Well, we are just hearing his side of this (in this article).
Are there forum / list logs that back him up on this?
It's quite possible that Linus had good and valid reasons for not going Garrett's route, in addition to the "name issue", and that Garrett is only using the name issue to make it look like the reasoning was petty.
Where do you clowns come from, really? You obviously know NOTHING about Austrian economics, yet you're all out here like ventriloquist dummies telling the world how bad it is. It's like the Red Scare with everybody talking about how bad commies were, but nobody knew anything about them other than what the establishment had told them.
I'm sure you pray at the temple of Keynes, like all the other "Nobel prize" winning economists do. You know, those same ones whose policies have ruined the economies we have now. But we'll just ignore that, right?
Ok, little AC, I'll reply.
Austrian economics is, at best, a pseudoscience, and at worst, fabulist storytelling by one charlatan to another, in an effort to explain things that they either don't understand, or actively refuse to understand, because they say "we don't need math or empirical testing".
Austrian econ uses praxeology (application of deductive reasoning, applied to a set of "unquestionable" axioms) to generate its further generate implications, scenarios, and results. Of course, these unquestionable axioms are quite questionable - they take them as blind faith, "because we've said them, they must be true". Often in there, they reject formal logical analysis of their axioms, instead choosing to use verbal analysis, because it's easier to weasel word your way out of corners. (Fingers are often inserted in to the ears of young Austrian economists at this point, as they say, "la la la la, I can't hear you".)
Then there's their use of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which uses many terms that they've mis-defined (they change the meanings of words to be whatever they want, so when they misuse them, they can say "You just don't understand"), such as "inflation" and "natural rate".
ABCT ultimately is better at explaining why the Austrians and libertarians are such hardcore goldbugs and why they rail against the Fed so much than it is at explaining actual business cycles.
The Austrians get around the problems of market failures, natural monopolies, morality, and rationality through the use of clever wordplay. They rely on an extreme form of methodological individualism based on the "action axiom" as described above. To wit: Because only individuals exist, only individuals can act. Societies cannot act because, to quote Margaret Thatcher, "there is no such thing as society." Therefore, all action can be described at the individual level. If an action is good or moral for one individual, then it must be good or moral in the aggregate because good + good = good. In reality, only basic game theory is needed in order to refute this. Austrians claim, for example, that savings represent money that will be invested in the future, and so money can never be "hoarded." They entirely reject the paradox of thrift.
Even the hero/founder of the school admitted it was BS.
Ludwig von Mises himself wrote of his theory: "Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience... They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts."
F.A. Hayek wrote that any theories in the social sciences can "never be verified or falsified by reference to facts." By the way, he won one of those Nobel prizes for Economics that you sneered at, for his "theory of money and economic fluctuations". That would be the last actual contribution by the Austrian school to economics as a whole, in the last 40 years.
(Special thanks to RationalWiki for significant portions of this post.)
Oh yeah, this is just going to total Austrian econ. The idea that math has anything to do with economics (macro or micro) is heresy to them.
I rather hope this takes off, and well, so that we can finally bury von Mises.
There was an apocryphal story at my university that one of our Econ professors has been arrested once for urinating on the grave of von Mises. I may have to get in touch with him, and see if he's willing to give it another go.
We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.
Does the interviewee go through the original post and look at everything that got a score of 5? That's a fairly low bar to hit, and probably a bit unreasonable.
I think it more likely that one of the editorial types gathered up the questions, using the best spelled of various repeats among questions (ok, that's a stretch), and decided what to send. I don't expect that they'd send anything that was outright abusive, no matter what score the question had, or how many people supported it.
IT's early (for me) and my standard disclaimer of "the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet" applies, but "a power grid designed to carry it in the other direction" doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me.
I admit that circuits was a long time ago, and I never took (or had to take) the high power courses... But what does that even mean? The system is still AC, isn't it? So it's been handling carrying things in both directions forever.
Is this industry BS, or is there something to this claim?
I have to admit, that before I ever read anything by (or about) Norquist, I wasn't inclined to take him seriously. But that happens when someone shares the same name as a Muppet.
Then I read his stuff, and now I don't take him seriously at all.
My degree is in Computer Engineering, with some Master's work in Comp Sci...
And these days I mostly work system accreditation. That is, certifying that a given system is secure. I do relatively little of the tech work, but push a lot of paper.
Are the updates where the hardware requirements have changed so much that you effectively have to buy new hardware. Obviously, not an issue for phones, but annoying as hell on PCs.
Or the company that comes out with an (non-free) upgrade ~every~ year, necessary or not, and immediately stops supporting the previous version. "Yeah, we know about that rare bug. It's fixed in the latest version, which will only cost you $150k, across your user base, to upgrade to."
Is because there have been what conspiracy theoriests are calling an unusual number of banker (though they usually use bankster) suicides and mysterious deaths, since the start of the year.
So they're trying to make this death fit a pattern that may not actually exist.
It's not that local sites are refusing to go along with the data center consolidation, as we have to justify anything that stays here instead of moving to the data center 400 miles away, it's that in a lot of cases the data center people are saying, "You have to move", and then not understanding the reasons why we can't.
Whether or not this lack of understanding is deliberate or not, I'm not sure. We lowered our explanation to about a 6th grade comprehension level, and they finally seemed to get it, at least while they were on site.
Stuff like:
"These are the daily and weekly tasks we must perform with this system - you will have to sign an MOU/MOA (Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement) where you will accomplish these tasks how we tell you to." (Often, they didn't have the trained personnel to do it.)
"You will have to provide 24/7/365 uptime, with at least three 9s reliability (yes, I know that's low, but we couldn't justify higher), including the ability to do file level restoration." (They really balked at the file level restoration.)
"You have to have trained support personnel with OS experience." Their response was, "We can upgrade that to." Our rebuttal, "No you can't, it has to stay in that exact configuration until changes are tested and approved by Echelon II."
We got to keep most of our stuff, at least so far.
People are supposed to put on the glasses (even if they don't wear glasses) and then also remember to bring three or four handfuls of batteries, and not lose them also? And you also have to remember to charge three or four sets of these tiny things every day?
People did that regularly with several models of cell phones.
But there's also that new battery model, which if it scales well, could solve the entire problem. (http://www.extremetech.com/computing/153614-new-lithium-ion-battery-design-thats-2000-times-more-powerful-recharges-1000-times-faster) Seems like this is something Google should invest in.
Since google has been better at design (lately) than Apple (who came up with craptacular earphone jacks for the latest iPods)
The latest iPod earbuds are the only ones ever made I can stand to wear more than an hour. That includes the custom shaped ones.... I spent a few hundred on a nice set of earbuds but after I got the newer Apple earbuds, the Apple buds are the ones I use on planes simply because I can leave them in. The sounds is not as good but the shape is far, far better.
Apple also apparently understands that most people hate recharging batteries, a fact that seems lost on Slashdot.
I said jacks, not earbuds. The buds themselves are fine; I like them. (Far better than the "stuff into your ear" kind; I can't wear those at all.)
But the (female) jack point in the iPod is fragile and has only one set of contacts, so if there is any significant lateral pressure on the connector, the jackpoint cracks slightly, allowing future pressure moments to cause intermittant disconnections of the plug from the contacts, turning off the sound.
This lateral pressure can easily be applied if you have your iPod in a pocket and are just walking around.
Apple's response to me (other than replacing the iPod) was, "Well, just keep the iPod in your hand; don't put it in your pocket."
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think I saw anyone who liked the notification center.
It only took 300+ pages of negative comments and a couple years for Google to realize this was a feature that literally nobody wanted.
And one that was turned off, by as many people as possible, as soon as they could.
Mel Brooks was right?
(It's not obscure; this is Slashdot)
Well, we are just hearing his side of this (in this article).
Are there forum / list logs that back him up on this?
It's quite possible that Linus had good and valid reasons for not going Garrett's route, in addition to the "name issue", and that Garrett is only using the name issue to make it look like the reasoning was petty.
Why he could never really get support for the Hurd?
I'm shocked.*
*Not really shocked.
Where do you clowns come from, really? You obviously know NOTHING about Austrian economics, yet you're all out here like ventriloquist dummies telling the world how bad it is. It's like the Red Scare with everybody talking about how bad commies were, but nobody knew anything about them other than what the establishment had told them.
I'm sure you pray at the temple of Keynes, like all the other "Nobel prize" winning economists do. You know, those same ones whose policies have ruined the economies we have now. But we'll just ignore that, right?
Ok, little AC, I'll reply.
Austrian economics is, at best, a pseudoscience, and at worst, fabulist storytelling by one charlatan to another, in an effort to explain things that they either don't understand, or actively refuse to understand, because they say "we don't need math or empirical testing".
Austrian econ uses praxeology (application of deductive reasoning, applied to a set of "unquestionable" axioms) to generate its further generate implications, scenarios, and results. Of course, these unquestionable axioms are quite questionable - they take them as blind faith, "because we've said them, they must be true". Often in there, they reject formal logical analysis of their axioms, instead choosing to use verbal analysis, because it's easier to weasel word your way out of corners. (Fingers are often inserted in to the ears of young Austrian economists at this point, as they say, "la la la la, I can't hear you".)
Then there's their use of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which uses many terms that they've mis-defined (they change the meanings of words to be whatever they want, so when they misuse them, they can say "You just don't understand"), such as "inflation" and "natural rate".
ABCT ultimately is better at explaining why the Austrians and libertarians are such hardcore goldbugs and why they rail against the Fed so much than it is at explaining actual business cycles.
The Austrians get around the problems of market failures, natural monopolies, morality, and rationality through the use of clever wordplay. They rely on an extreme form of methodological individualism based on the "action axiom" as described above. To wit: Because only individuals exist, only individuals can act. Societies cannot act because, to quote Margaret Thatcher, "there is no such thing as society." Therefore, all action can be described at the individual level. If an action is good or moral for one individual, then it must be good or moral in the aggregate because good + good = good. In reality, only basic game theory is needed in order to refute this. Austrians claim, for example, that savings represent money that will be invested in the future, and so money can never be "hoarded." They entirely reject the paradox of thrift.
Even the hero/founder of the school admitted it was BS.
Ludwig von Mises himself wrote of his theory: "Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience... They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts."
F.A. Hayek wrote that any theories in the social sciences can "never be verified or falsified by reference to facts." By the way, he won one of those Nobel prizes for Economics that you sneered at, for his "theory of money and economic fluctuations". That would be the last actual contribution by the Austrian school to economics as a whole, in the last 40 years.
(Special thanks to RationalWiki for significant portions of this post.)
Oh yeah, this is just going to total Austrian econ. The idea that math has anything to do with economics (macro or micro) is heresy to them.
I rather hope this takes off, and well, so that we can finally bury von Mises.
There was an apocryphal story at my university that one of our Econ professors has been arrested once for urinating on the grave of von Mises. I may have to get in touch with him, and see if he's willing to give it another go.
We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.
Does the interviewee go through the original post and look at everything that got a score of 5? That's a fairly low bar to hit, and probably a bit unreasonable.
I think it more likely that one of the editorial types gathered up the questions, using the best spelled of various repeats among questions (ok, that's a stretch), and decided what to send. I don't expect that they'd send anything that was outright abusive, no matter what score the question had, or how many people supported it.
The NP problem sets would like to have a word with you.
So, how long before the virtual screen has white-out all over it?
a KirkStarter?
I'll be here all week.
Because I've got nowhere to go.
IT's early (for me) and my standard disclaimer of "the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet" applies, but "a power grid designed to carry it in the other direction" doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me.
I admit that circuits was a long time ago, and I never took (or had to take) the high power courses... But what does that even mean? The system is still AC, isn't it? So it's been handling carrying things in both directions forever.
Is this industry BS, or is there something to this claim?
Has it really been 7 years since he was disbarred?
I remember celebrating when he got the boot, but I didn't think it had really been that long ago.
that the "accurate within microns" part is only applicable if you feed it some scaling information.
Otherwise, it's going to only be as accurate as the person guessing the size of the original.
But is the 25% tax lower than what they'd pay if they hadn't diverted profits? Equal? More?
To actually discourage diversion of profit, wouldn't the penalty have to be higher, or at least equal to, what they're avoiding?
And does anyone not think that this will lead to tech companies having field trips to Hollywood to learn their style of creative accounting?
I have to admit, that before I ever read anything by (or about) Norquist, I wasn't inclined to take him seriously. But that happens when someone shares the same name as a Muppet.
Then I read his stuff, and now I don't take him seriously at all.
That people who use spaces for indentation are just WRONG. :)
Hail HYDRA.
It's all the documentation on the system. Because it's not just enough to say "yes, we've secured it", we have to write it down.
It's all paper trails, man.
There are days that I can rarely work up empathy for real people.
Coincidentally, those are the days that I have to drive on the 405. I wonder if there is a connection?
My degree is in Computer Engineering, with some Master's work in Comp Sci...
And these days I mostly work system accreditation. That is, certifying that a given system is secure. I do relatively little of the tech work, but push a lot of paper.
How do you change the default search functionality in Android?
Have you tried Googling for that information? :)
Are the updates where the hardware requirements have changed so much that you effectively have to buy new hardware. Obviously, not an issue for phones, but annoying as hell on PCs.
Or the company that comes out with an (non-free) upgrade ~every~ year, necessary or not, and immediately stops supporting the previous version. "Yeah, we know about that rare bug. It's fixed in the latest version, which will only cost you $150k, across your user base, to upgrade to."
Aside from lazy reporting, of course...
Is because there have been what conspiracy theoriests are calling an unusual number of banker (though they usually use bankster) suicides and mysterious deaths, since the start of the year.
So they're trying to make this death fit a pattern that may not actually exist.
I'm (sorta) one of those admins.
It's not that local sites are refusing to go along with the data center consolidation, as we have to justify anything that stays here instead of moving to the data center 400 miles away, it's that in a lot of cases the data center people are saying, "You have to move", and then not understanding the reasons why we can't.
Whether or not this lack of understanding is deliberate or not, I'm not sure. We lowered our explanation to about a 6th grade comprehension level, and they finally seemed to get it, at least while they were on site.
Stuff like:
"These are the daily and weekly tasks we must perform with this system - you will have to sign an MOU/MOA (Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement) where you will accomplish these tasks how we tell you to." (Often, they didn't have the trained personnel to do it.)
"You will have to provide 24/7/365 uptime, with at least three 9s reliability (yes, I know that's low, but we couldn't justify higher), including the ability to do file level restoration." (They really balked at the file level restoration.)
"You have to have trained support personnel with OS experience." Their response was, "We can upgrade that to ." Our rebuttal, "No you can't, it has to stay in that exact configuration until changes are tested and approved by Echelon II."
We got to keep most of our stuff, at least so far.
People are supposed to put on the glasses (even if they don't wear glasses) and then also remember to bring three or four handfuls of batteries, and not lose them also? And you also have to remember to charge three or four sets of these tiny things every day?
People did that regularly with several models of cell phones.
But there's also that new battery model, which if it scales well, could solve the entire problem. (http://www.extremetech.com/computing/153614-new-lithium-ion-battery-design-thats-2000-times-more-powerful-recharges-1000-times-faster) Seems like this is something Google should invest in.
Since google has been better at design (lately) than Apple (who came up with craptacular earphone jacks for the latest iPods)
The latest iPod earbuds are the only ones ever made I can stand to wear more than an hour. That includes the custom shaped ones.... I spent a few hundred on a nice set of earbuds but after I got the newer Apple earbuds, the Apple buds are the ones I use on planes simply because I can leave them in. The sounds is not as good but the shape is far, far better.
Apple also apparently understands that most people hate recharging batteries, a fact that seems lost on Slashdot.
I said jacks, not earbuds. The buds themselves are fine; I like them. (Far better than the "stuff into your ear" kind; I can't wear those at all.)
But the (female) jack point in the iPod is fragile and has only one set of contacts, so if there is any significant lateral pressure on the connector, the jackpoint cracks slightly, allowing future pressure moments to cause intermittant disconnections of the plug from the contacts, turning off the sound.
This lateral pressure can easily be applied if you have your iPod in a pocket and are just walking around.
Apple's response to me (other than replacing the iPod) was, "Well, just keep the iPod in your hand; don't put it in your pocket."