I have news for you that may just be too hard to swallow - it is absolutely possible, and it happens all the time, that garbage is written in all sorts of programming languages.
The actual problem is often found between the chair and the keyboard (or more generically, somewhere in wetware of the people involved, developers, designers, management, etc.)
No, it's not. Further, you imply that the private sector is willing to provide these regulations, which is even more false.
- it doesn't matter what private sector is willing or unwilling to do, it's not something it has a choice over if there is no government force with guns overpowering the market with its own idea on what money is.
Private sector cannot force private individuals to accept valueless money, only government can do it long enough to cause economic disaster.
Maybe you should loosen your tinfoil hat up a bit. It's cutting off circulation to your brain.
- that's the gist of your argument - when presented with a fact, attack the messenger.
If it's your money, your savings and your risk, would you be taking it irresponsibly as if there was government standing behind you with a printing press? If government wasn't giving you the means, the motive and the opportunity to use fake money and give out extremely bad loans as long as you made your bonuses, would you pass on that opportunity?
Well, you could do it without government, but you'd be out of business - that's free market regulation, banks like that would go bankrupt (that's why they weren't doing it before they got gov't to print money and remove risk with gov't "insurance"), something government prevents from happening but by doing so it eventually destroys the entire economy.
I don't have a tin foil hat, but you don't have any blood in your head at all.
In my experience, performance tuning is not something that is given much consideration until a production program blows up and everyone is running around in circles with sirens blaring and red lights flashing.
- if production blows up it signals that the underlying problem is not likely to be fixed with 'performance tuning'.
There is performance deficiency and then there is "production blows up" and those are different things and must be addressed by different sets of practices at different times.
Production blowing up means the design is flawed, it means misunderstanding of how the application was going to be used.
Slow response time on the other hand is about tuning, but it's very unlikely that environment tuning can help really to fix this.
Back in 2001 I was working for then Optus that was bought out by Symcor and the main project they brought me to (contract) was for this Worldinsure insurance provider, and the project was to do some weird stuff, business wise speaking, allow clients to compare quotes from different insurance providers. Business model was changing all the time, because insurance providers do not want their products to be compared against one another on line (big surprise).
The contract was expensive (5million) and WI wouldn't pay the last bit (a million I think) until the application would start responding at a 200 requests per second, and it was doing 20 or so:)
If anybody thinks that just some VM tuning can fix a problem where application is 10 times slower than expected, well, you haven't done it for long enough to talk about it then.
It took a month of work (apparently I wrote a comment on it before) that included getting rid of middleware persistence layer, switching to jsp from xslt, reducing session size by a factor of 100, desynchronising some data generators, whatever. Finally it would do 300 requests per second.
But the point is that when things are crashing or when performance is really a huge issue, you won't be optimising the VM.
VM optimisation is not generally done because I think the application has to do something that is not generic.
Imagine an application that only does one thing - say it only reads data from a file and then runs some transformation on it, maybe it's polygon rendering. Well then you know that your app. is doing only ONE THING, then you can probably use VM optimisation, because you can check that the one thing your app does will become faster or more responsive, whatever.
But if your app includes tons of functionality and tons of libraries that you don't have control over and it runs in some weird container on top of JVM, then what do you think you are going to achieve with this?
You likely will optimise something very specific and then you'll introduce a strange imbalance in the system that will hit you later and you won't see it coming at all.
If your app does one thing, maybe you have a distributed cluster with separate instances being responsible for one type of processing, then you probably can use specific optimisation parameters.
Only the statement that you made is absolutely true but not for the reasons that you imply - you imply that government is able and willing and in principle can do this type of regulations, and that is absolutely false.
The only real regulation that is sustainable in the long run is sound money.
There is no risky loans when it's sound money, when it's your money, when it's your savings on the line.
There are risky loans when it's fake money, when it's not your money and when it's nobody's savings, but instead counterfeit currency compounded by the 'do-gooders' that pass sounding good legislation to create risky loans in the first place.
The government didn't "fail" to create regulations that would have prevented the crisis, the government actively caused the crisis by its actions and whether it was intended consequence or unintended one matters little, the only thing that matters is that it is what happened regardless of anybody's "intentions".
The only real regulation is what government was set on destroying all these years - real actual money, real actual savings, real actual interest rates, real actual economy.
Not even Congress, sure all of the unelected executive branches like EPA, FHA, all the departments, even some 'independent' branches like FDIC, they all pass what is assumed to be laws, all unconstitutional, all legislation that is not done in Congress.
But yes, Congress doesn't give a shit about property rights either, or any rights for that matter, yet they do not amend the Constitution. They just DO things, like Obama just KILLS people without real charges and real trial. They are going to just disappear people without any charges and any trial and without lawyers.
But that just underscores the point that the law above government is especially important during 'emergency' times, not during times when everything seems to be peachy.
And you are wrong, it takes much more effort to amend the Constitution than just to ignore it, which is why things are done this way and SCOTUS has failed miserably at its mandate, which is to prevent abuse of the Constitution.
The most important time when law that is set above government must be followed is the time of emergency. Just like free speech isn't there to protect you from government silencing you when you tell everybody what your favourite dish was yesterday, but it is there to protect people who make controversial statements from government, same with other laws, especially the ones above government.
You say Constitution WOULD HAVE BEEN amended? Nonsense. You are talking about destruction of private property rights, and that's going against the very basis for the Constitution.
I wonder just how conservative that farmer (Roscoe Filburn) was, but he probably wasn't too 'dumb or lazy' to run his farm.
Yet SCOTUS decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.
So the man was fined because he grew some wheat for his own consumption, not for sale, thus he was found to be interfering with interstate trade because he wouldn't participate in some of it.
Never mind the story on/., you are arguing that the banking industry was not regulated and that is what caused the recession? (Depression at this point).
And you get +5 something for this nonsense?
Banking is some of the most regulated industry in the world, there are tens of thousands of regulations in banking. Banking hasn't been a 'free market' ever since 1913 and especially since FDIC and then the money was destroyed in 1971 so there was no competition either in money, nor in money prices (interest rates) no in actual banking (thanks FDIC).
The reason why people were able to PREDICT the crisis was because they saw how banking became perverted with government regulations to take more and more risk that banks would not have taken otherwise and market wouldn't have let them.
From Fed and FDIC to default on the money in 1971 and fixing of money prices (interest rates) to all of the "affordable housing" nonsense, F&F and now FHA (Freddie and Fannie are only insuring 5% of mortgages now, it's FHA that will cause the next housing market collapse, they "insure" over 1Trillion USD of mortgages with only 5Billion collateral) have caused the recessions and current depression.
The next big implosion will be the US dollar and bond debt, all of it is pending the wars that USA can still use to delay the inevitable, but with ever new conflict the amount of government intervention that it takes to stave off the final outcome is growing, becoming bigger and amount of 'stimulus' (fake money) that it takes to prevent a total economic collapse of USA is getting bigger, the economy is developing tolerance to this stimulus and bailout money.
Eventually there will be a sharp fall for the dollar denominated papers, the interest rates will hit the ceiling and that will be that.
With a single pre-1965 silver dime you can buy a gallon of gas. Try doing it with a modern dime.
Of-course it took near 20 cents prior to 1965 to buy a gallon of gas AND you got more service for it - washing fluid check, oil check, wiping the windshield.
ALL THIS while the actual consumption in USA has been declining for a few years now. This is funny to see Keynesian charlatans squirm faced with this so called "paradox". Well, to them it is paradox, not to actual economists. A slump in consumption does not cause lowering of prices because production goes down even faster.
Of-course in US the real problem is inflation - all the money printing has destroyed the value of the dollar and dollar has lost its meaning in 1971 anyway, when US actually defaulted on its debts.
But your calculation is incorrect, to that old (pre 1965) person the value of a dollar fell over 40 times.
inflation makes prices go up but currency stays the same.
- currency stays the same, but inflation is increase of supply of it that is unmatched by productivity, and this means more money is chasing fewer goods, that's why prices rise and this story is more of an official admission by US government about inflation rate than any of their CBO BS numbers.
Second:
Maybe if democracy wasn't secret, then those 55% could be made to pay for the costs of making the pennies directly out of their own pocket. Wonder how many would still be nostalgic then?
- US wasn't a democracy, it only became a democracy because some politicians found it simpler to stay in power by catering to the most idiotic masses, who would never be voting under normal Republic rules anyway.
In any case, the entire point is moot because paper cannot be money and government cannot issue it.
Just more government nonsense. Government does not own the money, it's yours to do with as you please.
Of-course the real money cannot be issued by the government anyway, Constitutionally only gold and silver is money, you bring your bullion to the mint and they make a coin for you out of it so that it's recognised, that's the only purpose of the mint.
This is all while government is trying to pretend there is no inflation, while inflation has been rampant at 11-15% for the last 2 decades, which means that real rate of return on bonds and stocks is negative and it means that real GDP is shrinking all the time (and whatever goes into GDP is spending anyway), so the taxes as percentage of GDP are at historic high, and while Obama is yelling that "the rich aren't paying their fair share", Geithner says "It's good that the rich are paying 97% of all INCOME taxes and the bottom 97% only pay 3% of total income tax".
Yeah, "there is no inflation" and jobs are leaving because of "evil rich people", not because of government destroying the money. And wars are all about "freedom" and have nothing to do with the only real industry that US is still engaged in.
Copyrights, patents and all other government regulations and money counterfeiting and taxes and laws and wars that go beyond what the authorised by the people via the Constitution to the government are all tools of the totalitarianism.
Sure, YOU may believe that some of what government is pushing is good, so YOU may believe that there is a line that will not be crossed, and you will get something for nothing from the government. You think that government will stop its abuse of power once that abuse helps YOU and it will not be taken further.
Of-course you have to be a fool to believe that.
Just like in the previous SOPA story and every story - I have a perfect metaphor for this I think: government is a noose on the necks of the people.
There is another part needed to hang somebody - a noose and a chair to drop one off it.
But so can regulations and laws and taxes and all of this stuff, including copyrights and patents. I am using economic hanging as a metaphor, of-course eventually there will be actual hanging (NDAA and drone strikes against anybody on the planet without a trial), again, governments do not stop abusing their power half-way. They do not stop only where it is convenient for YOU.
It's about the market, some doctors who will accept the patients without the vaccine should charge more and some schools should too. The extra money is useful and can also go towards insurance.
It is better for some people, including kids to die from disease than to give up our rights to 'authorities'. There are things worse than death, that's one of them.
In fact free market is the perfect solution for this non-issue, there is always a price at which somebody will provide you with the services, that somebody else refuses to provide you with at lower cost.
there is always a perfectly fine market solution for this non-problem (the entire story is a non-problem) - there is always a price at which the service will be provided. Some doctors don't want to provide this particular service at some price, but that's what competition is for.
As long as people agree to be governed by the US government, currency issued by the government will have value.
- I don't know what that means but I do know plenty of people who have almost no 'currency' of any kind though they have plenty of actual money (and no, Bitcoin was never money, it never had any intrinsic value).
Slashdot Mirror
I have news for you that may just be too hard to swallow - it is absolutely possible, and it happens all the time, that garbage is written in all sorts of programming languages.
The actual problem is often found between the chair and the keyboard (or more generically, somewhere in wetware of the people involved, developers, designers, management, etc.)
No, it's not. Further, you imply that the private sector is willing to provide these regulations, which is even more false.
- it doesn't matter what private sector is willing or unwilling to do, it's not something it has a choice over if there is no government force with guns overpowering the market with its own idea on what money is.
Private sector cannot force private individuals to accept valueless money, only government can do it long enough to cause economic disaster.
Maybe you should loosen your tinfoil hat up a bit. It's cutting off circulation to your brain.
- that's the gist of your argument - when presented with a fact, attack the messenger.
If it's your money, your savings and your risk, would you be taking it irresponsibly as if there was government standing behind you with a printing press? If government wasn't giving you the means, the motive and the opportunity to use fake money and give out extremely bad loans as long as you made your bonuses, would you pass on that opportunity?
Well, you could do it without government, but you'd be out of business - that's free market regulation, banks like that would go bankrupt (that's why they weren't doing it before they got gov't to print money and remove risk with gov't "insurance"), something government prevents from happening but by doing so it eventually destroys the entire economy.
I don't have a tin foil hat, but you don't have any blood in your head at all.
In my experience, performance tuning is not something that is given much consideration until a production program blows up and everyone is running around in circles with sirens blaring and red lights flashing.
- if production blows up it signals that the underlying problem is not likely to be fixed with 'performance tuning'.
There is performance deficiency and then there is "production blows up" and those are different things and must be addressed by different sets of practices at different times.
Production blowing up means the design is flawed, it means misunderstanding of how the application was going to be used.
Slow response time on the other hand is about tuning, but it's very unlikely that environment tuning can help really to fix this.
Back in 2001 I was working for then Optus that was bought out by Symcor and the main project they brought me to (contract) was for this Worldinsure insurance provider, and the project was to do some weird stuff, business wise speaking, allow clients to compare quotes from different insurance providers. Business model was changing all the time, because insurance providers do not want their products to be compared against one another on line (big surprise).
The contract was expensive (5million) and WI wouldn't pay the last bit (a million I think) until the application would start responding at a 200 requests per second, and it was doing 20 or so :)
If anybody thinks that just some VM tuning can fix a problem where application is 10 times slower than expected, well, you haven't done it for long enough to talk about it then.
It took a month of work (apparently I wrote a comment on it before) that included getting rid of middleware persistence layer, switching to jsp from xslt, reducing session size by a factor of 100, desynchronising some data generators, whatever. Finally it would do 300 requests per second.
But the point is that when things are crashing or when performance is really a huge issue, you won't be optimising the VM.
VM optimisation is not generally done because I think the application has to do something that is not generic.
Imagine an application that only does one thing - say it only reads data from a file and then runs some transformation on it, maybe it's polygon rendering. Well then you know that your app. is doing only ONE THING, then you can probably use VM optimisation, because you can check that the one thing your app does will become faster or more responsive, whatever.
But if your app includes tons of functionality and tons of libraries that you don't have control over and it runs in some weird container on top of JVM, then what do you think you are going to achieve with this?
You likely will optimise something very specific and then you'll introduce a strange imbalance in the system that will hit you later and you won't see it coming at all.
If your app does one thing, maybe you have a distributed cluster with separate instances being responsible for one type of processing, then you probably can use specific optimisation parameters.
Absolutely true.
Only the statement that you made is absolutely true but not for the reasons that you imply - you imply that government is able and willing and in principle can do this type of regulations, and that is absolutely false.
The only real regulation that is sustainable in the long run is sound money.
There is no risky loans when it's sound money, when it's your money, when it's your savings on the line.
There are risky loans when it's fake money, when it's not your money and when it's nobody's savings, but instead counterfeit currency compounded by the 'do-gooders' that pass sounding good legislation to create risky loans in the first place.
The government didn't "fail" to create regulations that would have prevented the crisis, the government actively caused the crisis by its actions and whether it was intended consequence or unintended one matters little, the only thing that matters is that it is what happened regardless of anybody's "intentions".
The only real regulation is what government was set on destroying all these years - real actual money, real actual savings, real actual interest rates, real actual economy.
Not even Congress, sure all of the unelected executive branches like EPA, FHA, all the departments, even some 'independent' branches like FDIC, they all pass what is assumed to be laws, all unconstitutional, all legislation that is not done in Congress.
But yes, Congress doesn't give a shit about property rights either, or any rights for that matter, yet they do not amend the Constitution. They just DO things, like Obama just KILLS people without real charges and real trial. They are going to just disappear people without any charges and any trial and without lawyers.
But that just underscores the point that the law above government is especially important during 'emergency' times, not during times when everything seems to be peachy.
And you are wrong, it takes much more effort to amend the Constitution than just to ignore it, which is why things are done this way and SCOTUS has failed miserably at its mandate, which is to prevent abuse of the Constitution.
The most important time when law that is set above government must be followed is the time of emergency. Just like free speech isn't there to protect you from government silencing you when you tell everybody what your favourite dish was yesterday, but it is there to protect people who make controversial statements from government, same with other laws, especially the ones above government.
You say Constitution WOULD HAVE BEEN amended? Nonsense. You are talking about destruction of private property rights, and that's going against the very basis for the Constitution.
I wonder just how conservative that farmer (Roscoe Filburn) was, but he probably wasn't too 'dumb or lazy' to run his farm.
Yet SCOTUS decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.
So the man was fined because he grew some wheat for his own consumption, not for sale, thus he was found to be interfering with interstate trade because he wouldn't participate in some of it.
What was that you said again, Bruce?
Never mind the story on /., you are arguing that the banking industry was not regulated and that is what caused the recession? (Depression at this point).
And you get +5 something for this nonsense?
Banking is some of the most regulated industry in the world, there are tens of thousands of regulations in banking. Banking hasn't been a 'free market' ever since 1913 and especially since FDIC and then the money was destroyed in 1971 so there was no competition either in money, nor in money prices (interest rates) no in actual banking (thanks FDIC).
The reason why people were able to PREDICT the crisis was because they saw how banking became perverted with government regulations to take more and more risk that banks would not have taken otherwise and market wouldn't have let them.
From Fed and FDIC to default on the money in 1971 and fixing of money prices (interest rates) to all of the "affordable housing" nonsense, F&F and now FHA (Freddie and Fannie are only insuring 5% of mortgages now, it's FHA that will cause the next housing market collapse, they "insure" over 1Trillion USD of mortgages with only 5Billion collateral) have caused the recessions and current depression.
The next big implosion will be the US dollar and bond debt, all of it is pending the wars that USA can still use to delay the inevitable, but with ever new conflict the amount of government intervention that it takes to stave off the final outcome is growing, becoming bigger and amount of 'stimulus' (fake money) that it takes to prevent a total economic collapse of USA is getting bigger, the economy is developing tolerance to this stimulus and bailout money.
Eventually there will be a sharp fall for the dollar denominated papers, the interest rates will hit the ceiling and that will be that.
With a single pre-1965 silver dime you can buy a gallon of gas. Try doing it with a modern dime.
Of-course it took near 20 cents prior to 1965 to buy a gallon of gas AND you got more service for it - washing fluid check, oil check, wiping the windshield.
ALL THIS while the actual consumption in USA has been declining for a few years now. This is funny to see Keynesian charlatans squirm faced with this so called "paradox". Well, to them it is paradox, not to actual economists. A slump in consumption does not cause lowering of prices because production goes down even faster.
Of-course in US the real problem is inflation - all the money printing has destroyed the value of the dollar and dollar has lost its meaning in 1971 anyway, when US actually defaulted on its debts.
But your calculation is incorrect, to that old (pre 1965) person the value of a dollar fell over 40 times.
2 points.
First:
inflation makes prices go up but currency stays the same.
- currency stays the same, but inflation is increase of supply of it that is unmatched by productivity, and this means more money is chasing fewer goods, that's why prices rise and this story is more of an official admission by US government about inflation rate than any of their CBO BS numbers.
Second:
Maybe if democracy wasn't secret, then those 55% could be made to pay for the costs of making the pennies directly out of their own pocket. Wonder how many would still be nostalgic then?
- US wasn't a democracy, it only became a democracy because some politicians found it simpler to stay in power by catering to the most idiotic masses, who would never be voting under normal Republic rules anyway.
In any case, the entire point is moot because paper cannot be money and government cannot issue it.
Just more government nonsense. Government does not own the money, it's yours to do with as you please.
Of-course the real money cannot be issued by the government anyway, Constitutionally only gold and silver is money, you bring your bullion to the mint and they make a coin for you out of it so that it's recognised, that's the only purpose of the mint.
This is all while government is trying to pretend there is no inflation, while inflation has been rampant at 11-15% for the last 2 decades, which means that real rate of return on bonds and stocks is negative and it means that real GDP is shrinking all the time (and whatever goes into GDP is spending anyway), so the taxes as percentage of GDP are at historic high, and while Obama is yelling that "the rich aren't paying their fair share", Geithner says "It's good that the rich are paying 97% of all INCOME taxes and the bottom 97% only pay 3% of total income tax".
Yeah, "there is no inflation" and jobs are leaving because of "evil rich people", not because of government destroying the money. And wars are all about "freedom" and have nothing to do with the only real industry that US is still engaged in.
Copyrights, patents and all other government regulations and money counterfeiting and taxes and laws and wars that go beyond what the authorised by the people via the Constitution to the government are all tools of the totalitarianism.
Sure, YOU may believe that some of what government is pushing is good, so YOU may believe that there is a line that will not be crossed, and you will get something for nothing from the government. You think that government will stop its abuse of power once that abuse helps YOU and it will not be taken further.
Of-course you have to be a fool to believe that.
Just like in the previous SOPA story and every story - I have a perfect metaphor for this I think: government is a noose on the necks of the people.
There is another part needed to hang somebody - a noose and a chair to drop one off it.
Debt can act as that chair.
But so can regulations and laws and taxes and all of this stuff, including copyrights and patents. I am using economic hanging as a metaphor, of-course eventually there will be actual hanging (NDAA and drone strikes against anybody on the planet without a trial), again, governments do not stop abusing their power half-way. They do not stop only where it is convenient for YOU.
Still waiting for the Holographic Memory that should have been hear a decade ago.
- there is the problem.
With holographic memory you shouldn't be trying to 'hear' anything, it's something likely in visible electromagnetic spectrum instead!
Until copyrights patents are universally understood to be BAD for the economy and society in general, this will keep coming up over and over.
There is no half way.
There is no half way between just a little bit of copyright and ACTA and SOPA and DMCA - ACTA and SOPA and DMCA will win.
There is no half way between just a little bit of socialism and totalitarianism - totalitarianism will win.
Any questions?
Ethanol-fueled says:
Don't pull my finger and you'll be okay.
---
With a nick like that, I wouldn't dare, I like the building around me!
here is the problem As the professor says there - almost no amount of exercise will help you to lose weight, it's all about sugar.
also all of that depends on varying definition of what people perceive as "too much" or "too little".
Am I missing something here?
- yes, a lot of freeloaders.
It's about the market, some doctors who will accept the patients without the vaccine should charge more and some schools should too. The extra money is useful and can also go towards insurance.
It is better for some people, including kids to die from disease than to give up our rights to 'authorities'. There are things worse than death, that's one of them.
In fact free market is the perfect solution for this non-issue, there is always a price at which somebody will provide you with the services, that somebody else refuses to provide you with at lower cost.
As to birth control - the real issue has nothing to do with religion, but with government grabbing power again. I explain in a journal entry that as all other government rules and regulations, this Obama's "Affordable Condom Act" is as much of a problem as the "Affordable Housing Act" was and will also lead to terrible outcomes.
there is always a perfectly fine market solution for this non-problem (the entire story is a non-problem) - there is always a price at which the service will be provided. Some doctors don't want to provide this particular service at some price, but that's what competition is for.
As long as people agree to be governed by the US government, currency issued by the government will have value.
- I don't know what that means but I do know plenty of people who have almost no 'currency' of any kind though they have plenty of actual money (and no, Bitcoin was never money, it never had any intrinsic value).