Put yourself in their shoes before you speak. Humanity hasn't evolved past war; that includes you, and anyone else.
That's probably why I run around the city full of people I hate, and shoot at them with a machine gun. Oh, in reality I work on developing new technology and tell them to fuck themselves when they are bothering me.
Also, if you think any other military doesn't "enjoy" killing people in the same way Americans "enjoy" killing people, you're absolutely delusional. If a group of people perceives a second group of people as an immediate threat to their existence, they're going to get a kick out of killing them
You are an idiot. War is FUCKING SCARY. The only people who "enjoy" anything related to it, are ones who do not recognize it as a constant threat to their lives and to anything they love. US is unique in being the only country in recent couple of centuries that participated in most wars yet never was under a threat of invasion -- this is why so many Americans love war, military, killing foreigners, etc.
- just the same way that a group of athletes gets a rush from beating another team, or a group of Call of Duty players will get a kick out of beating the other team.
"Call of Duty" is a game. No one actually kills or dies while playing it, just like in any game from chess to Angry Birds, so people can treat otherwise violent images (knight jumps over things and kills a queen, birds launch themselves from slingshots at pigs, soldiers shoot at each other) as entertainment. Ask the same person to throw a real bird at a real pig, and see what his reaction is going to be.
It's called "competitive instinct", and it's inside of you too, whether you admit it to yourself or not.
Enjoying killing people has nothing to do with competition, and tendency to "compete" is vastly overblown in Americans due to their ideology praising hostility. In reality humans' tendency to compete and co-operate balance each other. It takes some serious threat for them to become openly hostile and violent, leave alone enjoy such condition.
My understanding of the argument is that this meant that because the USSR economy had to maintain a high war footing to keep up with US and NATO spending and developments (something like 30-35% of its industries compared to 20-25% of US industries),
That was not anywhere close to the official numbers. US "economists" believed that USSR is "hiding something" and produced ridiculously inflated estimates of military budget because they expected it to be somewhat similar to how US military spending works. US military-industrial complex was happy to see it because it justified US military spending, and actual state of USSR economy was of a purely academic interest.
other areas of social development suffered and gradually standards of living etc fell behind which led to political and social dissatisfaction, hence the downfall of the system.
I lived there, and my standard of living was higher than in US now (despite being an engineer in SF Bay Area). Shortages of luxury goods were far outweighed by over-developed by US standards urban infrastructure -- things like public transit, construction, etc. Moving from an individual home into apartment building was considered an upgrade, thanks to one of the better Khrushchev's ideas that resulted in constantly increasing quality of construction over 60's and 70's that ended up rebuilding whole cities. If anyone wonders what USSR built instead of a highway system, that was it -- all-concrete high-quality buildings with apartment rented at nominal rates to almost everyone.
In 70's-80's people were pissed at Communists for things other than quality of life -- censorship, maintaining overpaid elite in supposedly egalitarian workers' state, etc. Compared to US it was pretty tame, however in US politicians do not claim that they actually serve everyone, and work to develop a society based on fairness and respect for labor, so the contrast between their speeches and actions was greater.
I'd like to see some references on this please, I am genuinely interested.
I was there.
I was doing tiny pieces of undergraduate research in the 80s and the argument that the USSR was running out of money trying to keep up with the USA as was around then. So I am not sure that it is a 'retroactive' argument.
There were all kinds of "arguments" at all times. Another one was that USSR had all its R&D used in military industry, and would become a massive industrial powerhouse if only it was (by Communist Party's orders or by capitalism) freed for other uses. Yet another was that USSR had more than enough land suitable for agriculture, but was mismanaging it. Some believed that microscopic (on the scale of the country) amounts of labor and resources spent on maintaining relative luxury for Communist Party elite was depriving the rest of society of something. And, of course, every ethnicity other than Russian blamed Russians for "oppressing" them while Russian nationalists blamed everyone else for "draining Russia's resources" (and, of course, everyone blamed Jews for something, but that's a given).
All those things were evidently wrong, and since there was no way to gain anything politically in US from all those myths, the only one that is still being kept alive, is about money spent on defense. The reality was that only few percents of GDP was in anything military, so it could not possibly affect anything at the scale that was attributed to it.
Due to a conscript-based military, the issue of having large military in the first place was a constant thorn in the population's side, however economic impact of it was nowhere close to any of the ill-fated reforms that happened after USSR dissolution. If anything, the above mentioned Khrushchev's re-organization of industry and one-time economic projects had more negative impact than anything else, yet at the end of his tenure USSR economy was probably in the best shape ever.
No military threats. No invasions. No funding political enemies of the governments. No installing puppet governments. No destroying economies with subsidized imports. No control over local labor.
Just BUYING OIL AND BUILDING STUFF ABROAD. How dare they do it!
We're a hellova lot closer than we were 20 years ago.
We are pretty much exactlty where we were 20 years ago -- making one-shot hacks that by some miracle recognize something specific, or apply filtering known for decades to get vague similarities with simple, unstructured objects.
We already have vision systems that do a respectable job of watching crowds of people and picking out faces of suspects.
Machines are better than humans at recognizing faces in a crowd precisely because they use recognition mechanisms that are different from humans. Same difference causes all voice recognition software in phone answering systems to fail miserably when I talk to them, because I have an accent.
No, it's just you and other worthless pieces of shit who enjoy it. US military just happens to be full of those kind of people, and this is why everyone hates you.
Shipping containers are interesting in all sorts of cases like putting up a datacenter quickly in a warehouse in an industrial park anywhere in the world.
Shipping containers are useful for placing data center equipment where it otherwise does not belong, however it's foolish to think that they are actually efficient at anything. They have to contain built-in fans and air conditioners, so density and efficiency are lower than the same floor filled with racks. They need access to the airflow -- you can't just stack them or place next to each other. They need an outside electric panel. For a data center you still need giant UPSes and/or generators. And replacing equipment when you have to pull it from a container and carry it along rows of containers, is much more labor-intensive operation than it would be in a normal data center.
If you want to permanently convert a large warehouse into the data center, filling it with containers is probably the worst thing you can do. Making a steel frame with raised floors, conduits and air ducts attached to it, is cheap and consists of typical operations done in any industrial construction. Warehouse likely has enough space for construction equipment, so construction itself will likely take less time than building everything you need to power the insane amount of equipment you will stuff in that space.
And, of course, the cost of a large warehouse modified that way is a tiny part of the cost of operating a datacenter after it is built, so both the idea of using containers, and this "barn" are pure stupidity for a large, permanent installation.
The military also loves them because they can easily be transported by sea or cargo lifter.
Military would love anything if it is expensive enough, however I can see some legitimate uses for those things there.
One developer stomping on the changes another developer makes to a very large project is "extraordinarily idiotic?"
Yes. Make a bug once, shame on you. Make the same bug twice, you are probably George Bush with a compiler. Not that "the same bug" from a human's point of view will fail a test written to catch its previous incarnation.
I don't see why you think so, especially given that you're railing against one proven technique for keeping such extraordinary idiocy from happening. Commenting code will not prevent it. Well managed source control will not prevent it. Good communication will the rest of the team will not prevent it. A test suite will not prevent it. But between the four of them, you have a decent shot.
One of those things is more worthless than others.
Exactly! Which is why you don't want to have to be constantly context-switching back into a legacy project to fix the bugs that would be prevented by a test suite.
If it's a "legacy" project that is only being maintained with bug fixes, how the Hell you will get a regression due to multiple developers' conflicting changes?
When China in any form was developing, or tried to develop "banana republics"? You are projecting US policies (that exist for no purpose other than supporting US big business) to other countries.
US has only a fraction of resources necessary to cover the amount of dollars circulating in world trade. Even less if US-owned "intellectual property" in China will become worthless. However the real disaster would happen if oil trade will switch to other currencies, as this is what backs most of the value of dollar, not inflated US stocks and real estate prices.
US dollar is only valuable because it's used for international trade. Mostly involving countries that are in no way friendly to US. The only reason why it still works, is because US does not mess with its currency when it is in hands of "enemies", so it is somewhat trusted. Once this trust is breached, dollars everywhere outside US will become worthless, and within US nearly worthless.
Uh, no. First, lets touch upon the literal version of the claim: "did the USSR run out of money". Yes. The USSR traded with other countries in the world not under the soviet system. They had an imbalance of payments and little to no holdings of foreign currency.
Military was not a part of this in any manner, and USSR debts were not affected by its dissolution, as Russia picked them. Economies of other ex-USSR countries didn't get any better as a result of it, either.
Second, lets consider the statement as euphemism for economic devastation in the USSR. This how this idea is usually meant, and its not usually not expressed simply as "they ran out of money".
I lived there, you idiot!
There was no "devastation", not even under the most economically inept Brezhnev's government, and not even under Khrushchev and his experiments.
The USSR initially built a lot of "guns" and a lot of "food". There population was growing, and they needed to produce more "food". Meanwhile, the cold-war induced them to need to produce more "guns" too. What they didn't produce very much of was tools; they under-invested in capital goods. What this meant over time was that they could not make as many things per-capita as the US could. The total pie was smaller in Russia, it was growing more slowly, and much more of it was focused on "guns".
The whole point of their system was that there is no "investment", government already owns all resources and only pays salaries. The only important thing is to keep a balance between consumer products and infrastructure development, as salary government pay to people will be spent on consumer goods that have to be available at the moment. There are no "capital expenses", just a need for simultaneous expansion. USSR economy was best when that balance was maintained, and worst when it was shifted (usually toward infrastructure).
Weapons are a tiny speck in this picture, and food was maintained through subsidies just like in US.
Counted by your friendly US economists in US prices.
How would it be relevant in the first place? The bulk of USSR economy was within USSR, international trade only mattered for things that could not be produced locally, and government made DAMN SURE, all military equipment was produced locally.
You would have a resemblance of a plausible scenario if you claimed that import of grain "destroyed" USSR, as 20th century population growth left it with shortage of land suitable for agriculture.
No country actually reached the point where it would matter. Submarines may be heavy all resources actually used for their productions are a tiny percentage of resources available.
And yet, anything of importance in US economy is dominated by giant monopolies that "won" competition through either being the first to reach large enough scale, or through latching onto a pre-existing monopoly.
Now, excusing the obvious fact that you don't seem to know the difference between unsecured U.S. Treasury Bonds (debt sold to others) and Secured Debt (a house mortgage etc)
Real estate prices are mostly determined by the amount of debt sunk into real estate market, what is one step away from a Ponzi scheme, not to mention more mundane problems such as nearly zero liquidity every time a crisis hits. It's far worse than government's debt (and this is why no one wants to buy it).
same reason the USSR lost to the US: they ran out of money.
How many times should it be pointed out that this is a myth that exists for the sole purpose of retroactively justifying Cold War and US military-industrial complex?
USSR did not have for-profit military contractors, it kept all production, including military one, in the hands of government. It couldn't run out of money even if it tried -- it didn't need to pay anything other than employees' salary, what was usually the same across all industries for the same type of work, and nothing astronomical by any measure.
Dissolution of USSR was a politically, not economically motivated move -- if anything, it had no effect on the economy from the moment of dissolution and until Russian version of Libertarians taken over (and provoked a massive economic crisis that lasted through 90's). American ideologues can take credit for inspiring those though -- in fact, spreading "free market" ideology is probably the most effective way Americans have to destroy other countries. Too bad, they have caught the disease they were spreading among their enemies.
Not necessarily. He can fix it and some other developer can un-fix it. Microsoft famously does this. Not frequently, but more often then they should.
Testing won't help with this, either. Not that Microsoft developers being able to do something extraordinarily idiotic is always a valid explanation for the same thing happening outside Microsoft.
Partly irrelevant. You're still paying the guy $X per hour to fix the bugs.
Developer is being paid regardless of what he is doing -- writing new code, documenting things, developing tests, fixing bugs or doing nothing waiting for something to happen (typical condition right before release when product is being beta-tested).
If he could do something else useful during that time, it's valid to say the time and money spent on fixing the bugs is saved (and spent on something else).
Software development does not work that way. People have to spent fixed (and significant) amount of time switching between unrelated projects, so effectiveness of developers working on multiple projects depends not as much on how much time they have to spend on projects but on how often they have to switch. Adding "something else" to overloaded developer is often the best way to bring development to a grinding halt.
Slashdot Mirror
Put yourself in their shoes before you speak. Humanity hasn't evolved past war; that includes you, and anyone else.
That's probably why I run around the city full of people I hate, and shoot at them with a machine gun. Oh, in reality I work on developing new technology and tell them to fuck themselves when they are bothering me.
Also, if you think any other military doesn't "enjoy" killing people in the same way Americans "enjoy" killing people, you're absolutely delusional. If a group of people perceives a second group of people as an immediate threat to their existence, they're going to get a kick out of killing them
You are an idiot. War is FUCKING SCARY. The only people who "enjoy" anything related to it, are ones who do not recognize it as a constant threat to their lives and to anything they love. US is unique in being the only country in recent couple of centuries that participated in most wars yet never was under a threat of invasion -- this is why so many Americans love war, military, killing foreigners, etc.
- just the same way that a group of athletes gets a rush from beating another team, or a group of Call of Duty players will get a kick out of beating the other team.
"Call of Duty" is a game. No one actually kills or dies while playing it, just like in any game from chess to Angry Birds, so people can treat otherwise violent images (knight jumps over things and kills a queen, birds launch themselves from slingshots at pigs, soldiers shoot at each other) as entertainment. Ask the same person to throw a real bird at a real pig, and see what his reaction is going to be.
It's called "competitive instinct", and it's inside of you too, whether you admit it to yourself or not.
Enjoying killing people has nothing to do with competition, and tendency to "compete" is vastly overblown in Americans due to their ideology praising hostility. In reality humans' tendency to compete and co-operate balance each other. It takes some serious threat for them to become openly hostile and violent, leave alone enjoy such condition.
My understanding of the argument is that this meant that because the USSR economy had to maintain a high war footing to keep up with US and NATO spending and developments (something like 30-35% of its industries compared to 20-25% of US industries),
That was not anywhere close to the official numbers. US "economists" believed that USSR is "hiding something" and produced ridiculously inflated estimates of military budget because they expected it to be somewhat similar to how US military spending works. US military-industrial complex was happy to see it because it justified US military spending, and actual state of USSR economy was of a purely academic interest.
other areas of social development suffered and gradually standards of living etc fell behind which led to political and social dissatisfaction, hence the downfall of the system.
I lived there, and my standard of living was higher than in US now (despite being an engineer in SF Bay Area). Shortages of luxury goods were far outweighed by over-developed by US standards urban infrastructure -- things like public transit, construction, etc. Moving from an individual home into apartment building was considered an upgrade, thanks to one of the better Khrushchev's ideas that resulted in constantly increasing quality of construction over 60's and 70's that ended up rebuilding whole cities. If anyone wonders what USSR built instead of a highway system, that was it -- all-concrete high-quality buildings with apartment rented at nominal rates to almost everyone.
In 70's-80's people were pissed at Communists for things other than quality of life -- censorship, maintaining overpaid elite in supposedly egalitarian workers' state, etc. Compared to US it was pretty tame, however in US politicians do not claim that they actually serve everyone, and work to develop a society based on fairness and respect for labor, so the contrast between their speeches and actions was greater.
I'd like to see some references on this please, I am genuinely interested.
I was there.
I was doing tiny pieces of undergraduate research in the 80s and the argument that the USSR was running out of money trying to keep up with the USA as was around then. So I am not sure that it is a 'retroactive' argument.
There were all kinds of "arguments" at all times. Another one was that USSR had all its R&D used in military industry, and would become a massive industrial powerhouse if only it was (by Communist Party's orders or by capitalism) freed for other uses. Yet another was that USSR had more than enough land suitable for agriculture, but was mismanaging it. Some believed that microscopic (on the scale of the country) amounts of labor and resources spent on maintaining relative luxury for Communist Party elite was depriving the rest of society of something. And, of course, every ethnicity other than Russian blamed Russians for "oppressing" them while Russian nationalists blamed everyone else for "draining Russia's resources" (and, of course, everyone blamed Jews for something, but that's a given).
All those things were evidently wrong, and since there was no way to gain anything politically in US from all those myths, the only one that is still being kept alive, is about money spent on defense. The reality was that only few percents of GDP was in anything military, so it could not possibly affect anything at the scale that was attributed to it.
Due to a conscript-based military, the issue of having large military in the first place was a constant thorn in the population's side, however economic impact of it was nowhere close to any of the ill-fated reforms that happened after USSR dissolution. If anything, the above mentioned Khrushchev's re-organization of industry and one-time economic projects had more negative impact than anything else, yet at the end of his tenure USSR economy was probably in the best shape ever.
Absolutely nothing in common.
No military threats. No invasions. No funding political enemies of the governments. No installing puppet governments. No destroying economies with subsidized imports. No control over local labor.
Just BUYING OIL AND BUILDING STUFF ABROAD. How dare they do it!
We're a hellova lot closer than we were 20 years ago.
We are pretty much exactlty where we were 20 years ago -- making one-shot hacks that by some miracle recognize something specific, or apply filtering known for decades to get vague similarities with simple, unstructured objects.
We already have vision systems that do a respectable job of watching crowds of people and picking out faces of suspects.
Machines are better than humans at recognizing faces in a crowd precisely because they use recognition mechanisms that are different from humans. Same difference causes all voice recognition software in phone answering systems to fail miserably when I talk to them, because I have an accent.
No, it's just you and other worthless pieces of shit who enjoy it. US military just happens to be full of those kind of people, and this is why everyone hates you.
Shipping containers are interesting in all sorts of cases like putting up a datacenter quickly in a warehouse in an industrial park anywhere in the world.
Shipping containers are useful for placing data center equipment where it otherwise does not belong, however it's foolish to think that they are actually efficient at anything. They have to contain built-in fans and air conditioners, so density and efficiency are lower than the same floor filled with racks. They need access to the airflow -- you can't just stack them or place next to each other. They need an outside electric panel. For a data center you still need giant UPSes and/or generators. And replacing equipment when you have to pull it from a container and carry it along rows of containers, is much more labor-intensive operation than it would be in a normal data center.
If you want to permanently convert a large warehouse into the data center, filling it with containers is probably the worst thing you can do. Making a steel frame with raised floors, conduits and air ducts attached to it, is cheap and consists of typical operations done in any industrial construction. Warehouse likely has enough space for construction equipment, so construction itself will likely take less time than building everything you need to power the insane amount of equipment you will stuff in that space.
And, of course, the cost of a large warehouse modified that way is a tiny part of the cost of operating a datacenter after it is built, so both the idea of using containers, and this "barn" are pure stupidity for a large, permanent installation.
The military also loves them because they can easily be transported by sea or cargo lifter.
Military would love anything if it is expensive enough, however I can see some legitimate uses for those things there.
One developer stomping on the changes another developer makes to a very large project is "extraordinarily idiotic?"
Yes. Make a bug once, shame on you. Make the same bug twice, you are probably George Bush with a compiler. Not that "the same bug" from a human's point of view will fail a test written to catch its previous incarnation.
I don't see why you think so, especially given that you're railing against one proven technique for keeping such extraordinary idiocy from happening. Commenting code will not prevent it. Well managed source control will not prevent it. Good communication will the rest of the team will not prevent it. A test suite will not prevent it. But between the four of them, you have a decent shot.
One of those things is more worthless than others.
Exactly! Which is why you don't want to have to be constantly context-switching back into a legacy project to fix the bugs that would be prevented by a test suite.
If it's a "legacy" project that is only being maintained with bug fixes, how the Hell you will get a regression due to multiple developers' conflicting changes?
You have not answered the question.
When China in any form was developing, or tried to develop "banana republics"? You are projecting US policies (that exist for no purpose other than supporting US big business) to other countries.
US has only a fraction of resources necessary to cover the amount of dollars circulating in world trade. Even less if US-owned "intellectual property" in China will become worthless. However the real disaster would happen if oil trade will switch to other currencies, as this is what backs most of the value of dollar, not inflated US stocks and real estate prices.
US dollar is only valuable because it's used for international trade. Mostly involving countries that are in no way friendly to US. The only reason why it still works, is because US does not mess with its currency when it is in hands of "enemies", so it is somewhat trusted. Once this trust is breached, dollars everywhere outside US will become worthless, and within US nearly worthless.
Uh, no. First, lets touch upon the literal version of the claim: "did the USSR run out of money". Yes. The USSR traded with other countries in the world not under the soviet system. They had an imbalance of payments and little to no holdings of foreign currency.
Military was not a part of this in any manner, and USSR debts were not affected by its dissolution, as Russia picked them. Economies of other ex-USSR countries didn't get any better as a result of it, either.
Second, lets consider the statement as euphemism for economic devastation in the USSR. This how this idea is usually meant, and its not usually not expressed simply as "they ran out of money".
I lived there, you idiot!
There was no "devastation", not even under the most economically inept Brezhnev's government, and not even under Khrushchev and his experiments.
The USSR initially built a lot of "guns" and a lot of "food". There population was growing, and they needed to produce more "food". Meanwhile, the cold-war induced them to need to produce more "guns" too. What they didn't produce very much of was tools; they under-invested in capital goods. What this meant over time was that they could not make as many things per-capita as the US could. The total pie was smaller in Russia, it was growing more slowly, and much more of it was focused on "guns".
The whole point of their system was that there is no "investment", government already owns all resources and only pays salaries. The only important thing is to keep a balance between consumer products and infrastructure development, as salary government pay to people will be spent on consumer goods that have to be available at the moment. There are no "capital expenses", just a need for simultaneous expansion. USSR economy was best when that balance was maintained, and worst when it was shifted (usually toward infrastructure).
Weapons are a tiny speck in this picture, and food was maintained through subsidies just like in US.
Counted by your friendly US economists in US prices.
How would it be relevant in the first place? The bulk of USSR economy was within USSR, international trade only mattered for things that could not be produced locally, and government made DAMN SURE, all military equipment was produced locally.
You would have a resemblance of a plausible scenario if you claimed that import of grain "destroyed" USSR, as 20th century population growth left it with shortage of land suitable for agriculture.
No country actually reached the point where it would matter. Submarines may be heavy all resources actually used for their productions are a tiny percentage of resources available.
And yet, anything of importance in US economy is dominated by giant monopolies that "won" competition through either being the first to reach large enough scale, or through latching onto a pre-existing monopoly.
Your "allies" would be just fine if you will also cancel the next worldwide economic crisis with it.
Additionally, China has quite a bit of interest in developing banana republics.
What the fuck are you talking about?
plus China has no interest in spreading their governmental model so there is no need for containment.
Neither did USSR, but that did not prevent US from convincing itself otherwise.
Now, excusing the obvious fact that you don't seem to know the difference between unsecured U.S. Treasury Bonds (debt sold to others) and Secured Debt (a house mortgage etc)
Real estate prices are mostly determined by the amount of debt sunk into real estate market, what is one step away from a Ponzi scheme, not to mention more mundane problems such as nearly zero liquidity every time a crisis hits. It's far worse than government's debt (and this is why no one wants to buy it).
And so does value of dollar. Then US would have literally nothing.
same reason the USSR lost to the US: they ran out of money.
How many times should it be pointed out that this is a myth that exists for the sole purpose of retroactively justifying Cold War and US military-industrial complex?
USSR did not have for-profit military contractors, it kept all production, including military one, in the hands of government. It couldn't run out of money even if it tried -- it didn't need to pay anything other than employees' salary, what was usually the same across all industries for the same type of work, and nothing astronomical by any measure.
Dissolution of USSR was a politically, not economically motivated move -- if anything, it had no effect on the economy from the moment of dissolution and until Russian version of Libertarians taken over (and provoked a massive economic crisis that lasted through 90's). American ideologues can take credit for inspiring those though -- in fact, spreading "free market" ideology is probably the most effective way Americans have to destroy other countries. Too bad, they have caught the disease they were spreading among their enemies.
Is Timothy working on some sort of special asshat merit badge or something?
It's probably xkcd Black Hat Guy merit hat.
Parachute, as opposed to birds' wings, can work in relatively low air pressure due to its enormous (relative to the weight) area.
Not necessarily. He can fix it and some other developer can un-fix it. Microsoft famously does this. Not frequently, but more often then they should.
Testing won't help with this, either. Not that Microsoft developers being able to do something extraordinarily idiotic is always a valid explanation for the same thing happening outside Microsoft.
Partly irrelevant. You're still paying the guy $X per hour to fix the bugs.
Developer is being paid regardless of what he is doing -- writing new code, documenting things, developing tests, fixing bugs or doing nothing waiting for something to happen (typical condition right before release when product is being beta-tested).
If he could do something else useful during that time, it's valid to say the time and money spent on fixing the bugs is saved (and spent on something else).
Software development does not work that way. People have to spent fixed (and significant) amount of time switching between unrelated projects, so effectiveness of developers working on multiple projects depends not as much on how much time they have to spend on projects but on how often they have to switch. Adding "something else" to overloaded developer is often the best way to bring development to a grinding halt.
So right after the money started to flow at them again, they went back to exactly the same behavior that gave us dotcom bubble.
I am expecting resurrection of flooz any minute.