Alas, in today's world, that's not an approach I would recommend. But you should have an understanding about what's going on under the hood if you are writing good C++ code, especially when it comes to threading/multitasking on multicore computers (which are common as bread today!)
You want an edge up? Spend some time learning about threading on multicore systems, and understand how to write code to leverage that for performance.
On the Java front, don't fall into the trap of using Java Threads as a poor substitute for a sound queuing design. Threads are very expensive, yet Java almost encourages you to allocate and drop threads on the fly. Don't do this. Learn to use threads sparingly, yet effectively to leverage performance on multicore systems.
If you are writing GUI applications, the intelligent use of threading can greatly enhance the user experience. Users should never have to wait for an operation to complete that they will have no need to manipulate after the fact. Here's where using a batch queue and a background thread to process those batches would be a welcome win for the users of the application. In fact, even if the user will be manipulating it later, clever design to make it appear quick wins the day.
Well, now that I am on the GUI front, do spend some time learning about proper UI design if that is the area you wish to go. Go the extra mile to make things easy for the user and intuitive. Design in a fashion to annoy the user the least. They'll love you for it.
In today's web-driven Internet world, you don't need much C++, unless you are writing MMORPGs. Languages that will carry you far for Web development are PHP, Python, Perl and HTML. It is also essential to know something about interacting with databases, and that means SQL. MySQL is the most popular for web development, though some shops prefer Microsoft solutions and you'll see Sql Server in use.
So many languages, so many systems, so little time. Do your due diligence with your market and see what's in demand. Certain combinations can put you way ahead of the crowd, like knowing good software engineering approaches and also good database design techniques. This stuff takes years to acquire and unfortunately, they are rarely taught well in school.
Forget having a life for the first five years and get yourself good and grounded. Afterward, you can REALLY have a life when your career is going well and you'll look very attractive to the babes.:-)
yes, it does. it's one of the things that makes us (the rest of the world) think America is on the way down.
The US has been on the way down for quite some time now. Already we are experiencing a "reverse" brain-drain, where the Chinese, Indians, and others whom have come to our country, got an education, worked in the high-tech sector, and the like, are now going back home, including someone who used to work for me.
Who knows? Maybe I'll follow. As soon as my kids finish growing up. And hey, I may encourage them to do the same.
The religious nuts can have this failed country, and can pervert Science and the environment here to their heart's content. They can kill each other over who's religion is better than whom and the like. They can teach garbage to their kids so their kids will also be disadvantaged on the global arena.
Meanwhile, the rest of us can be free to be free of their rhetoric and to grow and prosper...
Giggle ? What you say is really true.
Once this news hits the european websites, there will be " Only in america " all over the page.
Wich is a "standard" reaction/meme on absurd news over here.
Yep. Which is why I am considering donning Maple Leafs to my clothing and claiming I'm from Canada the next time I travel abroad.
I'll have to spend a couple of weeks in Canada first to bone up on my Canadian accent so that I am actually convincing...
Google driver did enter a private road by mistake. There is now available a very sophisticated bit of technology that is guaranteed to ensure that this never happens again. I believe the scientific name for the device is a "gate".
Or even a more sophisticated piece of technology -- a simple passive sign printed on a plank of wood that says "PRIVATE".
Slashdot Mirror
Government's other role would be to enforce contractual arrangements. You signed your name on the dotted line? You live up to that contract. You breach? You pay the penalty.
But that contradicts the individual freedom you're advocating. Why should I be required to do something, just because I wrote my name on a piece of paper with some formal text saying I'd do it? Why should the government have the power to penalize me?
Be careful when you answer. If you say that it's justified because contracts are a beneficial social institution... Well that argument is a whole Pandora's box of problems for libertarians.
You have an overly-simplistic view.
If you don't agree with the contract, then don't sign it. Plain and simple. If you sign the contract and breach it, then you are acting dishonorably. You are free to make or not make a promise. But if you make a promise, you are obligate to follow through.
Sigh, I must say it again. Libertarian != Lawlessness.
You live in a big country, if you really don't want anyone controlling your life why don't you move to a place where your life won't be controlled? Do it right and you won't have to pay taxes or be a hypocrite by using the things those taxes payed for. Just pick a random spot on the Alaska highway and head into the bush.
You don't understand.
Why is it that every time someone mentions the possibility of a better society it is immediately slammed down as "Utopian"?
We have the mess we have today *precisely* because so many have given up on a hope for something better.
And yet, what we have today may have been considered "Utopian" by societies that existed 500 years ago. I am sure many in those times probably considered improvements to be impossibly out of reach.
I am a pragmatist. I am a realist. But I am also capable of "thinking outside of the box" to see better possibilities. I am also aware that we have the annoying problem of transitioning.
But if we care, we'd consider these possibilities. Because with the way things are right now, I question if the human species will still be around 1000 years from now. The way I see it, either we achieve something better or we won't be. And too many today have no hopes for the continued existence of the human race.
So, keep the status quo, or consider something better. The choice is yours.
You're having the classic problem of any follower of an -ism...not seeing the forest for the trees.
The day you can recognize what's wrong with your advocacy is the day you won't be hated and despised.
You aren't talking about Freedom in a reasonable sense, you're talking about it like someone who doesn't recognize the concerns of others. Try seeing what other people are saying.
I know what the other people are saying, and these are old issues for me. There is much confusion, perversion, and misunderstanding. I am spending a good percentage of my time on this thread explaining that FREEDOM and LIBERTARIANISM is not the same thing as "lawlessness" and "no government". Mention the words FREEDOM and LIBERTARIAN and you get all kinds of knee-jerk reactions.
Perhaps the others should take some time to understand what those words REALLY mean. It does not enhance my freedom to punch my neighbor in the nose -- unless, of course, I am defending myself. It does enhance my freedom to have good relationships with my neighbors, that we work together in a community to help and support one-another so that we all gain a synergistic benefit. We do business with each other to enhance our mutual wealth. Chaos kills wealth, and violence kills freedom. One cannot be free if one is taking away the freedom of others. This is implicit in my definition of FREEDOM. And honestly, I thought this was obvious. Apparently, I am wrong.
Secondly, taxes at gun-point is a bad thing, because there is rarely any accountability as to how they are used. We should be on the basis of pay-as-you-go. And yes, I've heard all the stuff about the so-called "haves vs. have-nots", but I don't buy those arguments, because, today we have compulsory taxes and the have-nots are still have-nots. Funny that. There has to be an emphasis on personal responsibility, and there should be a consequence for doing things irresponsibly. One should not grow to rely on Mommy-Government for everything, because Mommy-Government cannot support irresponsible people in a sustainable manner.
Thirdly, to answer your "Again, how would you stop someone from 'unduly and unjustifiably harming someone else' without hurting someone else? " is where gun ownership comes into play. Where guns are owned by a wide percentage of the population, wayward criminals will be far less likely to bother you, whether you choose to own a gun or not. And natural selection will be in place for those few criminals that don't seem to "get it." They will cease to being a problem before long.
From what I understand about Canada, BTW, there is high gun ownership there.
The mess we have in the United States now? Cops who violate the rights of citizens, and shoot innocents, lie under oath, plant evidence to excuse a false arrest, and the list goes on. And I personally have been unfortunate to experience the darker side of cops. We have a real problem here, and there is no good way to defend yourself against a rouge cop. Women have been raped by rogue cops on pullovers. And what's such a woman to do to defend herself against that? Mace the cop? Yeah, that'll work...
A contract can be as simple as a single-sentence promise written on paper and signed by both parties involved. It need not be heavily-laden in latin, overly verbose, requiring several law degrees and the ability to diagram sentences. Contracts should be simple, to the point, succinct, and understood by all parties involved.
How many truly understand the contracts they sign today? Or can afford to take the time? Worse, how many get tripped up by unspoken contracts that the State slams over our heads, such as when we petition the State for a marriage license? You enter into a contract at that point without even seeing the terms!!!!! That's not how contracts are supposed to work!
As far as "Consumers", I hate that word -- too much baggage, and seems to encouarge wonton(sp) spending, consumption, and being a slave to debt.
This is the old adage that "Your freedom ends where my nose begins."
So you're a liberal?
I mean, if my freedom ends where my nose is, and yours is too, then you're not free to enforce your freedom on me, because it infringes on my freedom. What's the solution?
A GOVERNMENT.
Libertarianism is one logical step away from liberalism but ideologically similar to conservatism.
Again, you do not understand Libertarianism. Libertarianism is not Anarchy. There is a government, but it has a limited role. It's role is to defend the land, and to make sure there is consequence for one person slamming another person in the nose. Beyond that, it should do little else. Enforcing contracts agreed upon by mutual consent and understanding is another limited role a Libertarian Government should have.
In fact, what is now called Libertarianism used to be called Liberalism, and what is now Liberalism is really Socialism.
Even Anarchy is misunderstood, but I'm not going to bother with those details here.
For the most part, you're right. But I think most people accept a causal model based on randomization and blinding. For instance in a double-blind, randomized control clinical trial.
And you can't decide everything on one clinical trial. You need many. You need to ask new questions and test those. It's painstaking. It's laborious. It's time consuming. It's expensive, unfortunately. But at the end, you wind up with a much more through understanding, which could lead to new knowledge and understanding.
It doesn't get proven. That's the whole point of that objection. It allows the person making it to sound intellectual while tossing up a smokescreen where there's always some unspecified alternative explanation but there's never a specific one that the researchers can disprove or any point where the person chanting "correlation != causation" will ever concede anything. It's religious fundamentalism wrapped up in a pseudoscientific veneer where gosh they'd really like to believe this but their strong dedication to the skepticism prevents them from doing so.
Surely, you jest, right? You are accusing me of being a religious fundamentalist?
I'm just stating a fact. Finding a correlation simply means just that -- we have a correlation. Making assumptions is not Science. Making a hypothesis and testing that hypothesis IS science. If your assumption is to be taken as a hypothesis, it is either true or false. You can then -- hopefully -- find ways to falsify it. If you can't, then it's nothing more than conjecture.
That's the way Science works. Take it or leave it.
All we have here is a good reason to do more science to see if there is causality or not. It seems likely there is a good chance to find the causal link, but you can't just assume the causal link exists and call that Science.
In this particular case, and examination of the lungs of those that have died would provide evidence of a causal link or not. As well as looking at a control group, and what not. What's the life expectancy of the rural or suburban populations? Do they match what you would expect if the assumption of a causal link is true? What about cities and rural areas in other places around the world? Are the nature of the deaths respiratory related or not? How do the differences break down due to demographics? These questions and others can be tested and can tell you much more about what is really going on.
I am really beginning to wonder about the Slash-dot crowd. To assert mere assumption as fact -- and then beat up on anyone who dare raise questions -- is the tenet of religious fundamentalism. To ask questions and to call for more tests is the mark of a Scientist. All things -- including our most cherished beliefs -- must be open to question, or we may as well move back to the dark ages.
Wow, this is a new one for me, though. I've been accused of being "the Prince of Darkness" by real religious fundamentalists, and now I'm accused of being a religious fundamentalist by the very crowd that should understand Science. Wow. The fun never ceases.
Well, cling to your assumptions all you like. I hope you're right. Meanwhile, I will stick to critical thinking, inquiry, reason, and logic. If we can't establish a causal link, what is wrong with being honest about that, and being honest that we are making a reasoned assumption that there is -- but keeping in mind at all times that a reasoned assumption is not fact?
Unless, of course, you can't be bothered with that pesky Scientific Method anymore once you hear something you like.
People on /. only fully appreciate that when the conclusion being jumped to is one they disagree with.
Shame. I thought better of the people here!
Sigh, we don't despise Libertarians, many of us have just lived happened to have lived in some coutries that are libertarian (read lawless), and shudder to remember them.
Arrrgh! Libertarianism does not equal lawlessness! How these two get confused is beyond me.
Firstly remember that FREEDOM often means FREEDOM to get shot by a guy who is FREE to have an assault rifle, and FREE to kill you because there is little of the FREEDOM restricting annoyances like police and judicual system you seem to dislike. You are also FREE to not pay taxes, but then again you are also FREE to not have decent roads as no-one wants to build and maintain roads for FREE.
Again, this is perversion. The FREEDOM I speak of is FREEDOM to do whatever you want -- including owning guns -- as long as you don't unduly and unjustifiably harm someone else. But some fear this freedom and seek to paint libertarianism in a bad light, including trying to equate it with lawlessness. Nothing can be further from the truth.
No, we would like social democrats (like the ones in Finland and France) controlling our lives. Big difference.
You may, and that is your choice that you are free to make, just as long as you don't make that choice for me. I want NO ONE controlling my life but ME.
This is the old adage that "Your freedom ends where my nose begins."
So corporations are also free as long as they do no harm to individuals. Iron Fists are excluded. And the free consumer is educated as to what the corporations are doing, and will "vote" with his wallet where he wishes to do business.
So corporations who violate these principles will find themselves out of business before long.
So everyone is free to do what he or she wants. Free to marry and engage in consensual relationships, free to do drugs, free to have sex, free to do whatever as long as it does no harm.
Government would also be out of the business of policing families, except where there is *real* harm being done, etc.
Government's other role would be to enforce contractual arrangements. You signed your name on the dotted line? You live up to that contract. You breach? You pay the penalty. Moreover, others will know you are not too trustworthy and will refuse to do business with you.
I thought this was all obvious. Because we can't have mutual freedom unless we also have mutual respect.
And the era of "big government", with all the collusion and corruption that entails, would be over.
Just about any machine you can buy these days can do full virtual. If not, get your money back!
Just leave it to the government, it knows best: http://www.discussanything.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-69781.html
Yes, the government is truly your friend. The government always has your best interests at heart. The government would never do anything to harm you. You can trust the government. You need not worry. Government will tuck you in bed and say "Good Night".
The question is, of course, if you are able to wake up the next morning...
Correlation does NOT prove causation. And I think most on /. can fully appreciate that.
And that gives us a solution to the libertarian problem. Throw them all together in a small area, let them regulate themselves, and the destruction the wreck on the land and air will kill them all off.
And you hate and despise us Libertarians why? All we want is FREEDOM.
Of course, I can understand perfectly well if you would rather have fascists control your life instead.
Of course, I am wondering what this has to do with air quality.
But I am used to it.
Well, I guess you just can't please everybody. Sigh.
At us? You mean at one dumb legislator.
This will never pass.
It's not just one dumb legislator. It's what this country has been doing the past 8 years. Well, even beyond that, but it became more noticeable during Bush's Regime.
Speaking of intelligence inhabitants, it would be wonderful if we could detect such, but very unlikely, unless those inhabitants also happens to be at a technological development similar to ours, where they are leaking radio signals all over the place. Good candidates for SETI to focus its search. Maybe even the SETI@HOME crowd can put actuators on that satellite dishes to focus on said planet...
The real killer here is that even if we did find a so-called "twin Earth", we wouldn't be able to do a whole lot about it. Sending a probe there would take thousands of years. Maybe we could do a massive interferometer in space to study the planet in more detail. Forget the manned mission fantasy so many have. We have yet to put a man out past the orbit of the Moon and we're going to travel to a distant star many light-years from Earth?
The physics of Interstellar Travel is daunting, to put it mildly. When I was a kid diddling around with the Special Relativity equations, I was all elated until I realized the ENERGY required to make time dilation a useful thing -- for the travelers, anyway -- is way beyond anything we humans are likely to be able to do now and in the future -- if ever. And all those dreams I had as a young boy of going to the stars died.
Later, I got into the whole Wormhole stuff, and read some of the stuff Kip Throne and others wrote, and got depressed again. Wormholes -- if they even exist -- is far more daunting in terms of energy requirement than even lightspeed travel, by many, many orders of magnitude!!!!!!
Well, wonderful if we can find. But then we'll be more frustrated when we all have to face the realities of physics. Science Fiction lost a lot of its appeal for me because most of it turned out to be simple fantasy, impossible to achieve. My ignorance as a kid is gone.
Meanwhile, we have made tremendous strides in Science and Technology since my teen years, the stuff of Science Fiction 30 years ago. We do live in a marvelous age. It's just that Interstellar Travel will not be a part of it. :-(
Which goes along with my adage: You can always find a cheap low-tech means to thwart expensive high-tech. And to get around that, the high-tech becomes even more expensive and more elaborate, creating even more areas of vulnerability.
I am sure defense contractors downplay this obvious fact to the warmongers all the time. The fantasy of "my balls are bigger than your balls" works fine for the defense contractors, but in the battlefield, the battlefield, a different story emerges.
I can't help but see the scenes of "The Return of the Jedi" in my head, where the "simple-minded", "primitive" Ewoks managed to thwart the very high-tech and very destructive Empire technology.
And on top of it all, there is no protection for Common Stupidity. Spend all the billions you'd like. Stupid wins every damned time.
PHP sucks for real object-oriented programming, I would agree. OOP was bolted on to that language as an afterthought and it is a sad compromise between its legacy heritage and the modern world. But I have seen too much horribly written PHP code, written by lazy programmers who couldn't spell OOP if it were printed out for them in front of their eyes! Yet it's great for rapid turnaround, something essential in today's "here today, gone the next" World-Wide-Web.
Not everything merits being compiled. Today's computers are so fast that it can run many of these scripting languages faster than older processors could run compiled C code. Overhead of memory and CPU cycles are the cost for fast turnaround. But today, it doesn't matter unless you are writing something truly compute intensive.
Having said that, I will state that web programming today is a complete mess of things. You need to know too much to do it effectively. You need to know CSS, HTML, PHP/Python/Ruby, and SQL, of course. There are many frameworks to ease some of this, but then frameworks comes with its own baggage, and you get locked in big time, and can be a pain if the framework does not do what you want.
Then there's the consummate hell of making sure your results looks good on not only all the browsers in use, but all the major versions of each browser, all of which treats CSS and HTML in subtly different ways.
OH, and then there's Javascript. Don't even get me started there. And to be truly "Web 2.0", you need AJAX...
Then there's scability issues that your chosen framework may make easy or make a pain in the butt.
But you'd rather go tech support than web developer? Think carefully now. Do you REALLY want to deal with idiot users who can't figure out out to turn on their computers all day long? You must have a VERY strong constitution...
I know this will seem foreign to most of the current generation of graduates, but I would suggest a strong grounding in assembly coding for any processor. If the programmer really understands assembly, s/he should "intuitively" acquire a sound grasp of what makes a good program written in C, Fortran or whatever. Many of the current commercial languages belong in toyland. They are designed for programmers who really don't have any idea about managing resources efficiently.
Hell, if you are going to go as far as assembly, you also should go one step further: write an OS from scratch.
Well, I did that back in 1980, in C and Assembly, and it did teach me the fundamentals of how a computer really works, and it helped later with writing efficient C code, etc.
Alas, in today's world, that's not an approach I would recommend. But you should have an understanding about what's going on under the hood if you are writing good C++ code, especially when it comes to threading/multitasking on multicore computers (which are common as bread today!)
You want an edge up? Spend some time learning about threading on multicore systems, and understand how to write code to leverage that for performance.
On the Java front, don't fall into the trap of using Java Threads as a poor substitute for a sound queuing design. Threads are very expensive, yet Java almost encourages you to allocate and drop threads on the fly. Don't do this. Learn to use threads sparingly, yet effectively to leverage performance on multicore systems.
If you are writing GUI applications, the intelligent use of threading can greatly enhance the user experience. Users should never have to wait for an operation to complete that they will have no need to manipulate after the fact. Here's where using a batch queue and a background thread to process those batches would be a welcome win for the users of the application. In fact, even if the user will be manipulating it later, clever design to make it appear quick wins the day.
Well, now that I am on the GUI front, do spend some time learning about proper UI design if that is the area you wish to go. Go the extra mile to make things easy for the user and intuitive. Design in a fashion to annoy the user the least. They'll love you for it.
In today's web-driven Internet world, you don't need much C++, unless you are writing MMORPGs. Languages that will carry you far for Web development are PHP, Python, Perl and HTML. It is also essential to know something about interacting with databases, and that means SQL. MySQL is the most popular for web development, though some shops prefer Microsoft solutions and you'll see Sql Server in use.
So many languages, so many systems, so little time. Do your due diligence with your market and see what's in demand. Certain combinations can put you way ahead of the crowd, like knowing good software engineering approaches and also good database design techniques. This stuff takes years to acquire and unfortunately, they are rarely taught well in school.
Forget having a life for the first five years and get yourself good and grounded. Afterward, you can REALLY have a life when your career is going well and you'll look very attractive to the babes. :-)
yes, it does. it's one of the things that makes us (the rest of the world) think America is on the way down.
The US has been on the way down for quite some time now. Already we are experiencing a "reverse" brain-drain, where the Chinese, Indians, and others whom have come to our country, got an education, worked in the high-tech sector, and the like, are now going back home, including someone who used to work for me.
Who knows? Maybe I'll follow. As soon as my kids finish growing up. And hey, I may encourage them to do the same.
The religious nuts can have this failed country, and can pervert Science and the environment here to their heart's content. They can kill each other over who's religion is better than whom and the like. They can teach garbage to their kids so their kids will also be disadvantaged on the global arena.
Meanwhile, the rest of us can be free to be free of their rhetoric and to grow and prosper...
Giggle ? What you say is really true. Once this news hits the european websites, there will be " Only in america " all over the page. Wich is a "standard" reaction/meme on absurd news over here.
Yep. Which is why I am considering donning Maple Leafs to my clothing and claiming I'm from Canada the next time I travel abroad.
I'll have to spend a couple of weeks in Canada first to bone up on my Canadian accent so that I am actually convincing...
This gives the rest of the world one more reason to giggle at us. I mean, really.
Google driver did enter a private road by mistake. There is now available a very sophisticated bit of technology that is guaranteed to ensure that this never happens again. I believe the scientific name for the device is a "gate".
Or even a more sophisticated piece of technology -- a simple passive sign printed on a plank of wood that says "PRIVATE".