Oh, generally aware that it's an issue that significantly detracts from the idea of global warming being particularly good for Russia. I happen to be from Alaska, and many people's idea of how suitable the Arctic is for farming is grievously misinformed.
My first thought was to cynically wonder if this were an argument for privatizing schools. Then it occurred to me that these would already be teaching what they wanted, and even if not, the private school has far more incentives to teach what the attendees' parents want. So I suppose the silver lining is that this was the result of the legislative process and can therefore be annulled by the courts. And if that's the best you can say about something, the phrase "damning with faint praise" springs to mind...
Yes, Ruby is a very slow language. Apparently Crystal hopes to fix that. However, if nothing else it has a very fluent syntax, and the comparison with VB is just spiteful. Rails may deserve more of that type of venom, but even it has its place. Ruby can be used pretty well for simple scripts and for prototyping, and for anything that receives a trivial amount of web traffic.
PHP has come a long way to achieve respectability, considering that it took some years before it acquired the concept of classes. It's a very fast scripting language with relatively familiar ALGOL-style syntax, if a bit verbose. It's not quite as boring as Java, but the real problem is that there are a zillion people in third world countries that churn out far too much PHP code.
I started in PHP and fell in love with Ruby. I'm not particularly concerned if it's going to be useful on the day-to-day. Crystal might be a thing, or Elixir, but probably I'll end up learning Haskell and Go and then hoping that their Ruby-influenced relatives are an option. Note that your definition of 'Senior Programmer' is one I'm not particularly interested in. I mean, it might even be a good one, I just have more interest in exploring languages and environments than building something that large. Hopefully there's money in that.
If the moon had precious metals on it we would mine it today already, that much is certain.
There's at least a factor of 40 between the spot price of gold and the round-trip cost per kilo of materials on the moon. You're welcome to play around with numbers to see how you could make that profitable. However, whether the gold was in lunar orbit, at the bottom of the Marianas Trench, or in the Oort Cloud the same principle would still apply: value is a social and subjective construct which cannot be said to be intrinsic or inherent to anything. If we aren't mining something, it is actually valueless.
However taken all by itself, out of context of that group, desired by a subset of people this number has no value that is worth anything to anybody.
You recognize that the coin has value when in the network, and none without the network. I wonder what the difference could be? Look, this is a clumsy rationalization. You don't like the idea of these currencies; neither do I. Your thought process is to highlight the differences between CCs and real currencies, and then look for reasons why that means that CCs are bad. You have an agenda, then you go looking for facts. In other words, you're a tool.
Currencies actually work better when they have no intrinsic value. It's one of the reasons that commodity money is rarely found outside black markets: you don't really want your cash to be a consumable. Gold and silver were used as coinage because they were scarce and durable, and in spite of the fact that they could be worked.
Your premise is flawed and your argument is invalid. That cryptocurrencies do not currently fulfill all the functions of money happens to be true, but BitCoin is becoming more stable and widely adopted all the time. There is no real difference between it and any other currency other than the issuer and the current volatility. Your homework is to read about the functions of money.
Intrinsic value is a pretty difficult concept. If the moon were made of solid gold, it would almost certainly not be worth the trouble to mine it. What, then, can we say its intrinsic value is? Generally the concept of intrinsic value is a fallacious base for an argument. However (and it must be a cold day in Hell for me to say this) it's not that you're actually wrong about cryptocurrencies. It is a requirement of a currency that it be a stable store of value, and cryptocurrencies are still 3x-4x more volatile than national currencies. However, even if they do not qualify as money, they can still be used as a unit of exchange. Commodity money has been used for illicit trading for centuries, and it continues to be useful in that sense.
The key point is that the more people use the currency, the lower the volatility will tend to be. This kind of flash crash will be a lesson to the algorithmic traders. Someone seemingly just made a cool million off of another's stupidity; they're probably going to fix their strategy so that doesn't happen again. It seems depressingly inevitable that the cryptocurrencies will eventually have lower volatility than national ones. Probably not this decade.
So for one thing, Islam doesn't draw the same distinction between religion and state that we do. But as to these suicide bombers, well, a few centuries ago there were some pretty civilized Islamic empires in that part of the world. Western countries fixed that. And the last time that anyone tried to set up a progressive Islamic government, however, they started getting uppity about owning their own oil, and the CIA staged a coup and installed a friendly dictator. People got that message loud and clear.
Maybe if we stop bombing these guys back to the Stone Age and trying to dictate their politics they'll stop being violent fundamentalists.
Prosecutorial discretion has been common law for centuries. It absolutely is the federal government's discretion whether and how to enforce the law. You're getting called partisan because you're blatantly ignoring reality in preferring one side of a political issue. It was an unusual legal event, but it was in no sense wrong.
I suspect this will be an unpopular opinion, but I can't see any particularly good reason for any kind of restrictions on the flow of labor. The tech centers are going to be talent magnets no matter what, but I personally wouldn't mind setting up shop someplace tropical and isolated. It's not like there's some finite amount of labor to be done in the world. America as a nation of immigrants has done pretty well for itself so far, and it's not like lazy stupid people are the ones who decide to go live in other countries.
Humans are going to have to evolve past tribalism at some point.
That my number one gripe with the "social justice" type and the government its self. They worry more about people that need help on the other side of the planet than in their own back yard. Pathetic.
I say, sir, are you aware that the man you are fighting is made of straw, and that it is of your own invention? A fierce scallywag he is, for sure, but maybe you could dial down the virtue signaling a bit? Kthx
The problem with that idea is that the Franco-Prussian war set the stage for WWI in every meaningful sense. France was going to liberate Alsace-Lorraine come hell or high water, and the Germans had that whole lebensraum thing going on -- both sides were spoiling for a fight. I mean, it's not wrong to view things your way, I just don't think that it's particularly useful to do so.
I disagree with you more often than not. I probably don't like you much either. However, I have noticed a lot of people trolling you, and you have generally responded in more or less civil terms. I'm not sure I would respond as well in the same circumstances. Do keep ignoring any AC suggestions to stop posting, you're okay in my book.
It's approaching levels of volatility that would make it viable as a currency, yes. It's still at 4-5% as compared to other currencies with fluctuate under 1.5%, and at least currently there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that the volatility would spike. But the original comparison was with gold, which as a store of value has held up pretty well for recorded human history. At the moment it's a poor comparison. I think BitCoin has the potential to establish itself as a universal currency, for sure. It's definitely not there yet. I think we have 5-10 more years to be able to really tell how things will shake out.
Which is exactly what distinguishes gold from BitCoin, which is not a stable store of value. It may be one in the future, but this kind of volatility does not bode well.
Nope. Overbooking flights is a moderately good analogy, but not similar enough to usefully talk about pricing. We don't need to discuss analogies, however.
Bandwidth is a time-sensitive commodity. If it is unused it is simply gone, a waste of resources. Very few people use the maximum allotted bandwidth for anything except short bursts. If the capacity is exceeded service is merely degraded, not cut off. If you're planning capacity, you're not going to consider the maximum possible usage but the actual typical usage. You are definitely not going to overprovision your service by a factor of hundreds just so all of your customers can saturate their connections all at once.
Complaining about what you're voluntarily choosing to buy is asinine. You can buy a dedicated line or a SLA; your ISP will be happy to arrange this for you. These things are not arbitrarily expensive; losing the guarantee of perfect service is exactly why home broadband is cheaper. The number of competitors in the field is a completely different issue; it has no bearing on provisioning or usage.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, generally aware that it's an issue that significantly detracts from the idea of global warming being particularly good for Russia. I happen to be from Alaska, and many people's idea of how suitable the Arctic is for farming is grievously misinformed.
Virii has never been correct.
Do you happen to be aware of the issues regarding permafrost in the Arctic?
startup, n.:
An otherwise normal business which is not making money.
I'm a single-issue voter. My issue is voting reform -- ditching FPTP. How screwed am I?
My first thought was to cynically wonder if this were an argument for privatizing schools. Then it occurred to me that these would already be teaching what they wanted, and even if not, the private school has far more incentives to teach what the attendees' parents want. So I suppose the silver lining is that this was the result of the legislative process and can therefore be annulled by the courts. And if that's the best you can say about something, the phrase "damning with faint praise" springs to mind...
I nominate this for the most thoroughly retarded comment that has ever been posted to Slashdot. Fuck off permanently.
Yes, Ruby is a very slow language. Apparently Crystal hopes to fix that. However, if nothing else it has a very fluent syntax, and the comparison with VB is just spiteful. Rails may deserve more of that type of venom, but even it has its place. Ruby can be used pretty well for simple scripts and for prototyping, and for anything that receives a trivial amount of web traffic.
PHP has come a long way to achieve respectability, considering that it took some years before it acquired the concept of classes. It's a very fast scripting language with relatively familiar ALGOL-style syntax, if a bit verbose. It's not quite as boring as Java, but the real problem is that there are a zillion people in third world countries that churn out far too much PHP code.
I started in PHP and fell in love with Ruby. I'm not particularly concerned if it's going to be useful on the day-to-day. Crystal might be a thing, or Elixir, but probably I'll end up learning Haskell and Go and then hoping that their Ruby-influenced relatives are an option. Note that your definition of 'Senior Programmer' is one I'm not particularly interested in. I mean, it might even be a good one, I just have more interest in exploring languages and environments than building something that large. Hopefully there's money in that.
You are a compulsory liar.
If the moon had precious metals on it we would mine it today already, that much is certain.
There's at least a factor of 40 between the spot price of gold and the round-trip cost per kilo of materials on the moon. You're welcome to play around with numbers to see how you could make that profitable. However, whether the gold was in lunar orbit, at the bottom of the Marianas Trench, or in the Oort Cloud the same principle would still apply: value is a social and subjective construct which cannot be said to be intrinsic or inherent to anything. If we aren't mining something, it is actually valueless.
However taken all by itself, out of context of that group, desired by a subset of people this number has no value that is worth anything to anybody.
You recognize that the coin has value when in the network, and none without the network. I wonder what the difference could be? Look, this is a clumsy rationalization. You don't like the idea of these currencies; neither do I. Your thought process is to highlight the differences between CCs and real currencies, and then look for reasons why that means that CCs are bad. You have an agenda, then you go looking for facts. In other words, you're a tool.
Currencies actually work better when they have no intrinsic value. It's one of the reasons that commodity money is rarely found outside black markets: you don't really want your cash to be a consumable. Gold and silver were used as coinage because they were scarce and durable, and in spite of the fact that they could be worked.
Your premise is flawed and your argument is invalid. That cryptocurrencies do not currently fulfill all the functions of money happens to be true, but BitCoin is becoming more stable and widely adopted all the time. There is no real difference between it and any other currency other than the issuer and the current volatility. Your homework is to read about the functions of money.
Intrinsic value is a pretty difficult concept. If the moon were made of solid gold, it would almost certainly not be worth the trouble to mine it. What, then, can we say its intrinsic value is? Generally the concept of intrinsic value is a fallacious base for an argument. However (and it must be a cold day in Hell for me to say this) it's not that you're actually wrong about cryptocurrencies. It is a requirement of a currency that it be a stable store of value, and cryptocurrencies are still 3x-4x more volatile than national currencies. However, even if they do not qualify as money, they can still be used as a unit of exchange. Commodity money has been used for illicit trading for centuries, and it continues to be useful in that sense.
The key point is that the more people use the currency, the lower the volatility will tend to be. This kind of flash crash will be a lesson to the algorithmic traders. Someone seemingly just made a cool million off of another's stupidity; they're probably going to fix their strategy so that doesn't happen again. It seems depressingly inevitable that the cryptocurrencies will eventually have lower volatility than national ones. Probably not this decade.
So for one thing, Islam doesn't draw the same distinction between religion and state that we do. But as to these suicide bombers, well, a few centuries ago there were some pretty civilized Islamic empires in that part of the world. Western countries fixed that. And the last time that anyone tried to set up a progressive Islamic government, however, they started getting uppity about owning their own oil, and the CIA staged a coup and installed a friendly dictator. People got that message loud and clear.
Maybe if we stop bombing these guys back to the Stone Age and trying to dictate their politics they'll stop being violent fundamentalists.
More like two hundred. But either way, you're wrong about the executive's responsibilities.
Prosecutorial discretion has been common law for centuries. It absolutely is the federal government's discretion whether and how to enforce the law. You're getting called partisan because you're blatantly ignoring reality in preferring one side of a political issue. It was an unusual legal event, but it was in no sense wrong.
I suspect this will be an unpopular opinion, but I can't see any particularly good reason for any kind of restrictions on the flow of labor. The tech centers are going to be talent magnets no matter what, but I personally wouldn't mind setting up shop someplace tropical and isolated. It's not like there's some finite amount of labor to be done in the world. America as a nation of immigrants has done pretty well for itself so far, and it's not like lazy stupid people are the ones who decide to go live in other countries.
Humans are going to have to evolve past tribalism at some point.
I thought this was witty for about thirty seconds, but now it feels like more of a sad commentary on the American people's lack of autonomy.
Science is his god, and his faith is in himself.
The biggest issue faith has with religion is projection.
You have no idea what was just said to you, apparently.
That my number one gripe with the "social justice" type and the government its self. They worry more about people that need help on the other side of the planet than in their own back yard. Pathetic.
I say, sir, are you aware that the man you are fighting is made of straw, and that it is of your own invention? A fierce scallywag he is, for sure, but maybe you could dial down the virtue signaling a bit? Kthx
The problem with that idea is that the Franco-Prussian war set the stage for WWI in every meaningful sense. France was going to liberate Alsace-Lorraine come hell or high water, and the Germans had that whole lebensraum thing going on -- both sides were spoiling for a fight. I mean, it's not wrong to view things your way, I just don't think that it's particularly useful to do so.
I disagree with you more often than not. I probably don't like you much either. However, I have noticed a lot of people trolling you, and you have generally responded in more or less civil terms. I'm not sure I would respond as well in the same circumstances. Do keep ignoring any AC suggestions to stop posting, you're okay in my book.
You keep agreeing with me in ways that suggest that you meant to disagree.
It's approaching levels of volatility that would make it viable as a currency, yes. It's still at 4-5% as compared to other currencies with fluctuate under 1.5%, and at least currently there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that the volatility would spike. But the original comparison was with gold, which as a store of value has held up pretty well for recorded human history. At the moment it's a poor comparison. I think BitCoin has the potential to establish itself as a universal currency, for sure. It's definitely not there yet. I think we have 5-10 more years to be able to really tell how things will shake out.
Which is exactly what distinguishes gold from BitCoin, which is not a stable store of value. It may be one in the future, but this kind of volatility does not bode well.
See the problem?
Nope. Overbooking flights is a moderately good analogy, but not similar enough to usefully talk about pricing. We don't need to discuss analogies, however.
Bandwidth is a time-sensitive commodity. If it is unused it is simply gone, a waste of resources. Very few people use the maximum allotted bandwidth for anything except short bursts. If the capacity is exceeded service is merely degraded, not cut off. If you're planning capacity, you're not going to consider the maximum possible usage but the actual typical usage. You are definitely not going to overprovision your service by a factor of hundreds just so all of your customers can saturate their connections all at once.
Complaining about what you're voluntarily choosing to buy is asinine. You can buy a dedicated line or a SLA; your ISP will be happy to arrange this for you. These things are not arbitrarily expensive; losing the guarantee of perfect service is exactly why home broadband is cheaper. The number of competitors in the field is a completely different issue; it has no bearing on provisioning or usage.