Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Most taxes are legalized theft (Score 2) 323

by roman_mir (#47933991) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance

Property ownership starts with self ownership. To earn money one has to spend his own time and effort, one has to use his own health and life, the time not spent enjoying but working. Property is thus extension of our own bodies and time given to us to spend on this planet.

To deny people ownership of the fruits of their labour is to deny people self ownership and it is disgusting. Noone should be born into slavery.

Your hands and your head and legs and the rest of it belongs to you. The collective does not own you and it cannot own what you produce. You can trade with others for what they produce or give it away, but that is your choice, your life. Your body your choice, yes?

Well, not according to you. You would steal from those who produce but how is it different from taking their body away? Taking 1 of every 2 chairs away from a chair maker is somehow different from taking away 50% of his life on the planet? It is not. That 50% of life is gone from him and nobody can fix that.

Your ideology is also insane in another regard. If somebody can produce chairs and another person cannot you want to take away from the one who can. What if there are people with no eyes? Let us then make it 'fare' for them and take everybody's eyes out. Some people are missing limbs, lets hack everybody's arms and legs off. There were people who died...... let us just murder everybody to make it fair for those who are dead but also for all of those who never lived at all.

Your ideas are horrendous if someone takes 1 minute to examine them, they lead to slavery and murder while providing superficial justification for the feeble minded.

Comment: Re:Most taxes are legalized theft (Score 2) 323

by roman_mir (#47932331) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance

Nobody is stealing your money - you're paying taxes.

- wrong, income taxes are legalised theft of life, creativity, time on this planet. It is slavery imposed by the violence of the collective on behalf of those, who perceive it to be to their advantage, whether it is so or not and against those, who are in a minority. This is how income taxes started in USA in the first place, top 2% of people were forced to be paid up to 7% of their income in taxes so that the vast majority wouldn't have to pay alcohol and some import taxes anymore (of-course the result is that everybody pays insane amounts of taxes, both on income side and on consumption).

The rest of us will recognize your right to retain the rest of your property if you recognize your responsibility to help care for the indigent

- wrong, nobody has any responsibilities towards anybody unless they are your children, then you have responsibility to them.

If you don't do your part, then why should I recognize that you have any right to own property at all?

- because it is in your best interest to recognise that if I cannot own property, then neither can you.

That's what society used to be: very few people owned any property, everybody belonged to the select few, who had the so called 'birth right' to it. You couldn't earn property, you could only be born into it or be given it by somebody who was born into it.

Meritocracy is a much more fair system to everybody, except for those, who lost that birth right of-course.

But, call it theft if you like. It really doesn't change the fact that you have no choice but to comply.

- wrong. I do not comply, I use the 5 flag strategy to ensure that something like you has a very limited access to my property.

I imagine that you'd be a little less lofty in your views if you had one of those irresponsible parents. Heck, some kids don't have any parents/family at all.

- irrelevant.

The fact is that all the property/etc you've worked so hard to obtain is only yours as the result of you having been born to parents who raised you well, and who gave you genes that allow you to support yourself.

- parents, fine. That is none of anybody's business.

What you are born with physically is of nobody's business.

Absent either of those, and especially absent the latter, you'd be as well-off as an ape that shares 98% of your genetics.

- I am yet to see an ape that is forced to pay income taxes.

As a result, I certainly have no moral issues with requiring anybody with the ability to take care of themselves to spend some of their effort taking care of others, using force if they do not wish to do so.

- irrelevant what you have or have no moral issues with. I already know what your 'morality' is. Socialist/Marxis morality is violence and theft, nothing else. I have no qualms and no doubts about your level of 'morality' and thus I do what I can to avoid such as yourself.

Comment: Re:Most taxes are legalized theft (Score 1) 323

by roman_mir (#47926195) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance

Your claim that I am a 'terrible human being' noted. So what does that make you given the fact that your claim is based on my comment, which states that no human should be forced to be a slave to another human by anybody, especially by the violent power of the state?

What does that make you, a 'better' human being, to want to use the violent power of the state to force people to give up portion of their live involuntarily for any supposed benefit of anybody at all or for any reason whatsoever for that matter?

At the very minimum it makes your position extremely inconsistent within itself, claiming that being what you are a 'better' comparing to what I am, while declaring that people need to be forced by violence (that is what state is - violence), subjugated to the will of the collective and not be allowed to decide how to control their own lives?

Then again, no socialist ideas are consistent within themselves. The so called 'green' socialists are of the opinion that people are destroying the planet. They want to use the violent power of the state to subjugate the individuals, to turn their productivity to the state, so that the state would decide what to do with it, supposedly for the benefit of the environment somehow (while the worst damage to the environment comes from the operation of the state, nuclear disasters, wars, pollution). They do not see the inconsistency of their ideas at all. They want the state to control the resources, but obviously for the state to do so, it needs to throw bones to the subjects, the bones being subsidies.

So tax those, who are productive, steal their productivity (lives, time on this planet, creativity) and allow the state to subsidise others? How is that consistent with the 'green' ideology, which is of the opinion that human activities cause ecological problems on this planet? They would be consistent if they in fact decided to completely remove subsidies, we get more of what we subsidise.

Providing subsidies causes an influx in births, those who live on subsidies do not have to care as much how to provide for the offspring, their birth rates are higher. It is an inconsistent position to provide for more subsidies from those, who already control their own birth rates to those, who will not if given subsidies.

But of-course socialist positions are never consistent.

As a side note, I have formed my opinions on this matter over 30 years ago, I only read Ayn Rand's novels out of curiosity maybe 2 or 3 years ago, I don't need anybody to form my opinions for me, which is, by the way, why I am an individual, not an ant in a colony.

Comment: Re:Most taxes are legalized theft (Score 2) 323

by roman_mir (#47923605) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance

I know what you do NOT do, you do NOT put a gun to OTHER people's had to steal their money from them to 'help' anybody whatsoever under any circumstances. No amount of misery can be justified to destroy individual freedom.

If a person is irresponsible and has children, too bad for those children, however that's what other family members are for. Beyond that there are private organisations that try to help children. Governments cause massive pain for children by destroying the economy that they and their parents live in.

Comment: Re:Most taxes are legalized theft (Score 1) 323

by roman_mir (#47921671) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance

You people who believe you'd run a functioning society without taxes and the things it pays for are completely deluded.

- government has no place in anything that private individuals need and provide for themselves and others absent government.

Energy, clothing, food, shelter, education, transportation, roads, schools, investments, entertainment, mail, anything at all that people need, individuals need, individuals, people create and once they create it, if others like it, they can also buy these solutions from the individuals that created it. That is what businesses are: individuals solving individual problems that become solutions for the entire societies.

Your complete lack of understanding of these simple realities of life and your dogmatic belief in something 'grander' than you are, are blinding you and obviously somebody so blinded cannot see the forest for the trees. "Libertarian" is just a moniker. The point is individual freedom.

Free people create stuff based on their own creativity.

Slaves only work hard enough not to get beat up too much (just enough not to be taxed too much).

Looks to me you prefer a 'society' of scared, ignorant children rather than a society of grown up people actually thinking for themselves and building stuff they need and trading with other grown ups for stuff they built.

Comment: unfortunately? (Score 2, Insightful) 64

by roman_mir (#47913965) Attached to: Funding Tech For Government, Instead of Tech For Industry

So 'unfortunately' if you are going to build a product that people may need and enjoy you are going to start a business, that may create new products and create investment opportunities and jobs in the process, you are going to 'siphon'? 'Siphon' talent away from government ('and everybody else')?????

This 'story' is one gigantic flamebait.

There is nothing unfortunate about building your own company to pursue your own goals and you are not siphoning anything from anybody by building your own business. Under all circumstances, it is better if government doesn't get any talent whatsoever, why should talent be wasted in government rather than be applied where it is actually needed: in the private sector, doing something useful?

This entire premise is insane and asinine.

Comment: Re:Great idea! Let's alienate Science even more! (Score -1) 905

by roman_mir (#47902859) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

I am an atheist because I do not believe in anything supernatural.

AFAIC if something has no evidence it may or may not exist, however if a belief requires me to accept possibility of unnatural phenomena I am going to reject it completely until such time that it is actually shown to be true repeatedly and without possibility of being faked.

If you show me a magic trick, pull out a bunny out of a hat and claim that there was no bunny hidden anywhere near you and anywhere near the hat and the bunny simply appeared out of nowhere because you willed it to appear, I want to study you and the hat and the bunny. I want to figure out what makes it possible for you to achieve that effect (and how it can be replicated and possibly used for other things, like pulling electrical power out of a hat or something). I suspect that if such a thing happened and somebody was pulling bunnies out of hats, we would eventually figure out how it was done and by figuring it out we would remove the 'unknown' and the 'unnatural' or 'supernatural' about it.

I do not believe in things that are seemingly impossible, and when somebody claims something impossible, I want a serious study of that, not something based on feelings and reading of scriptures, but actual delving into the reasons behind it.

Comment: Re:Welcome to government science (Score 0) 348

by roman_mir (#47876939) Attached to: When Scientists Give Up

I don't write for you or for anybody, I write for myself.

Free market capitalism gave us Viagra, sure.

It also gave us pretty much everything else, from factories to sewing machines, to refrigeration, to transport, to medicine, to housing, to clothing, to food, to entertainment and more.

The only people with short term thinking are found in government, but not only their thinking is linked to their election campaigns and is aimed at buying votes by generating class and racial and sexual (and actual) warfare, it is also the exact opposite of what the people actually need in real life.

A business on its own is a market participant that gives people what they want to generate profits for itself and if it fails to give people what people want it fails as there are losses, not profits.

A government on its own is not a market participant but a propagandist with a large and armed police and military forces, ready to murder and steal and lie in order to stay in power. Staying in power is antithetical to generating profits, since staying in power cannot be achieved by finding efficiencies and eliminating them or by actually eliminating any problems that governments pretend they are trying to solve.

Nobody in government got more power by solving any problems, but they certainly grow their power to worsening the situations, which then gives them an excuse to use violence and steal more and more in order to 'increase the fight' in those areas.

War on drugs doesn't solve the issue of drugs, but it sure grows government and worsens the actual situation for the people who use drugs or deal drugs or even simply participate in the economy where that war is taking place.

War on poverty doesn't solve the issue of poverty, this issue was being solved by the free market just fine when the government decided it will wage the war. The poverty only increased since then, more unemployment, the money is worthless, the economy is failing.

Governments may or may not have long term goals, however their goals have nothing to do with giving the people (market) what they actually want and need, that's what the private individuals do in the free market capitalist economy.

I am not writing it for you or for anybody, I am stating the obvious.

Comment: Re:Welcome to government science (Score 0) 348

by roman_mir (#47874915) Attached to: When Scientists Give Up

Greed is good, government is an atrocity against individual freedoms. I do not care what does not get funded if the government is involved, I don't want to see anybody being forced under the barrel of a gun to give up 1/100000000th of their income (which means their money, their time, their lives) in order to allow government to steal control over the individuals.

Now the actual problem with scientific funding in USA (and some other countries) comes from lack of free market capitalism, which is what builds innovation and requires research, which is the way innovation was and should be funded. The economies are being destroyed by the socialists that think the way you do and eventually manufacturing leaves, which means engineering is no longer done in those countries and once you have no manufacturing and no engineering you will have no research either, it just has no economic grounding to exist in those failing economies.

What is actually required is for the individuals to take power away from the governments, shut down as much government as possible in order to free the people, which is the only way to have a productive society - to have free people working for their own personal private individual benefit and gain, where the invisible hand of the market drives them to provide useful market solutions to other market participants.

Government is violent poison that destroys individuals and their lives.

Comment: in the wake of the cloud story... (Score 0) 111

by roman_mir (#47859091) Attached to: Home Depot Confirms Breach of Its Payment Systems

Funny how this is posted to /. in the wake of the "Architecting the Cloud" book review. There were some comments made about AWS and how it is so wonderfully PCI compliant and I just left a comment that was probably a bit derogatory against the entire concept of PCI compliance, but what can I say, after going through that process with my own stuff I am absolutely not anywhere near confident about PCI compliance meaning anything at all whatsoever. You can be tripple PCI compliant with some sugar on top and you will still have security problems that will get you cracked.

Comment: Re:One simple question I wish were answered... (Score -1) 75

by roman_mir (#47857089) Attached to: Book Review: Architecting the Cloud

PCI compliance is a joke really, I also doubt that AWS does everything that PCI compliance actually says you have to do, because there are contradictory things in there and beside that, do they truly scan all of their data-centres and networks for any 'unauthorised wireless activity', etc.? It's a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

Comment: Re:Python False = True (Score 0) 729

I'm sure as hell glad I don't have your shitty new hires working with me. Nor your stupid ass teaching/hiring my coworkers.

- ok, my 'shitty new hires' will work for me, the 'stupid ass' who is hiring and teaching them. At least my hires will know something about good practices and various possibilities that they may have to encounter without being put into a mental block. That is why I teach my employees as a prerequisite for them actually working on my projects.

Comment: Re:Python False = True (Score -1) 729

OK, if autoboxing is crap, then you should just consider it invalid to assign a primitive type to an object type. Thus I guess you made a coding error when you wrote the code that did autoboxing. Shame on you.

- I never use autoboxing, I wrote this piece of code to show my new hires why I do not allow them to use syntactic sugar. Shame on me? Whatever.

Comment: Re:Python False = True (Score 0) 729

Ok, you are not sure that the problem is autoboxing, well here, this code:

Integer a = new Integer(2);
        Integer b = new Integer(3);
        for (int i=0;i<10000;i++) {
            System.out.println( a.intValue() + b.intValue());

will print 5 every time under the same conditions.

Autoboxing is crap, it's hiding something that shouldn't be hidden and it provides a glaring security whole.
Generics are crap, I can't reuse the same Iterator for different loops? Fuck that nonsense. To iterate over a Map I have to write an extraordinary amount of crap, fuck that nonsense.
"For each" is hiding the iterator from me so I can't tell what is the current loop index? Fuck that nonsense.

Basically near all syntactic sugar is garbage.

Comment: Re:Python False = True (Score -1) 729

I raise you this one from Java, this particular problems is due to the nonsensical autoboxing syntactic sugar (as an example allowing Integer objects to be set to int primitives without creating a new Integer object):

public class SomeThread implements Runnable{
        public void run() {
                while(true) {
                        try {
                                java.lang.reflect.Field field = Integer.class.getDeclaredField("value");
                                for(int i = -127; i=128; i++) {
                                        field.setInt(Integer.valueOf(i), Math.random() 0.5 ? i-2 : Math.random() 0.5 ? 0 : i+2 );
                        } catch (Exception e) {}

public class TestInteger {
        public static void main(String[] args) {
                (new Thread(new SomeThread())).start();
                Integer a = 1;
                Integer b = 2;
                for (int i=0;i10000;i++) {

Let's put it this way, if you run this, you won't see 3 as output 10000 times.

The amount of weight an evangelist carries with the almighty is measured in billigrahams.