I'm guessing you're talking about the DoD? This budget is cutting $1 trillion, which is more than the DoD misplaces. This year's budget deficit is around $1.6 trillion, so a cut of $1 trillion really is on the order of the cuts needed. Also this budget proposal does cut some of that military spending you reference. So I think calling this "a little trimming" is disingenuous.

That's a common misconception of libertarian philosophy.

It's not an issue of not caring if bad things happen. It's an issue of the morality of using violence to take away someone's ability to voluntarily choose whether or not to do something. When you refuse to use violence, force, and threats to take that choice away from an individual it's not the same thing as saying any choice they make is equally good.

There's another breed of libertarian that focuses on utilitarian arguments, such as moral hazard and unintended consequences. For example one might oppose government flood insurance on the basis that forcing people not subject to the risk of flooding to take on some costs of those that choose to take that risk will cause more people to build and live in high risk areas. In essence the involuntary nature of the insurance causes more destruction and suffering in the event of a flood, than would have otherwise occurred.

++

This is an excellent answer.

Here's a free marketer's take on Umair Haque's article:

Harvard Business Review Goes Gaga over Karl Marx

If so then you're not really using RAII.

A) Yes, you can avoid sharing references, and that might use more memory than is necessary, but then again, for a specific problem you may not need copies and so it could be efficient.

B) Nice absolute there. Reference counting is a fine solution in many situations.

There are other solutions as well:

C) Use a non-reference counting smart pointer that allows resources to be passed around safely with no copying and no other overhead. See std::unique_ptr.

D) Share references in a well defined way such that they're never passed outside the scope where the object is accessible.

What happens is that the resource is freed as required because you're using RAII.

As a matter of fact revenue is unquestionably greater than the interest payments. So I assume they're still a long way from worrying if there's enough revenue to cover interest.

Why are you suggesting that the only two choices are to borrow money or to not pay anything back? Are you sure there's no other choice?

The people talking about default are using it as a scare tactic, and it would be their choice to default or not, regardless of whether the debt ceiling is raised or not.

Unless the revenue amounts to less than the payments on current debt then even in the case where they refuse to take on more debt they still have the income to make those payments and avoid a default.

So it might be better to say:

Software patents, and in fact all patents, are one of those 'fetters' on capitalism, not part of capitalism. Intellectual property, such as it is in unfettered capitalism, is entirely enforced in contracts and keeping secrets secret.

You're right, he did build it therefore he really should know better than to make such foolish comments. But since he apparently doesn't know better I too hope he's reading Slashdot so he can read the grandparent's correction.

I think Z00L00K was saying the time for code reviews is after all the automated stuff already checks out. Obviously you shouldn't waste co-workers' time reviewing code that you already know needs more work.

Or maybe NAT could be replaced by firewalls on consumer routers.

You don't need NAT to prevent that. Either use a firewall or just make sure access to your home automation uses authenticated access.

You shouldn't be accessing them by IP address. You should be accessing them by service instance name, and that's under your control (and has reasonable, human readable, factory set defaults). Zeroconf takes care of the details of figuring out the hostnames and IP addresses for you.

Not the way Rand defined it. If you're donating to a charity that you think does good work then she'd call it self interest. The recompense for the donor would be that the charity is able to do more of the work the donor thinks is good.

As I understand her definition, basically anything that promotes whatever an individual values is 'self-interest.' If you understand the definition she's using it's easy to see why she'd see being altruistic as evil, because by her definition is basically wasting resources on things that are worthless, or destroying something that's valuable for no good reason.