You can have/use this idea for free:
Before a system will build said code, have the build system verify the code not only by the public key/code hash, but as a secondary method - the code fingerprint of the author in question.
This turns a creepy idea into something worthwhile.
I have yet to meet a really competent programmer. I don't consider myself much beyond capable - but I have too many flaws in my output to be considered really brilliant.
I have worked with or dealt with the output of other programmers who's performance was egregious - most egregious was the contractor who's naive use of a commercial java framework managed to produce the effect of a memory leak in java (e.g. hamstrung java's built-in garbage collection mechanism).
Experience has taught me practical measures of quality programmers in no particular order:
1. They must know how to program at the most simple level (e.g. competency in structured programming in C would be a good starting point - a basic understanding of LISP programming a plus) before tackling more complex programming tasks. I get the sense there are a lot of cut-and-paste programmers out there who really don't understand what the underlying code they are creating is actually doing.
2. Have an innate ability to focus on simple solutions, rather than being clever. KISS principle must be understood and brought into every design decision from the start. That is not to say there are no complexities, but understanding what is simple given the problem at hand - some simple things are complex when compared to other systems - and having the ability to avoid needless complexity.
3. Literate - must be able to not only communicate effectively externally - but also their comments in code should illuminate the subject matter in a clear, concise manner. Ideally should be able to get workable technical documentation straight from their comments - via doxygen or the like (perldoc, pydoc etc).
4. Their code must be maintainable and extendable. If an average programmer cannot maintain the code, and is required to rewrite the system from scratch - then you have failed as a quality programmer. Change is inevitable - how resilient your system is to change is a measure of your ability as a programmer.
5. They must understand a lot about technology outside of the world of their application. Their application will live in a world of networks, machines (physical and virtual), storage systems, communication protocols, and APIs - they must understand the implications of software design choices given a set of environmental requirements. The best programmers not only know how to code up systems, but also how to give advice about what their systems will be capable of doing given the environment, or lack thereof - and act upon that if it is possible to adjust via changes to software alone (e.g. choosing multithreading/multiprogramming design over single thread of execution).
6. They must be able to create secure code. If the company they work for doesn't produce a guide to that, then they should develop that on their own - and live by it - and consistently improve it. If they are using frameworks/libraries written by someone else, they should audit or test it to be sure the underlying implementation is secure.
7. Must be able to get along with others and work as part of a team; ideally if they are really a quality programmer, I would expect them to also mentor and share their ideals and capabilities with their peers to bring everyone up as much as possible. Quality programmers are not primadonnas.
That's it from my standpoint.
Not bad, but I think Barb's was actually pretty good.
I dismissed them as neckbeards and accountants.
I'd argue/debate/discuss it with you, but I find it an issue for the history books. Besides, I think I'm stuck in meetings for five of the next eight hours
Please clarify
OK. Question:
why this particular type of freedom of association should be banned
Answer:
the IRS, and the general expansion of the administrative state, offer literally hundreds of thousands of [pages of] reasons why
Regret lateness of last night's reply resulting in an incomplete thought.
And neither do unions. Unions work for their members.
Thank you for making my argument for me. Private sector unions are an obvious extension of freedom of association. But public sector unions, as you note, work for their members. The inescapable conclusion is that a public sector union, over time, is going to serve its members, to the detriment of the public.
We understood that the Commies were attacking the culture, subverting academia and Hollywood. One must offer props to them for infiltrating the IRS. The suppression of the Tea Parties leading up to the 2012 election, with a wink from the GOP, and to the surprise of Mitt the Milquetoast, was a brilliant bit of work.
And why is it that on other matters you are fine to leave the states and jurisdictions to pass their own laws, but on this particular situation you want the federal government to step in and tell the smaller governments how to do their jobs?
Let's flip that around, and inquire why the 14th Amendment has been used to incorporate the entire Bill of Rights except the 2A, against the smaller governments?
Hint: "educe a free people to livestock" is the ultimate goal.
which goes well with your general disdain for organized labor. What you have not answered though is why this particular type of freedom of association should be banned when others are not.
I think the IRS, and the general expansion of the administrative state, offer literally hundreds of thousands of reasons why.
If someone choses of their own free will to be part of a union how is that different from choosing of their own free will to be a member of a specific church?
Crazy thing is, we don't have churches making decisions about how to regulate the lives of random people. I really don't know how to make this distinction more obvious to the oblivious.
My point is that the whole "morally blameworthy" is excessively squishy.
Only for the rationalizing sack of crap in the crowd, or those who place religious levels of faith in the state.
your original thesis here is that if the high capacity magazine ban where equally enforced (and existed where the interview you mention took place) then your Mr. Gregory would be expecting to serve jail time.
The other direction the reaction could go is that people say "Ah, all of these DC abridgements of the Second Amendment are a pile of crap, and we should strike them."
Whacky thing is, the state never seems to just relinquish power, and let liberty flower. . .
So would you enjoy it enough to do it for free
I teach for free several times a week, in fact.
I don't hold anything against government employees.
And neither do I. Government employee unions remain a conflict of interest and a form of delayed mutiny, however.
"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight
