mmm_grayons

Is the pricing structure documented somewhere and did I just miss it? If not, I would encourage the author (if he sees this) to please publish it, as I like to know how much something might cost me before making it part of my set of tools.

I'm not French either, but it appears it was ruled to be Holocaust Denial. Apparently, that can warrant jail time in France.

This is Europe's form of police brutality and it needs to stop. The article mentions incitement to violence but fails to support that. It later refers to "inciting hatred against minorities," which is nebulous at best. Specifically, it refers to "[promoting] racism and xenophobia", "insulting a female politician", holocaust denial, and other such conduct.

For all of her flaws, this is one thing America gets right: people should never face criminal charges for this sort of thing.

Red China and her policies of debt-trap diplomacy are making increased use of her currency more attractive.

Well, I didn't say that explicitly, but I'd definitely agree with that. I'm definitely okay if removing corruption inherently limits the amount of wealth one can acquire, but a system that explicitly does that is antithetical to the value of non-aggression and is a tremendous violation of property rights.

Nevertheless, my objection was to the use of "voting as disagreement". That's what comments are for.

Not really. Up until this morning, my comment had a positive number of votes; it is now very gray. It was not an ad hominem attack. It was a critique of the author's value more than his proposed policies, but I certainly read the article.

At least for us Americans, there's more to it than practical disadvantage, though we do have to travel much longer distances much more often here. If I say we love cars because they represent freedom, I'm not sure that gets it across. For a century they have been a tool that allows the American to go when he pleases when he pleases. Everyone remembers the day his dad tossed him the keys to the car and the freedom that brought. We appreciate them on a much deeper level than is easy to communicate, and for that reason they will not go away, nor should they.

I believe you're right, but you must realize that your statement is similar to that some communists make: "real communism/capitalism/whateverism has never been tried yet," i.e. the No True Scotsman fallacy. The fair question to be asked is, "How can we restrict the state to prevent bastardizing capitalism and falling prey to corruption?" Capitalism seems to be much more resilient to it than communism, but we need to figure out how to further strengthen the state against this, because it's clearly slowly failing.

He's definitely right about problems. The state has too much power, and it abuses it to curtail the liberties of its citizens and enforce a crony-capitalist structure. But his solutions are wrong, and furthermore, beyond small critiques of his policies, I take broad issue with his vision. The world which he imagines - a world in which everyone is more or less equal, with some a little richer but not too much so, is not one in which I want to live. He also seems to enumerate the many wrongs of state force, then conveniently omit the sort of force that would be necessary to seize all this property. He mentions that all land would be held in common - this wouldn't just be taking the wealth of a few billionaires and giving everyone a few extra bucks. I am glad we do not live in such as society, and hope America will never head in such a direction.

Edit: I cannot reply to comments on this thread for some reason, so I will reply to 'uxcolumbo's response here. You ask why, say, $100m is not enough. Perhaps it is - it's probably enough for most of the things I could think to do, though not all. That said, the article implies that very rich people would have much less than $100m. And finally, I don't believe it's moral to cap wealth. It's a poor attempt to address the symptom rather than the disease - taking away their wealth won't fix it. Perhaps under a government with less corruption it would be difficult or impossible to amass the levels of wealth we see today, and I'd have no issues with that occurring under those circumstances.

Things looked similar amid the dominance of IE. I think it will probably happen eventually, though you're right that a start-up probably won't do it. The problem that no one pays for web browsers. There are companies building alternative engines for commercial embedding (including one that's parallel and very fast), so it would probably involve one of those being open-sourced.

Yeah, I've even done that for personal project before. Courts have been pretty clear that this isn't illegal; the worst a site could do is try to ban you. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/09/09/17...

I don't know about windows 7, but on win10, one has to 1. generate one's own key 2. sign the driver 3. turn on test signing mode, which puts a watermark in the bottom-right of the desktop background, somewhat like "activate windows" watermark but only on background. Oh, and 1. and 2. are tedious, poorly-documented processes for which microsoft provides almost no support.

No, it's not; maybe I didn't express it well. The government absolutely has a role in preventing harm and punishing those who cause it - if you pollute the atmosphere, the government can come after you. If you hurt someone, the government can come after you. But if you just own and use bitcoin, the government can't come after you just because some bad guy also uses bitcoin.

The fact that the government does that today isn't a justification for doing it.

I didn't say I don't care about others. I do value liberty higher than life, however. I don't think a cryptocurrency will "burn the world to the ground"...

Governments are allowed to stop people from harming each other - enforce pollution controls, chase down criminals, etc. They aren't allowed to tell someone he can't use bitcoin because too many bad guys use it too.

I guess you're coming at this from a fundamentally different perspective; you seem to believe that enough of a problem justifies state intervention. You're arguing that it harms too many people, but I really don't care; it could have harmed ten thousand times the number of people and that wouldn't matter.

Bitcoin absolutely has legitimate uses, as I'm sure you know, but that's not really pertinent to the issue that the government doesn't get to tell free men what they may or may not do because someone else committed a crime. "Freedom creates opportunities for bad guys" is not an argument against freedom.

Is "the idea that people don't lose liberty because others abuse it" too difficult to fathom as a possibility?

It definitely played a role, but so what? The ability to transfer money outside the control of the state is a good thing, and the fact that some people abuse that doesn't make it bad. Same as gun ownership.

Well yes, having a basic and fundamental liberty restricted without harming others is a tremendous disincentive.

Fair enough; here's another site that appears to be approaching it from the opposite perspective: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/02/14/kate-scottow-stephanie...

Different spin, for sure, but the facts appear to be the same. I'd have posted multiple sources if I knew this would be contended. Here's another article on it: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/i-stand-with-kate-scotto...

You can get tossed in prison for saying the "wrong thing", which strikes me as a pretty police state thing.

Examples:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uk-man-jailed-over-facebook-sta...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-offensive-face...

https://thesuffolkjournal.com/26253/opinion/detainment-of-br...

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/count-dankula-freedom-s...

It is, and I'm a regular user with ncmpcpp. Still works great; my only complaint is that it was a little fiddly to set up media controls (though that's true of anything involving audio/bluetooth on linux.)

Also, while it's easier to just include another header file, it can have a pretty serious impact on build times. If you compare the same program with header-only libraries to one with libraries using the normal header declaration/source definition split, it's much faster. I never worried about this too much in C, but C++ takes long enough to build as it is.

<grumble>

As a sidenote, I remember my brain hurting when I learned about C++ just redefining `inline`. It would have made much more sense to just define a new keyword.

</grumble>

You know what's funny? I used to think this too, but I just started a new project with vcpkg and it works great. I understand that Conan is supposed to be good as well, though slightly less user-friendly. I can just define all of my dependencies in a json manifest, set my cmake toolchain, and run `find_package`, `include_directories`, and `target_link_libraries` as normal. It's great.

More or less true; those who hold data bear responsibility for it. The biggest issue is that unlike, say, bank robberies, people can steal data from beyond the long arm of the law.

As a sidenote, where do you live that firearms owners are obligated to store them unloaded? They're of little use that way. I grew up around loaded guns all over the house, not hidden at all; I knew that if I ever so much as touched one, my father would tan my hide beyond belief. More importantly, I knew I'd just end up hurting myself or others.

I think you're right. If there's one thing we've learned, it's that all information which is stored digitally will be leaked at one point or another. We need to focus on storing less information wherever possible.

Also, where do you live? I've never heard of that treatment being given to someone who forgot to lock his car. On the other hand, when people lock keys in their car, policemen are generally happy to help.

While you're right from an exercise standpoint, you're dead wrong from a design one, at least if you want to apply it broadly. A lot of us live in places where summer days can easily top 100 degrees, and the better part of the year it's just too darn unpleasant to walk outside. I suppose it's possible if one works at an office with showers and lockers to allow for changing clothes, but even then it's unpleasant and still unsuitable for everything else.

You're absolutely right. The thing America most needs to do is open her borders to truly free trade with the world, with the exception of Red China and a few other nations we want to topple. More than that, we need to build free trade areas (of which we are a part) in those areas, strengthening them further against her influence. We need everyone else on our side and that's a great way to make progress towards that goal.

I too am wondering about this. There's a lot to learn, and it doesn't help that a lot of the info focuses on older C++ more than the modern variety.

How does one determine when a bug is in the compiler vs. just a dumb code error? Examining compiler output?

My username is a dead meme that is generally used to ironically mock oneself as stupid. Also, y is only sometimes a vowel for a reason; it's not the same open-mouth sort of sound as others. I think there's a big difference than that and marketing a serious security standard.