I was forced to, because that's what they decided constituted an education. That doesn't mean I didn't understand what they were trying to teach, and couldn't evaluate its worth.
You can find many that will distance themselves from, say, keynesian style macroeconomics, but you'd be hard pressed to find one that's just like "macroeconomics? pft, that stuff is shit in the real world."
Considering that what I was taught was a bunch of limited, academic navel gazing, there are plenty who would say it was worthless shit in the real world. That doesn't mean the whole field is worthless, and maybe things have improved, but when I took it, something like 17 years ago, most of it was a worthless academic exercise. In fact, the same critique was mentioned in my textbook in a later chapter.
After the last crisis, you had economists saying we need yet another rethink and research on how things really work.
Just a relational database? As opposed to what, Oracle?
Yes, exactly. PostgreSQL is just playing catchup to the big, existing databases. They aren't driving innovation. That doesn't mean it isn't useful. It's typically behind on things like replication and other features.
The question was: "Seriously, when is the FOSS world going to take the lead on creating something cool for a change instead of rushing after the trend du jour ?"
Now I don't agree with that statement as a whole. I was just commenting on the specific examples given in the response.
There's Firefox, as already mentioned. And Linux. Ruby, and Rails. Apache. MySQL. PostgreSQL.
Firefox started out from old Netscape code, slashed and burned some features, and then copied ideas like tabs from other browsers. Still, at least it was an advancement past the ubiquitous IE6 of the time, so +1.
Linux was just a Unix clone. I can't think of any area where it stood out as driving innovation. If anything, it is often behind the curve and playing catchup.
Ruby/Rails: +1
Apache: +1
MySQL: Just a dumbed down version of a relational database.
PostgreSQL: Just a relational database, and usually behind the heavy-hitters in terms of features. Mainly notable for at least being competitive with the big, commercial databases.
I wish I had taken an economics course in college.
I did, and you didn't miss much. Unfortunately, most of it involved a bunch of formulas that are only true when everybody acts completely rationally and don't take into account feedback at all. It was just an academic exercise.
The basic idea of supply and demand is the most fundamental thing you can learn about economies, and just about anybody can understand it.
Perhaps you've never heard of "conspiracy to..." There's a difference between engaging in fantasy, and coming up with specific, actionable plans. Apple is a for-profit company and doesn't produce patents for kicks.
You're not going to solve any problems by "dropping a grand" on a bogus solution. All you're going to do is line somebody else's pocket.
Since we know what the problems are already (the mining and deflation, leading to a pyramid scheme with eventual collapse), come up with a version that doesn't suck.
For that matter, do we really need another round of people who don't like company X attacking company X for filing a patent on something they object to, pretending not to understand that tech companies never implement 90% of what they patent?
Why are you apologizing for objectionable behavior? If I drew up 10 objectionable plans, and only implemented 1 of them, does that excuse the other 9 somehow? Here's an idea: Don't draw up the objectionable plan in the first place. If you do, expect some grief over it.
Wouldn't killing yourself be akin to repudiating your right to life? As such, killing yourself is counter to the right to life.
It's like having a right to personal property. You can choose to give it away, but having it taken away by others without consent and due process is against the law.
I find it hard to believe how much vitriol geeks are showing for a major step forward in currency technology.
I think cryptography and peer-to-peer based currency is moving in the right direction. However, the Bitcoin system, in particular the "mining" aspect of a limited set of worthless numbers, is not the right answer.
You'd really prefer to stick with central bank currencies where the banks can instantiate money out of thin air whenever they please?
I think the current solution is better than Bitcoins, yes.
You honesty think that's a better solution? Have you not noticed the trouble it has gotten us into?
There's no guarantee Bitcoins would function any better. Besides, the current solution hasn't exactly been a failure. For the most part, it works.
Nothing has any economic value except what people give it. Bitcoins are no different from gold, from apples, or anything else.
In some theoretical sense true, in the practical sense, hogwash. People have common desires like the need for food and shelter, apples are generally tasty and nutritious, and gold at least makes pretty jewelry and has some industrial usages. Bitcoin just wastes electricity and CPU cycles.
People who got in early will gain. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the same as if I'd bought shares in Amazon when they were still running out of a garage.
Amazon sells things of value. This just turns electricity into heat and produces nothing of value. It's only value is based on Ponzi scheme psychology.
Someone must be getting paid for all of these bitcoin ads that are showing up as "stories"
Considering that 4/5 of the related Bitcoint stories are posted by timothy, and this one as well, I'd say he has a vested interest in peddling this crap.
Come on. The Bell corruption case isn't even on any serious person's radar.
You keep on moving the goalposts. First of all, note the title of the article: "The Internet Is Killing Local News, Says the FCC"
The question was would people pay for quality local papers. You claimed that papers can't address political corruption. I bring up the Bell example, and you talk about Weiner. I call you on that, and then you claim it's only big or national corruption that counts, despite the topic being local newspapers.
Have you looked at the financial barriers to entry for a solid legal representation?
I guess you never heard of small claims court, or lawyers taking on court cases pro bono, or lawyers taking on cases based on a percentage of payout instead of an hourly fee.
You made a claim that there's no citizen justice implemented at any level, but it's just bullshit hyperbole. You only point out the problems, but ignore all the successes. The world you paint is something out of Sin City, but the reality is far different, even if it's far from perfect.
It always amazes me when I show Pac-man to various people and they "It's too hard." And yet here's an AI that can apparently beat it..... what does that say about my friends and coworkers?
I'm not talking about the idiot pap about Weiner, et al.
I explicitly mentioned the Bell corruption case, as exposed by the LA Times. It's disingenuous of you to ignore that and talk about Weiner instead.
I'm talking about the corruption of the entire system; the two party lock-in
That's the subject of an editorial page, not a news item. I think everybody knows we have a two-party system. The point is that political corruption is covered -- your blanket statement that it isn't is bullshit. Now you're just backpedaling and moving the goalposts.
The legal system is massively corrupt at the foundation, and this is reflected at every level thereafter. The fact that you don't see it just indicates you're poorly informed. You've been led to the water. You have but to drink.
You made a blanket statement that "the legal system has devolved to corporate and moneyed-group serving process, and no longer even pretends to implement justice for the citizens at any level".
But that's just bullshit. All you have to do is look at the court cases that occur on any given day. Are you seriously going to claim that ordinary citizens are not getting justice at any level? It's just bullshit hyperbole by somebody who only sees what's wrong in the world.
So they can't honestly address political corruption
Nonsense. Political corruption is the bread and butter of media because it sells. As noted in the first linked article, the LA Times investigated and broke the Bell corruption story.
the fact that the legal system has devolved to corporate and moneyed-group serving process, and no longer even pretends to implement justice for the citizens at any level
Bullshit. While there's corporate influence and corruption, it's not like ordinary citizens don't benefit from the justice system every day. It's not all doom and gloom as you make it out to be. Get some perspective and cut back on the screechy rants if you want to take the high road of honesty and justice.
Palin never had the power to win new converts to his side.
That's just not true. There was a huge swing in the polls after her coming out party. Initially, she had a lot of converts going to McCain with her plain-spoken, soccer-mom-with-attitude, and MILF appearance.
Then came the media scrutiny and flops, and she lost the independents.
I think you're right, in that traditional fractional reserve banking can be done with bitcoins, but there's something off about the way the modern banks create money. It's mentioned in the Wikipedia article on fractional reserve banking. Emphasis mine:
"Though not a mainstream economic belief, a number of central bankers, monetary economists, and text books, have said that banks create money by 'extending credit', where banks obligate themselves to borrowers, and then later manage whatever liabilities this creates for them, where if the central bank targets interest rates, it must supply base money on demand to meet the banks reserve requirements, after the banks have begun the lending process[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] and that rather than deposits leading to loans, causality is reversed, and loans lead to deposits.[18][19][20][21] (Howells P, Page 33)."
So where does Obama fit in? Everyone in DC says he is the smartest guy who ever sat in the comfy chair. Is he? I haven't seen the slightest evidence of it in his (not his speechwriters) words or in his deeds.
He handled himself just fine on the live health care debate with the Republicans (who were busy screaming "It's a trap!" before the event). He takes questions and can speak on issues coherently off the cuff. The idea that's he's just some "below average shlub" is ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
You just regurgitated information.
I was forced to, because that's what they decided constituted an education. That doesn't mean I didn't understand what they were trying to teach, and couldn't evaluate its worth.
You can find many that will distance themselves from, say, keynesian style macroeconomics, but you'd be hard pressed to find one that's just like "macroeconomics? pft, that stuff is shit in the real world."
Considering that what I was taught was a bunch of limited, academic navel gazing, there are plenty who would say it was worthless shit in the real world. That doesn't mean the whole field is worthless, and maybe things have improved, but when I took it, something like 17 years ago, most of it was a worthless academic exercise. In fact, the same critique was mentioned in my textbook in a later chapter.
After the last crisis, you had economists saying we need yet another rethink and research on how things really work.
Just a relational database? As opposed to what, Oracle?
Yes, exactly. PostgreSQL is just playing catchup to the big, existing databases. They aren't driving innovation. That doesn't mean it isn't useful. It's typically behind on things like replication and other features.
The question was: "Seriously, when is the FOSS world going to take the lead on creating something cool for a change instead of rushing after the trend du jour ?"
Now I don't agree with that statement as a whole. I was just commenting on the specific examples given in the response.
You do know that PostgreSQL drives the .ORG domain root, right?
So? How does that contradict what I said?
I was talking about macroeconomics. The basic formulas for supply and demand are fine.
Macroeconomics claims to model bigger things, yet most of the formulas I was indeed forced to regurgitate were just not useful in the real world.
This opinion is also held by many mainstream economist. In fact, it seems to become popular again after every major crisis.
It's just an invention that they are making a legal claim of ownership of.
They do this so that they may at some point make use of it. They made decide not to. The fact that they see potential in it is the problem.
Yet another apologist.
There's Firefox, as already mentioned. And Linux. Ruby, and Rails. Apache. MySQL. PostgreSQL.
Firefox started out from old Netscape code, slashed and burned some features, and then copied ideas like tabs from other browsers. Still, at least it was an advancement past the ubiquitous IE6 of the time, so +1.
Linux was just a Unix clone. I can't think of any area where it stood out as driving innovation. If anything, it is often behind the curve and playing catchup.
Ruby/Rails: +1
Apache: +1
MySQL: Just a dumbed down version of a relational database.
PostgreSQL: Just a relational database, and usually behind the heavy-hitters in terms of features. Mainly notable for at least being competitive with the big, commercial databases.
I wish I had taken an economics course in college.
I did, and you didn't miss much. Unfortunately, most of it involved a bunch of formulas that are only true when everybody acts completely rationally and don't take into account feedback at all. It was just an academic exercise.
The basic idea of supply and demand is the most fundamental thing you can learn about economies, and just about anybody can understand it.
Perhaps you've never heard of "conspiracy to..." There's a difference between engaging in fantasy, and coming up with specific, actionable plans. Apple is a for-profit company and doesn't produce patents for kicks.
Yet another apologist.
Drop a grand. Expect to get burnt.
You're not going to solve any problems by "dropping a grand" on a bogus solution. All you're going to do is line somebody else's pocket.
Since we know what the problems are already (the mining and deflation, leading to a pyramid scheme with eventual collapse), come up with a version that doesn't suck.
For that matter, do we really need another round of people who don't like company X attacking company X for filing a patent on something they object to, pretending not to understand that tech companies never implement 90% of what they patent?
Why are you apologizing for objectionable behavior? If I drew up 10 objectionable plans, and only implemented 1 of them, does that excuse the other 9 somehow? Here's an idea: Don't draw up the objectionable plan in the first place. If you do, expect some grief over it.
even on Earth life has only existed for a very short time.
You've got this basic fact wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution
According to the above, life has existed for 3.8/4.5 billion years on Earth.
Wouldn't killing yourself be akin to repudiating your right to life? As such, killing yourself is counter to the right to life.
It's like having a right to personal property. You can choose to give it away, but having it taken away by others without consent and due process is against the law.
I find it hard to believe how much vitriol geeks are showing for a major step forward in currency technology.
I think cryptography and peer-to-peer based currency is moving in the right direction. However, the Bitcoin system, in particular the "mining" aspect of a limited set of worthless numbers, is not the right answer.
You'd really prefer to stick with central bank currencies where the banks can instantiate money out of thin air whenever they please?
I think the current solution is better than Bitcoins, yes.
You honesty think that's a better solution? Have you not noticed the trouble it has gotten us into?
There's no guarantee Bitcoins would function any better. Besides, the current solution hasn't exactly been a failure. For the most part, it works.
Nothing has any economic value except what people give it. Bitcoins are no different from gold, from apples, or anything else.
In some theoretical sense true, in the practical sense, hogwash. People have common desires like the need for food and shelter, apples are generally tasty and nutritious, and gold at least makes pretty jewelry and has some industrial usages. Bitcoin just wastes electricity and CPU cycles.
People who got in early will gain. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the same as if I'd bought shares in Amazon when they were still running out of a garage.
Amazon sells things of value. This just turns electricity into heat and produces nothing of value. It's only value is based on Ponzi scheme psychology.
Someone must be getting paid for all of these bitcoin ads that are showing up as "stories"
Considering that 4/5 of the related Bitcoint stories are posted by timothy, and this one as well, I'd say he has a vested interest in peddling this crap.
Robert Martin, affectionately known as "Uncle Bob" to many people.
Ugh.
Come on. The Bell corruption case isn't even on any serious person's radar.
You keep on moving the goalposts. First of all, note the title of the article: "The Internet Is Killing Local News, Says the FCC"
The question was would people pay for quality local papers. You claimed that papers can't address political corruption. I bring up the Bell example, and you talk about Weiner. I call you on that, and then you claim it's only big or national corruption that counts, despite the topic being local newspapers.
Have you looked at the financial barriers to entry for a solid legal representation?
I guess you never heard of small claims court, or lawyers taking on court cases pro bono, or lawyers taking on cases based on a percentage of payout instead of an hourly fee.
You made a claim that there's no citizen justice implemented at any level, but it's just bullshit hyperbole. You only point out the problems, but ignore all the successes. The world you paint is something out of Sin City, but the reality is far different, even if it's far from perfect.
No more replies from me.
It always amazes me when I show Pac-man to various people and they "It's too hard." And yet here's an AI that can apparently beat it..... what does that say about my friends and coworkers?
What does this dumb comment say about you?
So where is my classic slashdot then?
It's in your preferences. Try turning it on.
Granted, with every update they slightly break it further and further, but it's still usable and better than the new interface.
I'm not talking about the idiot pap about Weiner, et al.
I explicitly mentioned the Bell corruption case, as exposed by the LA Times. It's disingenuous of you to ignore that and talk about Weiner instead.
I'm talking about the corruption of the entire system; the two party lock-in
That's the subject of an editorial page, not a news item. I think everybody knows we have a two-party system. The point is that political corruption is covered -- your blanket statement that it isn't is bullshit. Now you're just backpedaling and moving the goalposts.
The legal system is massively corrupt at the foundation, and this is reflected at every level thereafter. The fact that you don't see it just indicates you're poorly informed. You've been led to the water. You have but to drink.
You made a blanket statement that "the legal system has devolved to corporate and moneyed-group serving process, and no longer even pretends to implement justice for the citizens at any level".
But that's just bullshit. All you have to do is look at the court cases that occur on any given day. Are you seriously going to claim that ordinary citizens are not getting justice at any level? It's just bullshit hyperbole by somebody who only sees what's wrong in the world.
So they can't honestly address political corruption
Nonsense. Political corruption is the bread and butter of media because it sells. As noted in the first linked article, the LA Times investigated and broke the Bell corruption story.
the fact that the legal system has devolved to corporate and moneyed-group serving process, and no longer even pretends to implement justice for the citizens at any level
Bullshit. While there's corporate influence and corruption, it's not like ordinary citizens don't benefit from the justice system every day. It's not all doom and gloom as you make it out to be. Get some perspective and cut back on the screechy rants if you want to take the high road of honesty and justice.
Palin never had the power to win new converts to his side.
That's just not true. There was a huge swing in the polls after her coming out party. Initially, she had a lot of converts going to McCain with her plain-spoken, soccer-mom-with-attitude, and MILF appearance.
Then came the media scrutiny and flops, and she lost the independents.
I think you're right, in that traditional fractional reserve banking can be done with bitcoins, but there's something off about the way the modern banks create money. It's mentioned in the Wikipedia article on fractional reserve banking. Emphasis mine:
"Though not a mainstream economic belief, a number of central bankers, monetary economists, and text books, have said that banks create money by 'extending credit', where banks obligate themselves to borrowers, and then later manage whatever liabilities this creates for them, where if the central bank targets interest rates, it must supply base money on demand to meet the banks reserve requirements, after the banks have begun the lending process[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] and that rather than deposits leading to loans, causality is reversed, and loans lead to deposits.[18][19][20][21] (Howells P, Page 33)."
So where does Obama fit in? Everyone in DC says he is the smartest guy who ever sat in the comfy chair. Is he? I haven't seen the slightest evidence of it in his (not his speechwriters) words or in his deeds.
He handled himself just fine on the live health care debate with the Republicans (who were busy screaming "It's a trap!" before the event). He takes questions and can speak on issues coherently off the cuff. The idea that's he's just some "below average shlub" is ridiculous.