I should have clarified, perhaps. That is a personal choice of mine to tell people to use Chrome instead of Firefox because Firefox has done nothing but let me down since v1.5... Most people have alright experiences with Firefox, but mine have been far from pleasant. Sticking out in my mind is their ignoring and dismissing the huge memory leak issues in versions prior to 3.0. Presently, I have very frustrating issues when reloading sessions, but luckily I have tempered those by using Chrome side-by-side.
If Firefox 3.5 ends up rendering differently than Firefox Next and I will be pissed. The amount of browser to develop has ballooned in recent years and have fractioned development lines will not help one bit. For those wanting to say, "Just stop supporting it," well, it is just is not that easy is it? IE6 still has about the same market share as all FF versions combined on nearly all the sites I run. If Firefox 3.5 is left behind, it will continued to be used at a decent clip for several more years, making it one more PITA.... not to mention one more reason to recommend Chrome over FF.
As many here can attest, it only takes one bad boss to make working your conditions analogous to hell on Earth. I would argue that in the worst cases, your setup would be welcomed on a daily basis if got away from their boss that is not worth the dirt they walk on.
I cannot figure out how this fits into his seemingly insatiable appetite for populism. Maybe that is the silver lining?
The cynic in me can draw a nasty conclusions from this stance, but even that is to Orwellian for me. I was not worried about this legislation under Bush because he implemented it the best of intentions, all-things-considered(Bush is not inherited evil, despite the efforts of many to prove that is so). The abuse of programs like this come from those who inherit the power after they are established and rarely by those who establish it.
A philosopher maybe... depending on the flavor. An idealist though? That would depend on their ideals too. Considering most idealists think they are their brothers keeper, then chances are they will do whatever _they think_ is best for everyone.
Philosophers and idealists, as you mentioned, are not cut out for the political game, but for very different reasons. Philosophers would be above the non-intellectual process politics has become while idealists are just incompetent as leaders of people within the confines of a government. An idealist is better off coming up with the ideas and keeping people together, striving towards that end. The achievement of that end is better executed by someone based in reality, lest you welcome certain disaster in your attempt to achieve that end at the hands of idealistic leadership.
I never saw the problem as lack of time, but almost always the lack of prioritizing and also recognizing bullshit and avoiding/minimizing it. You can't do everything. Just pick a few important things.
While it is not in the sense the OP meant, the answer is still early education. In order to effectively prioritize and/or recognize the bullshit in life, you need to be able to view and rationalize everything for what it really is. That capacity might as well be non-existent for most people in this day and age, especially among the younger generation (in which I am a part of).
The less intelligent our children are, the higher the likelihood that they will allow their time to be consumed by useless activities. TV and gossip mags are prime examples of people wasting away their time because of their complete and total lack of a desire to do anything productive. Productivity is the key word here. Where a smarter person would think productivity is synonymous with progress, a dumb one would likely think the same thing though(They do not realize their error). The difference comes in the ENDS each of these people choose to strive for. An properly educated person would be more likely to know that watching every episode of some TV program is not a worthwhile end whatsoever, while you average person thinks it is a perfectly respectable way to spend their time.
First things first, what Yelp is doing is not the most respectable thing, but should not surprise a single person that understands business. Next, what they are doing is not extortion, at least not yet. When they call companies and tell them that a competitor bought a sponsorship to promote themselves and if they don't up the ante along with them, then they 'wont be able to do anything about those negative reviews,' then you have a case for extortion. It could come in many flavors, but you should get the idea.
It is also important to remember that bad ethics is not evidence enough alone to throw around the extortion word. In this case, you merely disagree with how Yelp handles sales, sponsorship and their relation to the reviews on their site.
Why do you assume that human-like intelligence is the only "real" intelligence? When real AI comes, it will probably bear as much resemblance to human intelligence as airplane flight does to bird flight.
Ding ding ding. Thanks for answering your own question. The plane does not work like the bird whatsoever, but you do know what they studied in order to develop it right? In case you aren't following, they looked at other animals with flight. They aimed to understand it and then apply mechanics/engineering to emulate it. AI is no different.
Again, in order to build truly intelligent machines, we must first grasp what intelligence actually is. We have not done so.
You are only partially correct. The focus on context is misplaced, though you are on the right path. Simply remembering words or topics that have been mentioned earlier in the same discussion does not say anything about intelligence.
The main problem with AI is learning.
Nearly all work in the field now has a misplaced or completely wrong approach to achieving real AI. In order to understand how to make truly intelligent machines, we must first know how our own brains work. Most focus is on creating a machine that can perform in some very specific situation, like the Turing Test. However, these machines are not intelligent, they do not learn. They are not creating, storing and recalling patterns which are the crux of our cognitive abilities.
The first step to true AI is understanding how human intelligence is achieved in our brain.
He would not gather the information via tests. He would observe and with time come to know what he was dealing with when it showed up in a meeting or what not. Everyone is different, so no test will ever peg... well anyone really.
Information gathered from personality tests should be used by intelligent managers in order to maximize the potential of their subordinates by playing to their strengths? Using the information to screen out certain individuals could be useful in some _very specific_ situations, sure. Generally speaking though, it is just misuse of valuable information that thus educated person would apply in their management practices.
You do not ask an Idealist to proofread your financial documents, you do not ask a Pragmatic person to make long term strategic plans and you certainly are not going to get anything from a Realist if you ask them to brainstorm. Knowing how someone constructs their thoughts is _invaluable_. What does not do much good, however, is filtering your candidates to only one type. You are only asking for failure there, as every personality/thinking type has its vices.
I would agree and recommend that exact action in all seriousness. Your professional persona should be maintained and cared for diligently. My posting in/. with my real name is part of that, as I specifically make sure not to get into flame wars or make emphatic statements for one stance or another. I slip up now and then, but it is hardly anything I would be ashamed to own up to at the same time. Everything else, should be under an assumed alias though. In the case of wanting to own a statement made under an alias, you could choose a name that is synonymous with you in some way. Some handle including bits of information about your life, without giving yourself away. Something like your initials, alma matre mascot and birth year... you get the point;)
When in doubt, go the safe route where you have some degree of control over your personal information. I contribute to a few sites here and there, not to mention the few I run myself, and I write every single word under a pen name. There are a few reasons why I do this, mostly privacy issues related to avoiding unwarranted judgment/stigma from something I wrote. A pen name/alias/handle protects from this problem, but also has the added benefit of being able to 'reveal yourself' at a later date if you decide to forgo the privacy stuff.
That being said, I specifically choose to NOT assume an alias here on slashdot. I have my reasons for doing so, but they are of no consequence. The point is, you should think about your choice and the consequences of it. After weighing the information, if you are still on the fence, you should err on the side of caution and assume an alias.
I have to run in a minute and will give a fully qualified response later, but I can address your claim of my failing to address the 'why' am I right aspect.
My system benefits more people as it benefits every single person equally. We are all bound by the exact same natural rights and are free to act within those bounds. If you as an individual remove land from a state of nature by working and improving it, then you own it. Now the benefits to you (the collective) from my working the land is a more complex thing, so I must delay that until later. Now to touch on the Power claim briefly(I will touch this again later too). You are 100% correct about your power to remove me from my land by force. If I choose to go it alone and not enter into a society, then I am subject to your whim and you can force me off my land and take my property via force. By doing so though, you enter into a state of war with me and all bets are off then. I would be perfectly justified to kill every single person who enters into a state of war with me, however unlikely that result may be is irrelevant. All that considered, your act of force alone removes any moral claim you may have once had. Force is force is force... Ok, I am late now! To be continued...
By what authority was land being used collectively taken and improved by individuals?
By what authority does the land belong to the collective? Are you speaking of some form of organized society? I do not have to subscribe to your collective law. If all the land is in a state of nature, then I too, can be in the same state of nature, completely sovereign in my own right, choosing not to enter into your society. If that is my choice, I can lay claim to whatever land I want for whatever reason and it is not theft, right? I am the 'collective' in this scenario. I see your no property rights society and reject it. I start my own with whatever rules I want, including owning land I work and improve, thus removing it from it's previous state of nature. Under my society, I recognize your collectives property, including land, and respect those bounds. Even though within your realm of influence, nobody owns any land, I still recognize that your collective has claim to the land within its area of influence. You can do whatever you want and I can do the same.
You are clearly a collectivist and I am clearly not. We differ at a fundamental level. You see this right? You have some odd idea of property rights... it is so flawed, I realize that you are far beyond being able to be reasoned with. If you apply your theory to nearly every single aspect of life, you see that I would be a thief for: Drinking water from a river, eating fish I caught from a lake, building a shelter under a tree, growing a crop... like I said, pretty much anything I do would be theft since when I do something, I am denying every other soul on earth from doing that action. So I ask, if everyone has equal right and claim to the fish in a river, but nobody has done so, why is it immoral and wrong for me to fish it and keep the catch all to myself? Seriously. What is the reasoning there? Come on, be real here. Let's take one more example, the moon. Let's assume nobody has ever visited or landed on it though for this argument. OK. So, the moon is out there 100% in the state of nature. I build a ship, fly to the moon and stake a claim to the land. I build a house and mine the land on the moon. Do you claim that I stole that land from you? How did I steal something which nobody had any dominion over whatsoever? Others may have looked at the moon and maybe had grand ideas on what to do with it once they got there, sure. What rights to the land on the moon does the man with merely intentions have? Are they equal or greater than my rights having already flown there and built my home? Does his intention trump my action?
Moving on... You both do not own that bike really, but you both have property rights for the bike. The original owner certainly has claim and should get his bike back. That said, the other person has a claim to be compensated for being defrauded on his purchase. Neither person should be out anything if it could be resolved properly. The old owner gets his bike back, the other person gets his money back and can buy another bike.
Note: I will be unable to reply for a while, potentially not until Monday. However, I will read your reply and eventually refute, if necessary.
Real property is land and natural resources. Personal property is things. Ownership of real property is freedom for the one who owns it, and theft from those who don't own any. This is because, before someone claimed the land or resource, everyone could use it.
Well, see, there is our difference. When you put your effort into a piece of land and make it more valuable than it was in a state of nature, then that is your claim to property. When you put work into the land, it yields more than it did in the state of nature, which is beneficial is it not? Let us say I was to take a parcel of land from the state of nature, work it and produce a crop of some sort. According to you, I have no claim to that land as my property. So when you come up to me on this said land and say, "I am going to take all of the harvest you just collected. This land is common property, I am entitled to the harvest, it is not yours in any way." Who is thieving who? Even if I do not OWN the land itself, do I get to own the product of my labor?
By working the property and claiming ownership, they are denying everyone on the planet the use of something they could have used before.
No. Before the person worked the land, everyone had a chance to improve upon it themselves, but they didn't. As a matter of fact, they did exactly nothing with it, that is why it was in the state of nature before it was worked and become someone property. You are basically saying if I buy a car(or anything) that is theft because I have denied the right to everyone else to own that exact car.
I do not quite follow the property clarification. He does not really say anything to me, having not read his work or seen this equation. As for Smith's quote, that is based on his subjective opinion. We are certainly getting muddled in conflicting definitions here.
How does he, nay, how do you define property? What is it? How does it come to be? Most importantly, given your answers, how is it evil/wrong/theft?
The right to life is the source of all rights-and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values. -Rand
How can you claim my arguments are tires? You didn't read even my whole post, or you would know that we agree on what anarchy is.
Tired. They are tired. I can claim as much by writing, "Your arguments are tired." Does that make them as such to everyone? No.
I know we agree on some aspects of anarchy. I did read your post, I just completely disagree. You advocate no property rights where as; I think they are fundamental to any _individual_ based society. Property is theft huh? I hold that the exact opposite is closer to the truth.
Anarachy DOES require a moral society. What you described is a moral society. One where everyone is on the same page, following the same rules and have the same interests(so far as society as a collective is concerned). People are good because it is an effective strategy? HA! Not without a heavy dose of some wicked philosophy could anyone conclude "People are good because it works." I could replace 'good' with 'bad' and show ample examples of how being bad benefits someone. Hardly a strong argument:( - I mean your whole last paragraph is a contradiction... you defined a moral society after saying that anarchy does not require it. It really does not matter how you spin it though, it is still a Utopian delusion.
Well your arguments are... tired. I have heard similar spiels over the years and I am not convinced of anything besides your ability to articulate your point. I wish I had time to reply at length, but I fear it would be a waste of time, your mind is certainly made. I will retort a bit though. First, citing Nobel Price Winners can hurt your argument more than it helps. Many winners are deserving, but many are equally unworthy and I am quite sure you realize this. Second, the drivel about 'billions of people over thousands of years' holds no water and is an attempt to frame history in your favor, which is certainly isn't in either of our camps. I see this, you should too.
I will conclude with a comment on anarchy. Anarchy, if examined objectively, is not the devolution of government into a complete individual based world, but the opposite. Anarchy is government highly evolved, where all concerns and issues have been addressed as the state concedes power back to the individual. That said, I could easily argue that Anarchy is a Utopian ideal based on the simple fact that it requires a completely moral society to pull off. Fear not though! Most ideals, including mine, are Utopian at their absolutes, rending the quest for 'pure' anything a fool hearty one.
A custom CMS is only worth it if you are looking to improve upon what is currently out there. Most of the options out there are pretty awful and hacking them up is a job for the more novice coders. If you do not poses the skills to know what is wrong with a CMS, _why_ it is wrong and how to fix it, then you have no business creating your own CMS. If you want to tackle a project like this, you need to have the dedication to do it right. I wont go into what exactly 'doing it right' is as it differs from person to person, but needless to say it can be simply stated as _thoroughness_.
Speaking from first hand experience, my CMS was an idea on paper for a while before any code was written. If you cannot answer and account for _every_ detail and circumstance on paper, I do not suggest undertaking something like this.
Tailor your resume for each job you are applying for and stretch the truth where it may help you. You should omit any and everything on your resume that does not make you sound like a complete and total badass. If your QA job is not glamorous, then write very little about it. Less is more in this case. You should not lie outright, but instead, describe yourself and skill as you are and can be, not what is 'technically correct'.
Face reality. Resumes just get you in the door so you can get an interview. The idea should be to get the interview and then it is up to you and what you know. There is no getting around that. Fibbin a little on your resume to get an interview is no big deal, but you cannot be lying in your interview though. You better be able to back up what you put on your resume, but just because you were not able to get a job programming does not mean you do not posses the skills. If you know you have them, convey them however you can.
Many people will want to do things by the book, like you seem to want to do. Truth be told, that will only get you so far and in many cases, not very far at all. You need to be a salesman for yourself and you cannot make your pitch unless you get in front of them. The interview is key, you need to kill it. Be confident and personable. Talk about them more about you... people love to talk about themselves. Be conscious of your body language and make eye contact. Treat the interview as if you were interviewing them as much as they were interview you and you should even tell them as much, they eat it up!
Remember, people with skill sets get jobs, not skill sets alone. Companies do not interview to find the right skills, instead they want the right person. Know it.
Slashdot Mirror
I should have clarified, perhaps. That is a personal choice of mine to tell people to use Chrome instead of Firefox because Firefox has done nothing but let me down since v1.5... Most people have alright experiences with Firefox, but mine have been far from pleasant. Sticking out in my mind is their ignoring and dismissing the huge memory leak issues in versions prior to 3.0. Presently, I have very frustrating issues when reloading sessions, but luckily I have tempered those by using Chrome side-by-side.
If Firefox 3.5 ends up rendering differently than Firefox Next and I will be pissed. The amount of browser to develop has ballooned in recent years and have fractioned development lines will not help one bit. For those wanting to say, "Just stop supporting it," well, it is just is not that easy is it? IE6 still has about the same market share as all FF versions combined on nearly all the sites I run. If Firefox 3.5 is left behind, it will continued to be used at a decent clip for several more years, making it one more PITA.... not to mention one more reason to recommend Chrome over FF.
...and have managed to steer clear of girls since. Whew! That was intense.
As many here can attest, it only takes one bad boss to make working your conditions analogous to hell on Earth. I would argue that in the worst cases, your setup would be welcomed on a daily basis if got away from their boss that is not worth the dirt they walk on.
I cannot figure out how this fits into his seemingly insatiable appetite for populism. Maybe that is the silver lining?
The cynic in me can draw a nasty conclusions from this stance, but even that is to Orwellian for me. I was not worried about this legislation under Bush because he implemented it the best of intentions, all-things-considered(Bush is not inherited evil, despite the efforts of many to prove that is so). The abuse of programs like this come from those who inherit the power after they are established and rarely by those who establish it.
A philosopher maybe... depending on the flavor. An idealist though? That would depend on their ideals too. Considering most idealists think they are their brothers keeper, then chances are they will do whatever _they think_ is best for everyone.
Philosophers and idealists, as you mentioned, are not cut out for the political game, but for very different reasons. Philosophers would be above the non-intellectual process politics has become while idealists are just incompetent as leaders of people within the confines of a government. An idealist is better off coming up with the ideas and keeping people together, striving towards that end. The achievement of that end is better executed by someone based in reality, lest you welcome certain disaster in your attempt to achieve that end at the hands of idealistic leadership.
I never saw the problem as lack of time, but almost always the lack of prioritizing and also recognizing bullshit and avoiding/minimizing it. You can't do everything. Just pick a few important things.
While it is not in the sense the OP meant, the answer is still early education. In order to effectively prioritize and/or recognize the bullshit in life, you need to be able to view and rationalize everything for what it really is. That capacity might as well be non-existent for most people in this day and age, especially among the younger generation (in which I am a part of).
The less intelligent our children are, the higher the likelihood that they will allow their time to be consumed by useless activities. TV and gossip mags are prime examples of people wasting away their time because of their complete and total lack of a desire to do anything productive. Productivity is the key word here. Where a smarter person would think productivity is synonymous with progress, a dumb one would likely think the same thing though(They do not realize their error). The difference comes in the ENDS each of these people choose to strive for. An properly educated person would be more likely to know that watching every episode of some TV program is not a worthwhile end whatsoever, while you average person thinks it is a perfectly respectable way to spend their time.
I am in the same boat, no option to upgrade yet.
First things first, what Yelp is doing is not the most respectable thing, but should not surprise a single person that understands business. Next, what they are doing is not extortion, at least not yet. When they call companies and tell them that a competitor bought a sponsorship to promote themselves and if they don't up the ante along with them, then they 'wont be able to do anything about those negative reviews,' then you have a case for extortion. It could come in many flavors, but you should get the idea.
It is also important to remember that bad ethics is not evidence enough alone to throw around the extortion word. In this case, you merely disagree with how Yelp handles sales, sponsorship and their relation to the reviews on their site.
Why do you assume that human-like intelligence is the only "real" intelligence? When real AI comes, it will probably bear as much resemblance to human intelligence as airplane flight does to bird flight.
Ding ding ding. Thanks for answering your own question. The plane does not work like the bird whatsoever, but you do know what they studied in order to develop it right? In case you aren't following, they looked at other animals with flight. They aimed to understand it and then apply mechanics/engineering to emulate it. AI is no different.
Again, in order to build truly intelligent machines, we must first grasp what intelligence actually is. We have not done so.
You are only partially correct. The focus on context is misplaced, though you are on the right path. Simply remembering words or topics that have been mentioned earlier in the same discussion does not say anything about intelligence.
The main problem with AI is learning.
Nearly all work in the field now has a misplaced or completely wrong approach to achieving real AI. In order to understand how to make truly intelligent machines, we must first know how our own brains work. Most focus is on creating a machine that can perform in some very specific situation, like the Turing Test. However, these machines are not intelligent, they do not learn. They are not creating, storing and recalling patterns which are the crux of our cognitive abilities.
The first step to true AI is understanding how human intelligence is achieved in our brain.
He would not gather the information via tests. He would observe and with time come to know what he was dealing with when it showed up in a meeting or what not. Everyone is different, so no test will ever peg... well anyone really.
Information gathered from personality tests should be used by intelligent managers in order to maximize the potential of their subordinates by playing to their strengths? Using the information to screen out certain individuals could be useful in some _very specific_ situations, sure. Generally speaking though, it is just misuse of valuable information that thus educated person would apply in their management practices.
You do not ask an Idealist to proofread your financial documents, you do not ask a Pragmatic person to make long term strategic plans and you certainly are not going to get anything from a Realist if you ask them to brainstorm. Knowing how someone constructs their thoughts is _invaluable_. What does not do much good, however, is filtering your candidates to only one type. You are only asking for failure there, as every personality/thinking type has its vices.
Every single type.
Speak for yourself, dude.
I would agree and recommend that exact action in all seriousness. Your professional persona should be maintained and cared for diligently. My posting in /. with my real name is part of that, as I specifically make sure not to get into flame wars or make emphatic statements for one stance or another. I slip up now and then, but it is hardly anything I would be ashamed to own up to at the same time. Everything else, should be under an assumed alias though. In the case of wanting to own a statement made under an alias, you could choose a name that is synonymous with you in some way. Some handle including bits of information about your life, without giving yourself away. Something like your initials, alma matre mascot and birth year... you get the point ;)
When in doubt, go the safe route where you have some degree of control over your personal information. I contribute to a few sites here and there, not to mention the few I run myself, and I write every single word under a pen name. There are a few reasons why I do this, mostly privacy issues related to avoiding unwarranted judgment/stigma from something I wrote. A pen name/alias/handle protects from this problem, but also has the added benefit of being able to 'reveal yourself' at a later date if you decide to forgo the privacy stuff.
That being said, I specifically choose to NOT assume an alias here on slashdot. I have my reasons for doing so, but they are of no consequence. The point is, you should think about your choice and the consequences of it. After weighing the information, if you are still on the fence, you should err on the side of caution and assume an alias.
I have to run in a minute and will give a fully qualified response later, but I can address your claim of my failing to address the 'why' am I right aspect.
My system benefits more people as it benefits every single person equally. We are all bound by the exact same natural rights and are free to act within those bounds. If you as an individual remove land from a state of nature by working and improving it, then you own it. Now the benefits to you (the collective) from my working the land is a more complex thing, so I must delay that until later. Now to touch on the Power claim briefly(I will touch this again later too). You are 100% correct about your power to remove me from my land by force. If I choose to go it alone and not enter into a society, then I am subject to your whim and you can force me off my land and take my property via force. By doing so though, you enter into a state of war with me and all bets are off then. I would be perfectly justified to kill every single person who enters into a state of war with me, however unlikely that result may be is irrelevant. All that considered, your act of force alone removes any moral claim you may have once had. Force is force is force... Ok, I am late now! To be continued...
By what authority was land being used collectively taken and improved by individuals?
By what authority does the land belong to the collective? Are you speaking of some form of organized society? I do not have to subscribe to your collective law. If all the land is in a state of nature, then I too, can be in the same state of nature, completely sovereign in my own right, choosing not to enter into your society. If that is my choice, I can lay claim to whatever land I want for whatever reason and it is not theft, right? I am the 'collective' in this scenario. I see your no property rights society and reject it. I start my own with whatever rules I want, including owning land I work and improve, thus removing it from it's previous state of nature. Under my society, I recognize your collectives property, including land, and respect those bounds. Even though within your realm of influence, nobody owns any land, I still recognize that your collective has claim to the land within its area of influence. You can do whatever you want and I can do the same.
You are clearly a collectivist and I am clearly not. We differ at a fundamental level. You see this right? You have some odd idea of property rights... it is so flawed, I realize that you are far beyond being able to be reasoned with. If you apply your theory to nearly every single aspect of life, you see that I would be a thief for: Drinking water from a river, eating fish I caught from a lake, building a shelter under a tree, growing a crop... like I said, pretty much anything I do would be theft since when I do something, I am denying every other soul on earth from doing that action. So I ask, if everyone has equal right and claim to the fish in a river, but nobody has done so, why is it immoral and wrong for me to fish it and keep the catch all to myself? Seriously. What is the reasoning there? Come on, be real here. Let's take one more example, the moon. Let's assume nobody has ever visited or landed on it though for this argument. OK. So, the moon is out there 100% in the state of nature. I build a ship, fly to the moon and stake a claim to the land. I build a house and mine the land on the moon. Do you claim that I stole that land from you? How did I steal something which nobody had any dominion over whatsoever? Others may have looked at the moon and maybe had grand ideas on what to do with it once they got there, sure. What rights to the land on the moon does the man with merely intentions have? Are they equal or greater than my rights having already flown there and built my home? Does his intention trump my action?
Moving on... You both do not own that bike really, but you both have property rights for the bike. The original owner certainly has claim and should get his bike back. That said, the other person has a claim to be compensated for being defrauded on his purchase. Neither person should be out anything if it could be resolved properly. The old owner gets his bike back, the other person gets his money back and can buy another bike.
Note: I will be unable to reply for a while, potentially not until Monday. However, I will read your reply and eventually refute, if necessary.
Real property is land and natural resources. Personal property is things. Ownership of real property is freedom for the one who owns it, and theft from those who don't own any. This is because, before someone claimed the land or resource, everyone could use it.
Well, see, there is our difference. When you put your effort into a piece of land and make it more valuable than it was in a state of nature, then that is your claim to property. When you put work into the land, it yields more than it did in the state of nature, which is beneficial is it not? Let us say I was to take a parcel of land from the state of nature, work it and produce a crop of some sort. According to you, I have no claim to that land as my property. So when you come up to me on this said land and say, "I am going to take all of the harvest you just collected. This land is common property, I am entitled to the harvest, it is not yours in any way." Who is thieving who? Even if I do not OWN the land itself, do I get to own the product of my labor?
By working the property and claiming ownership, they are denying everyone on the planet the use of something they could have used before.
No. Before the person worked the land, everyone had a chance to improve upon it themselves, but they didn't. As a matter of fact, they did exactly nothing with it, that is why it was in the state of nature before it was worked and become someone property. You are basically saying if I buy a car(or anything) that is theft because I have denied the right to everyone else to own that exact car.
How does he, nay, how do you define property? What is it? How does it come to be? Most importantly, given your answers, how is it evil/wrong/theft?
The right to life is the source of all rights-and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values. -Rand
How can you claim my arguments are tires? You didn't read even my whole post, or you would know that we agree on what anarchy is.
Tired. They are tired. I can claim as much by writing, "Your arguments are tired." Does that make them as such to everyone? No.
:( - I mean your whole last paragraph is a contradiction... you defined a moral society after saying that anarchy does not require it. It really does not matter how you spin it though, it is still a Utopian delusion.
I know we agree on some aspects of anarchy. I did read your post, I just completely disagree. You advocate no property rights where as; I think they are fundamental to any _individual_ based society. Property is theft huh? I hold that the exact opposite is closer to the truth.
Anarachy DOES require a moral society. What you described is a moral society. One where everyone is on the same page, following the same rules and have the same interests(so far as society as a collective is concerned). People are good because it is an effective strategy? HA! Not without a heavy dose of some wicked philosophy could anyone conclude "People are good because it works." I could replace 'good' with 'bad' and show ample examples of how being bad benefits someone. Hardly a strong argument
Well your arguments are... tired. I have heard similar spiels over the years and I am not convinced of anything besides your ability to articulate your point. I wish I had time to reply at length, but I fear it would be a waste of time, your mind is certainly made. I will retort a bit though. First, citing Nobel Price Winners can hurt your argument more than it helps. Many winners are deserving, but many are equally unworthy and I am quite sure you realize this. Second, the drivel about 'billions of people over thousands of years' holds no water and is an attempt to frame history in your favor, which is certainly isn't in either of our camps. I see this, you should too.
I will conclude with a comment on anarchy. Anarchy, if examined objectively, is not the devolution of government into a complete individual based world, but the opposite. Anarchy is government highly evolved, where all concerns and issues have been addressed as the state concedes power back to the individual. That said, I could easily argue that Anarchy is a Utopian ideal based on the simple fact that it requires a completely moral society to pull off. Fear not though! Most ideals, including mine, are Utopian at their absolutes, rending the quest for 'pure' anything a fool hearty one.
Libertarianism: if you think 'nyah nyah nyah! You're not the boss of me!' is a good philosophy, it might just be for you.
Not only good, but great. Perhaps not the best, but the best we have.
A custom CMS is only worth it if you are looking to improve upon what is currently out there. Most of the options out there are pretty awful and hacking them up is a job for the more novice coders. If you do not poses the skills to know what is wrong with a CMS, _why_ it is wrong and how to fix it, then you have no business creating your own CMS. If you want to tackle a project like this, you need to have the dedication to do it right. I wont go into what exactly 'doing it right' is as it differs from person to person, but needless to say it can be simply stated as _thoroughness_.
Speaking from first hand experience, my CMS was an idea on paper for a while before any code was written. If you cannot answer and account for _every_ detail and circumstance on paper, I do not suggest undertaking something like this.
Tailor your resume for each job you are applying for and stretch the truth where it may help you. You should omit any and everything on your resume that does not make you sound like a complete and total badass. If your QA job is not glamorous, then write very little about it. Less is more in this case. You should not lie outright, but instead, describe yourself and skill as you are and can be, not what is 'technically correct'.
Face reality. Resumes just get you in the door so you can get an interview. The idea should be to get the interview and then it is up to you and what you know. There is no getting around that. Fibbin a little on your resume to get an interview is no big deal, but you cannot be lying in your interview though. You better be able to back up what you put on your resume, but just because you were not able to get a job programming does not mean you do not posses the skills. If you know you have them, convey them however you can.
Many people will want to do things by the book, like you seem to want to do. Truth be told, that will only get you so far and in many cases, not very far at all. You need to be a salesman for yourself and you cannot make your pitch unless you get in front of them. The interview is key, you need to kill it. Be confident and personable. Talk about them more about you... people love to talk about themselves. Be conscious of your body language and make eye contact. Treat the interview as if you were interviewing them as much as they were interview you and you should even tell them as much, they eat it up!
Remember, people with skill sets get jobs, not skill sets alone. Companies do not interview to find the right skills, instead they want the right person. Know it.