Extend the number of years, it still holds. When everybody burns their money (and has debt written of) at the same rate nice and slow, everybody is just as rich as they were, just each dollar is worth more - provided you don't get to a point where you can't trade a dollar for anything less than a huge mansion because an impractical currency is an worthless one and the difficulty of trading makes everybody poorer - they have to work harder just to buy something. The condition I put in of being able to do it perfectly finely is necessary for burning so much money to work - but a small amount (like maybe half of it) works over a long enough period.
Exactly. The value has not gone. The work I did to get the money has still been done. The person I did it for still had some benefit from it and can pass the benefit on (eg, I fixed his door hinges so his customers can now come in and buy something, so the manufacturer can make another item and the manufacturers employees can save a tiny bit more, etc).
If the feds print money to keep the dollar at the same value then they must essentially give it away for free, but even if they don't, everybody will soon come to value each dollar slightly higher to represent the sum-total value in the economy.
Heh, yeah. As the token becomes less fine-grained it becomes less valuable (it's less useful to hold) and at some point does so at a greater rate than the deflation caused by money supply contraction. If you burn it all slowly then everybody just stops using that currency and uses something else instead - like gold or sterling silver. I think we (in Britain) used to (a loonng time ago) actually used 1lb of sterling silver - a particular silver alloy - as a standard currency denomination that's why our currency is called "sterling" and the primary unit is called "pounds" - 1lb sterling, 2lb sterling, etc.
Also changing the value of a currency both rapidly and unevenly makes possibly disastrous things happen because the banks have organised their deals as a bet against that happening, if they lose their bet you can't withdraw your savings.
If everybody could destroy 1% of their money (including the banks writing off their loans in the same proportion) every year for 100 years, with super-fine granularity then a $20000 salary would change to $2000 after some time but a $2000 item would also cost only $200 so no loss there:)
One key point back with the gold standard (where a bank note represented a share of a particular quantity of gold - which could change as the government traded) is that it was difficult for the government to create and destroy money in the way I described in order to make us more or less poor in relation to other people (to manipulate imports and exports and temper growth rates) relying instead on the banks to lend and withhold lending (where they create "fake" money - it's a currency future but its counted as money within the regulated banks) and hoping they could speculate successfully on the world gold markets.
Burning a $20 bill makes everybody (except you) richer. With a reduced money supply everybody else's dollar becomes more valuable. It takes a while to filter through to the labour market, but it does. That bill represent the wealth that you brought to everybody else so that one of them will give you something if you bring it to them. If you burn it instead, they still benefit from the work you did to earn that money, but now you won't be able to get them to give you stuff so they also get to keep the stuff and sell it to somebody else.
The problem with running the heavy apps on my desktop PC is that it'll break those flimsy tables you get in train carriages, and it'll be awkward to carry to the park - especially with the monitor, keyboard, and mouse too.
connectivity to my home PC will be expensive and the bluetooth->GPRS latency might well be too high even for nomachine nx.
I know the implementation isn't the same, different people wrote the code and there are a ton of ORBs for a start. But when COM extended DCE-RPC corba was created to be used similarly, but COM is really badly designed - not just the code but the whole way of working.
He always gets sidelined. He mostly starts something or writes it badly but with some key interesting kernel. The "badly" is usually trying to mimic some underdesigned overengineered buzzword from MS - he seems to be enamoured by their financial success and thinks it is the intrinsic value of their technology that did it. Of course, it isn't - their success is due to acute business acumen and marketing ability.
GNOME (the GNU Network Object Model Environment) was designed around a COM approach (it actually used that well-known failure and DCOM copycat, Corba). Microsoft is abandoning COM, and using it (usually because the financial director told them that it will save money and is better anyway) costs developers a vast amount of time, money, and reputation as the interface conventions are appallingly unstructured. Suffice it to say, GNOME is moving away from corba and has been for some time.
Generally, it is a good idea to watch for what problem Miguel de Icaza wants to solve and then start solving the problem differently before he can damage Linux' reputation for several years until his plans are ripped out and replaced as they usually are.
Are you talking about Lerner or Bussard? I'm confused on who this thread is on about?
The "defending their rice bowl" comment and the Navy funding was Bussard, but the comments about "he", "him" and "his" don't indicate that the comments are about anybody but the topic of the slashdot article - ie, Lerner.
Before the Texas A&M experiments he, apparently, had funding through the NASA advanced propulsion budget, it was actually being funded as an impulse engine:)
He's doing experiments on this now half funded by a university and has had funding from JPL for developing this as an energy source for propulsion until NASAs alternative propulsion budget was cut to zero.
BTW he was banned for reverting libellous material and attempts to imply that things like joining a political organisation make him untrustworthy (well, I suppose he was technically a politician, so maybe he was) and for bigging himself up too persistently - the latter only proves he's a self-righteous arse - so often a problem for scientists.
> author of alternative cosmology theory denying Big Bang
No he's not, the cosmology theory is by a nobel prize winning cosmologist. He wrote a book to publicise the theory.
> denial of quasar as blackholes
There is no evidence that they are black holes. They a big and dense. It is not known whether or not they have a large mass behind an event horizon entirely separated from the rest of the universe - we merely have no popular theory to establish that they are not black holes but that doesn't make them so. Assertions that they are and must be black holes and that alternative theories makes you a "DENIER" is far more crackpottish.
> life-long political activist
What does that have to do with his theories on the use of established fundamental quantum limits on bremsstrahlung and synchrotron radiation for sustaining plasma energy in a DPF plasmoid?
Yes, lets all stop doing science... Damn that science.
Are these countries that face demotion to O-member likely to vote against OOXML? I wonder if somebody is using local bureaucracy to buy one year without effective opposition - That's what I would do;)
You could post it and hang around to see if anybody wants to use it. If you (the primary dev) are still there to help with things, fix bugs, add features, clean things things up, etc, there is a very good chance you'll get users. If you carry on for 6mo to 1yr then your user base might well pick up development. But you said you didn't want to do any more work on it and that's a death sentence for software with no users yet. As another poster pointed out, modules to enhance a well-used product may well be picked up because they are improvements to something with a user-base that the users will want, but new independent software needs a developer to push it on while it picks up users.
You might be lucky and get a student happen upon it and start playing with it, though.
> I have neither the time, inclination, nor inspiration to do anything more with it
Don't bother uploading it. Without its primary developer being involved, unless you've got some users with a real care that they can keep using it *and* that it improves, and who are also skilled PHP dev's (enough to read through and understand somebody else's code on the timescale they need modifications done) nobody is going to pick up your code.
If they do then how long until a MacDonalds complains that they spent all that money on making the air outside their store smell *really* good only for someone to "steal some of the smell without coming in for a burger as they passed". The TV broadcasters tried it "Tivo should be illegal to use because we spent all that money on programs only for people to choose not to watch the advertisements".
I noticed you don't mention UTC or monotonic intervals anywhere in this post. Apps should use UTC and log in UTC, realtime stuff should use monotonic intervals, the system localtime should be used for UI matters. Any contract that depends on localtime should have its own localtime mapping maintained by the contract officer - not relying on some uncontracted third party to update metadata - which, AFAIK, doesn't even have an (atomic) change-notification event on any popular general purpose OS so old timers will/might trigger on the localtime with daylight savings as was at the time the timer was set (because you have to set triggers on a foward-only clock (UTC system time) to avoid triggering twice at 00:30 when the clocks go forward). That latter issue is the reason any localtime contracts need their localtime triggers very explicitly stated in the requirements that are captured from the contract terms.
Localtime is never easy and should be avoided whenever it is practical (most of the time) and extra attention paid to notification systems and update mechanisms where it is not practical.
Localtime is hard to program around correctly and yet most programmers think "Oh, it's only time, I just need to set a timer event to fire and, it works! it works! it works! Ship it! It works! it works! it works! it wor^H^H^HSMACK!"
> In this case: bling = my computer knowing what time it is.
If you're running debian then it was apparently updated automatically ages ago. The article seems to be about a bug reported by somebody who chose to turn off updates except for security fixes. Naturally, then, they didn't get this update - they then asked for these things to be considered security bugs in future.
I disagree with the bug reporter. Anywhere time is used in a security mechanism (and there are many) it should be using UTC or be robust against timesaving measures (eg, only be used for approximate deadlines to improve odds). In which case a timesaving change is not needed for security. Security bugs are therefore in the application not the time metadata (except adjustments to UTC which definitely *would* be security issues).
In short - debian users' arses (and clocks) are covered just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
I pulled those numbers out of my arse.
Extend the number of years, it still holds. When everybody burns their money (and has debt written of) at the same rate nice and slow, everybody is just as rich as they were, just each dollar is worth more - provided you don't get to a point where you can't trade a dollar for anything less than a huge mansion because an impractical currency is an worthless one and the difficulty of trading makes everybody poorer - they have to work harder just to buy something. The condition I put in of being able to do it perfectly finely is necessary for burning so much money to work - but a small amount (like maybe half of it) works over a long enough period.
Exactly. The value has not gone. The work I did to get the money has still been done. The person I did it for still had some benefit from it and can pass the benefit on (eg, I fixed his door hinges so his customers can now come in and buy something, so the manufacturer can make another item and the manufacturers employees can save a tiny bit more, etc).
If the feds print money to keep the dollar at the same value then they must essentially give it away for free, but even if they don't, everybody will soon come to value each dollar slightly higher to represent the sum-total value in the economy.
Heh, yeah. As the token becomes less fine-grained it becomes less valuable (it's less useful to hold) and at some point does so at a greater rate than the deflation caused by money supply contraction. If you burn it all slowly then everybody just stops using that currency and uses something else instead - like gold or sterling silver. I think we (in Britain) used to (a loonng time ago) actually used 1lb of sterling silver - a particular silver alloy - as a standard currency denomination that's why our currency is called "sterling" and the primary unit is called "pounds" - 1lb sterling, 2lb sterling, etc.
:)
Also changing the value of a currency both rapidly and unevenly makes possibly disastrous things happen because the banks have organised their deals as a bet against that happening, if they lose their bet you can't withdraw your savings.
If everybody could destroy 1% of their money (including the banks writing off their loans in the same proportion) every year for 100 years, with super-fine granularity then a $20000 salary would change to $2000 after some time but a $2000 item would also cost only $200 so no loss there
One key point back with the gold standard (where a bank note represented a share of a particular quantity of gold - which could change as the government traded) is that it was difficult for the government to create and destroy money in the way I described in order to make us more or less poor in relation to other people (to manipulate imports and exports and temper growth rates) relying instead on the banks to lend and withhold lending (where they create "fake" money - it's a currency future but its counted as money within the regulated banks) and hoping they could speculate successfully on the world gold markets.
Burning a $20 bill makes everybody (except you) richer. With a reduced money supply everybody else's dollar becomes more valuable. It takes a while to filter through to the labour market, but it does. That bill represent the wealth that you brought to everybody else so that one of them will give you something if you bring it to them. If you burn it instead, they still benefit from the work you did to earn that money, but now you won't be able to get them to give you stuff so they also get to keep the stuff and sell it to somebody else.
No, citing Wikipedia in an academic paper, whether your own work or not, is called "a third".
watts per unit time is used to measure the rate of energy capture/conversion product manufacturing.
But it now appears that they can't get it, even though it doesn't cost a lot to not get it.
The problem with running the heavy apps on my desktop PC is that it'll break those flimsy tables you get in train carriages, and it'll be awkward to carry to the park - especially with the monitor, keyboard, and mouse too.
connectivity to my home PC will be expensive and the bluetooth->GPRS latency might well be too high even for nomachine nx.
I know the implementation isn't the same, different people wrote the code and there are a ton of ORBs for a start. But when COM extended DCE-RPC corba was created to be used similarly, but COM is really badly designed - not just the code but the whole way of working.
He always gets sidelined. He mostly starts something or writes it badly but with some key interesting kernel. The "badly" is usually trying to mimic some underdesigned overengineered buzzword from MS - he seems to be enamoured by their financial success and thinks it is the intrinsic value of their technology that did it. Of course, it isn't - their success is due to acute business acumen and marketing ability.
GNOME (the GNU Network Object Model Environment) was designed around a COM approach (it actually used that well-known failure and DCOM copycat, Corba). Microsoft is abandoning COM, and using it (usually because the financial director told them that it will save money and is better anyway) costs developers a vast amount of time, money, and reputation as the interface conventions are appallingly unstructured. Suffice it to say, GNOME is moving away from corba and has been for some time.
Generally, it is a good idea to watch for what problem Miguel de Icaza wants to solve and then start solving the problem differently before he can damage Linux' reputation for several years until his plans are ripped out and replaced as they usually are.
POV-Ray should run fine. I used to run it on a DX4-100 with 4MB ram and only about 100MB spare disk.
But can I run eclipse on it? and fit the gcc/g++ toolchain and all the intermediate build files for my projects on its flash storage?
Are you talking about Lerner or Bussard? I'm confused on who this thread is on about?
The "defending their rice bowl" comment and the Navy funding was Bussard, but the comments about "he", "him" and "his" don't indicate that the comments are about anybody but the topic of the slashdot article - ie, Lerner.
Before the Texas A&M experiments he, apparently, had funding through the NASA advanced propulsion budget, it was actually being funded as an impulse engine :)
He was over publicising himself and his theory and arguing an awful lot. He's basically an arsehole that's why he was banned.
He's doing experiments on this now half funded by a university and has had funding from JPL for developing this as an energy source for propulsion until NASAs alternative propulsion budget was cut to zero.
BTW he was banned for reverting libellous material and attempts to imply that things like joining a political organisation make him untrustworthy (well, I suppose he was technically a politician, so maybe he was) and for bigging himself up too persistently - the latter only proves he's a self-righteous arse - so often a problem for scientists.
> author of alternative cosmology theory denying Big Bang
No he's not, the cosmology theory is by a nobel prize winning cosmologist. He wrote a book to publicise the theory.
> denial of quasar as blackholes
There is no evidence that they are black holes. They a big and dense. It is not known whether or not they have a large mass behind an event horizon entirely separated from the rest of the universe - we merely have no popular theory to establish that they are not black holes but that doesn't make them so. Assertions that they are and must be black holes and that alternative theories makes you a "DENIER" is far more crackpottish.
> life-long political activist
What does that have to do with his theories on the use of established fundamental quantum limits on bremsstrahlung and synchrotron radiation for sustaining plasma energy in a DPF plasmoid?
Yes, lets all stop doing science... Damn that science.
Why don't the record labels just add 2 cents to their wholesale download prices?
Are these countries that face demotion to O-member likely to vote against OOXML? I wonder if somebody is using local bureaucracy to buy one year without effective opposition - That's what I would do ;)
You could post it and hang around to see if anybody wants to use it. If you (the primary dev) are still there to help with things, fix bugs, add features, clean things things up, etc, there is a very good chance you'll get users. If you carry on for 6mo to 1yr then your user base might well pick up development. But you said you didn't want to do any more work on it and that's a death sentence for software with no users yet. As another poster pointed out, modules to enhance a well-used product may well be picked up because they are improvements to something with a user-base that the users will want, but new independent software needs a developer to push it on while it picks up users.
You might be lucky and get a student happen upon it and start playing with it, though.
Will you pick up the code if he posts it? Why or Why not? How well does that tally with my prediction and will other people be different?
> I have neither the time, inclination, nor inspiration to do anything more with it
Don't bother uploading it. Without its primary developer being involved, unless you've got some users with a real care that they can keep using it *and* that it improves, and who are also skilled PHP dev's (enough to read through and understand somebody else's code on the timescale they need modifications done) nobody is going to pick up your code.
If they do then how long until a MacDonalds complains that they spent all that money on making the air outside their store smell *really* good only for someone to "steal some of the smell without coming in for a burger as they passed". The TV broadcasters tried it "Tivo should be illegal to use because we spent all that money on programs only for people to choose not to watch the advertisements".
I noticed you don't mention UTC or monotonic intervals anywhere in this post. Apps should use UTC and log in UTC, realtime stuff should use monotonic intervals, the system localtime should be used for UI matters. Any contract that depends on localtime should have its own localtime mapping maintained by the contract officer - not relying on some uncontracted third party to update metadata - which, AFAIK, doesn't even have an (atomic) change-notification event on any popular general purpose OS so old timers will/might trigger on the localtime with daylight savings as was at the time the timer was set (because you have to set triggers on a foward-only clock (UTC system time) to avoid triggering twice at 00:30 when the clocks go forward). That latter issue is the reason any localtime contracts need their localtime triggers very explicitly stated in the requirements that are captured from the contract terms.
Localtime is never easy and should be avoided whenever it is practical (most of the time) and extra attention paid to notification systems and update mechanisms where it is not practical.
Localtime is hard to program around correctly and yet most programmers think "Oh, it's only time, I just need to set a timer event to fire and, it works! it works! it works! Ship it! It works! it works! it works! it wor^H^H^HSMACK!"
Oh, then this is a big problem and extraordinarily dumb of debian. I was basing my comment on those of other posters.
> In this case: bling = my computer knowing what time it is.
If you're running debian then it was apparently updated automatically ages ago. The article seems to be about a bug reported by somebody who chose to turn off updates except for security fixes. Naturally, then, they didn't get this update - they then asked for these things to be considered security bugs in future.
I disagree with the bug reporter. Anywhere time is used in a security mechanism (and there are many) it should be using UTC or be robust against timesaving measures (eg, only be used for approximate deadlines to improve odds). In which case a timesaving change is not needed for security. Security bugs are therefore in the application not the time metadata (except adjustments to UTC which definitely *would* be security issues).
In short - debian users' arses (and clocks) are covered just fine.