If you allow unchecked data to be stored & retrieved there are some XSS vulns in older versions. Ideally this would be prevented in a sane environment.
1 karma · joined August 27, 2018
Instead they have "pardon the interruption" and "Let's make this official". The "pardon me" politeness doesn't fly, because they recognize it as an interruption. If they are aware, then the polite thing would be to not interrupt.
And let's not make this official.
I don't want to sign up to read an article. I don't want the clap. I don't want to vote. I don't want to share my data. I just want to view the article. Maybe half way through I might even decide that the author has nothing interesting to say. 50% chance I don't want to read the full article.
Yet today CBD oil is marketed as a cure all.
I don't think it can always be as simple as giving them everything. Users should be catered to and given the best support, but at a certain point the developer knows best.
The biggest players aren't always the most vocal. It is better to observe how the fanatics are playing and help the newbies grow into that level of game play.
Imagine giving inmates the 'freedom' to vote for their warden. The outcome of such an election would have no bearing on the morality of their imprisonment.
"Pinker devotes some 10 pages (pp. 228-238) to this case, and the central information is condensed in a single graph (p. 230) depicting the “rate of death in conflicts in greater Europe, 1400-2000.” If anything, however, this graph demonstrates the opposite of Pinker’s progress thesis. What it shows is that the longest period of (relative) peacefulness and low levels of violence were the almost 200 years from 1400 until the very end of the 16th century. Yet this period falls precisely within the longer period of the European Middle Ages (and marks its end), and the Middle Ages, as I have argued before, are a prime example of a State-less social order. (Interestingly, Pinker concurs with this assessment of medieval Europe as State-less, but he then fails to see that this assessment implies, according to his own data, an empirical refutation of his thesis.)
And it gets worse for Pinker’s case. According to the same graph, the following historical period, from the late 16th century on to the present, is characterized by three huge spikes in the level of violence. The first spike, from the late 16th century until the Westphalian Peace in 1648, is largely associated with the 30-Years-War; the second, from the late 18th century until 1815 and somewhat less steep than the first, is associated with the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars; and the third and greatest spike, from 1914-1945, is associated with the 20th century’s two World Wars. As well, for all intermediate periods, the level of violence remained well above that of medieval times and this level was only reached again, three centuries later, during the period from 1815-1914, and again during the post-WW II era. All in all, then, the record for post-medieval Europe in terms of violence appears rather depressive. And yet, the entire period, from the late 16th century until today, is the era of States, which Pinker considers the driving forces of a “civilizing process.” "
https://mises.org/wire/libertarian-quest-grand-historical-na... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTWrFTFxGbk
'Some of the devices came with "detector cards" which were programmed, the fraudsters claimed, to detect everything from explosives, to human beings and dollar bills through concrete, water and from great distances'
How many millions were killed by government in the 20th century? WW1, WWII, concentration camps, gulags, Mao's great leap forward, Vietnam, and the list goes on. War has been a constant for most of the 21st century.
There is a strong argument that much of the above would not have been feasible without large centralized states.
Cycling is incredibly dangerous according to many here, but is it more dangerous than heart disease?
Riding and moving at speed with traffic will always be safer than getting boxed in.
Bike only trails are typically filled with weaving inline-skaters, people walking four abreast, and other hazards. Again, you're safer and faster when you stick to the roads.
This typifies the attitude of "there aught to be a law" held by individuals (usually those who have no intention of cycling seriously) waiting for the state to take action and spend money to solve a non-problem.
The self-starter's solution is to take action and build up your cycling skills.
People complain about the verbosity of Java, but how much time do you spend learning a new framework and all of the gotchas? At the end of the day it seems easier to just write the boilerplate. All of that verbose code means you got exactly what you asked for.
JVM projects never surprise me. When there is a problem debugging is a dream.
A little levity in the form of a non-sequitur never hurt anyone.
If you endeavored to answer the questions I posed in good faith, you would have found that I am not predicting some nightmare 1984 scenario at the ski chalet. The answers are obvious and pedestrian. Principles are inevitably dismissed in the name of practicality and pragmatism. This is the reality of governance. This is "why not".
You admit as much when you speak of high fat foods. From where I stand, it is nothing more than an arbitrary hand wave. It is especially ironic after so many nitpicks (which I do not accept :P ) about the nature of argumentative logic.
From this point forward it is strictly subjective sausage making.
The US has found prohibition to be an untenable policy. As I understand, taxes on cigarettes in Australia make the price something like $20-$25 a pack. So how much for a truck load? How much does it cost to counterfeit? It is already happening in the US.
The US has had black markets for cigarettes for 50+ years. Increasing taxes and prohibiting products does not work. It only serves to dilute what little regulatory power the state does have. Eventually people stop caring and say: "Everything fun is illegal anyways", "Returning to prison is inevitable", "My lawyer knows how to fix this", or "What could be more righteous than shirking authority while profiting from my oppression?".
I am less worried about what most sites do and more interested in the features offered by implementations. A huge number of sites don't even use https.
I have posed a specific set of questions about the logic of prohibiting products for heath purposes. You have chosen to tilt by snark & technicality instead of answering these questions.
If we accept that the government (or a group of bureaucrats) knows what is best for the health of divers individuals, then why not?
If we accept that 30 minutes of exercise is good for health and that it is appropriate to compel individuals into healthy choices, then why not?
If we accept that two parallel lines will never intersect, then why should air traffic controllers worry?
It is plain and obvious where this logic leads. Claiming a slippery slope is a dodge imho.
>Humans aren't rational actors. We're emotional creatures of habit who are highly susceptible to advertising
Adbusters would agree with your claim that:
>we should just make it really expensive, and disallow any forms of advertising. That means besides no TV, no magazines, no billboards, no visible smoking anywhere in media, not visible on shelves on any store anywhere, etc.
https://www.amazon.com/Phishing-Phools-Economics-Manipulatio...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Athedailybell.com+adbu...
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amises.org+shiller
https://www.google.com/search?q=nobel+prize+in+economics+fak...
Your comparison of a farmer owning chickens for profit/consumption to a government benevolently lording over citizens is illustrative. For the sake of being explicit, I don't think humans should be regarded as chattel. If you find this an apt comparison, we may have to agree to disagree. Thanks.
If we can't have that discussion without acrimonious downvotes and complaints to the moderator, then what are we doing here? I am inclined to go back to my original point about bias.
As it is, FDA bureaucrats are appointed, not elected.
What are the costs of deferring individuals' choices to a mob's vote or to the whims of appointed bureaucrats?
Advocates of centrally planned societies will always point to the purported benefits of their authoritarian models.
At what point is the individual responsible for his own health? If we absolve the individual of all personal responsibility and replace it with a set of all encompassing dictates - What does it mean to be a free human being in such a society? How would this differ from being property of the state?