Wait -- you originally said that "I see no reason that people should be trapped in a country they don't want to be a part of." Indicating that you think that having the people move to a country that they want to be a part of is not acceptable. But for some reason, you don't believe that the "losers" of this referendum are "trapped" in the same way. That seems rather contradictory.

I'd pay extra to have humans working instead of insecure Internet connections being used.

If nothing else it would get rid of these stupid stories all the time.

I am a HUGE believer in individual choice. If the consumer chooses to buy or use something that isn't government approved... that is their choice. Obviously make it clear to them so they don't do it by accident... but that's about it.

I don't disagree with this, but a key issue is marketing and insurance coverage, not availability. Drugs that are legally available to consumers can't be marketed for purposes other than the conditions they were approved to treat, and companies have paid billions of dollars in fines for violating these rules. That doesn't prevent doctors from prescribing the drugs off-label, but insurance companies usually won't cover this (I know, I've tried), and because these uses can't be marketed, the revenues are vastly lower. I am 100% in favor of experimentation and consumer choice, but I don't like seeing companies push drugs with potentially debilitating side effects on people without actual evidence that they work.

Not necessarily. It looks like they're removing what they can't support, such as VMS, Netware and OS/2. The few people that care can still use the original OpenSSL code.

I'd expect them to ensure it support the hardware platforms OpenBSD supports at the very least. Then, if they go the "portable" route like they did for OpenSSH, support for the other Unix and Unix-like systems.

http://www.openssh.com/portable.html

More power to them.

This bug would have been utterly trivial to detect when introduced had the OpenSSL developers bothered testing with a normal malloc (not even a security focused malloc, just one that frees memory every now and again). Instead, it lay dormant for years until I went looking for a way to disable their Heartbleed accelerating custom allocator.

it's a very good read.

consider that we might do well to push a lot of these bio medical researchers at the private sector

Many of us would love to move to the private sector. There's just aren't a lot of jobs there either. In my current specialty, there are hundreds of postdoctoral fellowships (and maybe a dozen faculty openings) for every industry position. I have much broader expertise than that, but employers typically aren't interested in anyone who doesn't fit the exact list of criteria that HR prepared. I've basically spent the last 6 years working as a full-time software developer but I can't even get responses to job applications because I'm still in academia, and competing with CS graduates with the right buzzwords on their resumes.

Obviously my choice of career path was poor, but there isn't some magic solution that can retroactively fix that problem.

Creationism isn't the topic of this thread, so what would you call the introduction of an unrelated topic, if not a strawman?

Learn what straw man means. It does not mean anything you do not like.

Besides, you're not really pretending you didn't say that, are you?

I've quoted the portion where you brought up "moron". I've linked to your quote where you brought up "moron".

No "pretending" needed. You said it. Then you objected to it. That's a straw man.

For the record, here is my actual argument:

For the record, I posted a direct quote from you and the link to that quote.

Here is your quote, again:

No, I mean like people who "point out" the evidence for evolution by looking at Creationists and saying things like, "goddamn but you're a moron! How is it that you're allowed to breed? Someone should put you down for the good of society!"

You brought up "moron" and then you objected to it.

That is a straw man.

They say that they spend so much money complying with the FDA that they have very little for anything else.

That's because the FDA requires actual proof that a drug does what it's claimed to do before they'll let it be marketed as such - oh, and it has to not have debilitating side effects. If we got rid of the FDA, the barriers to market would be vastly lower, but we'd be flooded with a huge number of placebos with deadly side effects. Really, it's shocking how often drug candidates make it to Phase III trials only to discover that they're effectively useless. Do you really want to get rid of that filter?

The pernicious influence of this 'Federal technical complex' has led to an entire generation of scientists who believe that the only credible source of funding must be the federal government.

Actually, none of us really believe that. In fact, most of us would love to have more options than crawling back to the NIH every five years, and would also prefer not to worry about whether the hacks in DC will fuck everything up for us. The problem is that the governments really are the largest source of funding and there are limited prospects to replace that. Wealthy philanthropists are great but it's hard to find enough of those to shell out the equivalent of the NIH budget. Companies are rarely interested in spending money on anything they can't turn into a product in the shortest possible amount of time - in the life sciences, only a tiny handful of them do anything resembling "basic research".

The comparison to the "solitary inventor" of the past is irrelevant, because up until recently you didn't need much technology to make some pretty important discoveries. Unfortunately, as science advances, each incremental discovery tends to require steadily greater investments in equipment and infrastructure, which creates a huge barrier to entry. Additionally, the body of knowledge is so immense that it takes years to acquire the technical knowledge to tackle most research projects independently.

So why don't the people in the Crimean area who want to be Russians just move into Russia? Why should a majority of of people in an area be able to vote and force an ethnic minority to leave their homes?

Although that sounds reasonable at first, it leads to a lot of problematic situations. One obvious example in this case there is a minority of people in Crimea that are strongly against it, but because of the tyranny of the majority they have been forced to join Russia. Why should those people be "trapped in a country they don't want to be a part of"?

All the provision does is lift the statute of limitations on collecting an unpaid debt. I really don't see the problem with that. The actual problem seems to be that they're going after the wrong people to get their money -- and that seems to be based on a policy that allows the government to go after children who may have benefited from overpayments. Seems to me that the person you really should be going after is the one who implemented that policy -- or passed the laws that allow that policy.

Since you're not going to bother scrolling back up the page to see what I mean, I'll go ahead and say it - that comment was in response to your strawman about Creationists.

That statement was from you but you attempted to imply that it was from me.

That is a straw man.

Pointing out that Jenny McCarthy and Creationists BOTH ignore scientific evidence is not a straw man.

You were the one who started talking about "morons". Let me quote you and provide a link:

No, I mean like people who "point out" the evidence for evolution by looking at Creationists and saying things like, "goddamn but you're a moron! How is it that you're allowed to breed? Someone should put you down for the good of society!"

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5028117&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=46749487

That is your comment and that is you making a straw man about "moron" claims.

Look, Brah, I don't care what you think about feelings, or damage, or strawmen, or whatever.

Except that you do and that has been your entire argument. I need to be nicer about pointing out that some people ignore all the scientific evidence that contradicts them. Then you go off on a straw man.

Measles does not care about feelings.

My mistake for assuming that I was talking to someone who understands what the words he uses means. Words like "straw man."

That would be your hypothetical straw man friends whom you claimed were calling Jenny McCarthy a "moron".

What I said was that she (and the anti-vaccine people like her) do not have any evidence to support their claims.

FWIW, I'm not the hypocrite who's putting up strawmen and accusing others of doing the same thing when they make the apparent mistake of responding.

Yes you are. And you are "tone trolling".

Like I keep saying, measles does not care about your feelings.

Herd immunity has precisely dick to do with how you present your argument.

And, again, measles does not care about your feelings.

And now there are outbreaks of measles because of the anti-vaccination people. Real people. Real diseases. Real damage. None of your hypothetical straw men needed.