"history in industrialized age proves you wrong, paper currencies quickly inflate and go to zero in value while gold at least performs as holding store of value"
What are you comparing here? Are you looking at all the factors, or just taking a random sampling of countries with fiat currency and those without, ignoring all other conditions, and trying to make a blanket statement? Sure, Zimbabwe inflated into nothing, but the country is not run well at all. The people wouldn't have gold there either.
Why does it matter that a dollar in 1929 doesn't equal a dollar now? All you are doing is ranting semi-coherently without making an actual argument for anything.
In any case, gold isn't magical. It's shiny and it's not particularly useful for anything besides decoration and some electronics applications, and it is rare, but not too rare. It's a convenient currency when you can't do anything better. It is not immune to inflation or deflation, nor does it magically stabilize society. What keeps things stable is an economy that works and produces real wealth, be it measured in ounces of gold or fiat currency.
First of all, many civilizations have used all sorts of commodities as currency, from conch shells to salt, to silver and gold. Secondly, most civilizations and economies fail after a few centuries (if they are lucky), so your statistic doesn't mean much. Thirdly, most civilizations haven't existed in modern capitalist economies with the sort of political and economic stability we've seen in the post-war years. Comparing, say, Rome during its crises to the US now shows only naivete. It is not a valid comparison. And finally, correlation is not causation, and the fact that some countries have had problems with fiat currency does not mean that fiat currency is bad. It has some slightly different properties from currency backed by metals, which do make a difference, but I've seen no evidence that there's anything inherently wrong with fiat currency, or that, at the end of the day, it's really any different from non-fiat currency. Finally finally, the goldbugs seem to forget that in the past 60 years, we've had recessions, some of them bad, but nothing like the panics and depressions we had in the 19th and early 20th century when we were on...wait for it...the gold standard. That's not to say that the gold standard *caused* those, but rather that the gold standard doesn't magically make an economy stable (some would argue, in fact, that it does the opposite, since the money supply can't grow with the economy and you get deflation and hoarding).
No intrinsic value as money. Of course everything probably has some intrinsic value, even the paper that badly run fiat currency is printed on. However, that's nearly entirely irrelevant to the discussion about what to use for currency.
More like a tad full of shit. You can rattle off anecdotes about those hippie-dippie liberals who can't hold down a job or keep track of their money, and I can probably rattle off a longer list of liberal friends of money who do an amazing job of managing money or even starting and running business, while I have a list of conservative friends and acquaintances who are only a few steps away from being in the poverty line. Some people are responsible and some aren't, and it has little to nothing to do with broad political affiliations.
You claim to be an independent, but almost everything in your post is a talking point from the Fox News crowd. We have the myth that liberals like to blame other people for everything, that they can't manage money, that they don't have jobs, and that conservatives really *understand* economics, even though they propose ridiculous ideas like flat taxes and trickle-down, and believe that the Laffer Curve is a valid model to be used for serious tax and policy decisions.
No, you aren't a hypocrite. You're just another conservatard drone who is too chicken to admit it.
So boycotts and embargoes are off the table, because they might oppress bigots. Got it. So these people are allowed to spew hate, but if anyone says "I don't want to be associated with that", they are now oppressing the hater?
Sorry, but there are consequences to speech and behavior and these consequences are not oppression.
x86 does this just fine. It didn't before 286 (well, really 386) and Windows before NT didn't bother with proper memory protection. I can assure you that it does now. The problem with drivers and memory access is entirely to do with the choice on the part of the NT kernel design to let drivers run in kernel space with full access to kernel memory. They could have just as well put them in ring 1 or even ring 3 with limited memory access, but there's a performance cost that, at the time, wasn't acceptable. Now MS is actually moving towards having more drivers or parts of drivers in userspace. A lot of the graphics driver stack now runs in userspace, so a crash there doesn't lead to a BSOD or freeze. The driver is restarted, the screen flickers, and life goes on.
It's not censorship. They are exercising their right to express their own views by not supporting a bigot. Why is it okay for Card to spout this crap but it's not okay for people saying they don't want to be associated with it?
And the barbarians, and the sheer size of the empire, and the rise of Christianity, and and and. But no, let's use modern capitalist economic theory and try to apply that to a non-market economy based on slave labor and imperial exploitation and say that that is the sole and primary reason for the several century long decline in the empire. Yes, that makes total sense.
That's only a massive oversimplification of the decline of Rome.
Re:Review Ruby for the perl enthusiast please
on
Ruby 2.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Fair enough. Java still otherwise wants to follow the everything is an object model. The primitives do stick out like a sore thumb, you are right. Thankfully,.NET fixed this problem.
Re:Review Ruby for the perl enthusiast please
on
Ruby 2.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 0
And every primitive has a class version, to which the primitives are automatically boxed when they need to be treated like objects. There are only a few places where the distinction matters at all (arguments by value being the chief of these).
Re:Review Ruby for the perl enthusiast please
on
Ruby 2.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 0
Java also sports the "everything is an object" mentality. If you were going to make a point about that model, you should have picked a better example.
And anyway, in Perl everything is still an object. Do you think the variables are actually stored like they are in C? No, they have scope and reference counting info. They are objects. Don't talk about performance and Perl in the same sentence.
Here's an example of where the rule that prepositions shouldn't go at the end makes a sentence more awkward rather than less. Now you have this awful "about to whom" pile-up. Instead, you could write: "you don't have to worry about who that company may give that pile of bits to".
That article completely misses the point of why we use terms like "denier". The deniers are not people who having legitimate qualms with the theories and data behind AGW. Those are skeptics and those are fine to have and indeed important in the scientific process. The deniers are the people who *know* that AGW is wrong, or believe that it has to be wrong because the consequences are antithetical to their worldview (e.g., the idea that there could actually be downsides to American capitalism and industry) or for some other reason that has nothing to do with the science. That's denialism. These people would never be convinced by any amount of evidence in favor of AGW. They don't even care. As such, they are correctly labelled deniers.
Now, perhaps some AGW fans are too broad with their use of the term, and perhaps some of them forget their own equivalents -- those people who just *know* AGW is right because capitalism is evil, facts or no facts. And that's a sad truth. That doesn't diminish or destroy the usefulness or correctness of the term "denier".
That's all fine and dandy if your GUI is fairly linear, but if you need to be able to interact with it while it is doing those long running tasks, then you will need threads. I've seen plenty of programs that don't use threads (or don't use them properly) and parts of the GUI are unnecessarily frozen while you wait for some task that could just as well be done in the background to finish.
I think I'm going to go with the documentation on XNU and the guy who just did a year of research on kernel memory allocation over some 7 digit Slashdot weirdo whose only reasoning is "marketing fluff".
Nearly everything you said is wrong. You can use old shell scripts if you want (and some distros do just this), I've never seen it crash, it doesn't have to have anything to do with the DE and configuration is blindingly simple, unlike SysV, which I guess doesn't really have any standard configuration (and thus is, in fact, extremely obscure).
Yes, and then when we screw it up, we'll need massive volcanoes to keep the poles cool while people live in squalor for a thousand years. Not what I'd like to see.
Slashdot Mirror
"history in industrialized age proves you wrong, paper currencies quickly inflate and go to zero in value while gold at least performs as holding store of value"
What are you comparing here? Are you looking at all the factors, or just taking a random sampling of countries with fiat currency and those without, ignoring all other conditions, and trying to make a blanket statement? Sure, Zimbabwe inflated into nothing, but the country is not run well at all. The people wouldn't have gold there either.
Why does it matter that a dollar in 1929 doesn't equal a dollar now? All you are doing is ranting semi-coherently without making an actual argument for anything.
In any case, gold isn't magical. It's shiny and it's not particularly useful for anything besides decoration and some electronics applications, and it is rare, but not too rare. It's a convenient currency when you can't do anything better. It is not immune to inflation or deflation, nor does it magically stabilize society. What keeps things stable is an economy that works and produces real wealth, be it measured in ounces of gold or fiat currency.
First of all, many civilizations have used all sorts of commodities as currency, from conch shells to salt, to silver and gold. Secondly, most civilizations and economies fail after a few centuries (if they are lucky), so your statistic doesn't mean much. Thirdly, most civilizations haven't existed in modern capitalist economies with the sort of political and economic stability we've seen in the post-war years. Comparing, say, Rome during its crises to the US now shows only naivete. It is not a valid comparison. And finally, correlation is not causation, and the fact that some countries have had problems with fiat currency does not mean that fiat currency is bad. It has some slightly different properties from currency backed by metals, which do make a difference, but I've seen no evidence that there's anything inherently wrong with fiat currency, or that, at the end of the day, it's really any different from non-fiat currency. Finally finally, the goldbugs seem to forget that in the past 60 years, we've had recessions, some of them bad, but nothing like the panics and depressions we had in the 19th and early 20th century when we were on...wait for it...the gold standard. That's not to say that the gold standard *caused* those, but rather that the gold standard doesn't magically make an economy stable (some would argue, in fact, that it does the opposite, since the money supply can't grow with the economy and you get deflation and hoarding).
No intrinsic value as money. Of course everything probably has some intrinsic value, even the paper that badly run fiat currency is printed on. However, that's nearly entirely irrelevant to the discussion about what to use for currency.
More like a tad full of shit. You can rattle off anecdotes about those hippie-dippie liberals who can't hold down a job or keep track of their money, and I can probably rattle off a longer list of liberal friends of money who do an amazing job of managing money or even starting and running business, while I have a list of conservative friends and acquaintances who are only a few steps away from being in the poverty line. Some people are responsible and some aren't, and it has little to nothing to do with broad political affiliations.
You claim to be an independent, but almost everything in your post is a talking point from the Fox News crowd. We have the myth that liberals like to blame other people for everything, that they can't manage money, that they don't have jobs, and that conservatives really *understand* economics, even though they propose ridiculous ideas like flat taxes and trickle-down, and believe that the Laffer Curve is a valid model to be used for serious tax and policy decisions.
No, you aren't a hypocrite. You're just another conservatard drone who is too chicken to admit it.
Gold doesn't have intrinsic value. Where do you people come up with this crap?
So boycotts and embargoes are off the table, because they might oppress bigots. Got it. So these people are allowed to spew hate, but if anyone says "I don't want to be associated with that", they are now oppressing the hater?
Sorry, but there are consequences to speech and behavior and these consequences are not oppression.
x86 does this just fine. It didn't before 286 (well, really 386) and Windows before NT didn't bother with proper memory protection. I can assure you that it does now. The problem with drivers and memory access is entirely to do with the choice on the part of the NT kernel design to let drivers run in kernel space with full access to kernel memory. They could have just as well put them in ring 1 or even ring 3 with limited memory access, but there's a performance cost that, at the time, wasn't acceptable. Now MS is actually moving towards having more drivers or parts of drivers in userspace. A lot of the graphics driver stack now runs in userspace, so a crash there doesn't lead to a BSOD or freeze. The driver is restarted, the screen flickers, and life goes on.
It's not censorship. They are exercising their right to express their own views by not supporting a bigot. Why is it okay for Card to spout this crap but it's not okay for people saying they don't want to be associated with it?
And the barbarians, and the sheer size of the empire, and the rise of Christianity, and and and. But no, let's use modern capitalist economic theory and try to apply that to a non-market economy based on slave labor and imperial exploitation and say that that is the sole and primary reason for the several century long decline in the empire. Yes, that makes total sense.
That's only a massive oversimplification of the decline of Rome.
Fair enough. Java still otherwise wants to follow the everything is an object model. The primitives do stick out like a sore thumb, you are right. Thankfully, .NET fixed this problem.
And every primitive has a class version, to which the primitives are automatically boxed when they need to be treated like objects. There are only a few places where the distinction matters at all (arguments by value being the chief of these).
Java also sports the "everything is an object" mentality. If you were going to make a point about that model, you should have picked a better example.
And anyway, in Perl everything is still an object. Do you think the variables are actually stored like they are in C? No, they have scope and reference counting info. They are objects. Don't talk about performance and Perl in the same sentence.
They're just pandering to the reddit crowd.
Here's an example of where the rule that prepositions shouldn't go at the end makes a sentence more awkward rather than less. Now you have this awful "about to whom" pile-up. Instead, you could write: "you don't have to worry about who that company may give that pile of bits to".
That article completely misses the point of why we use terms like "denier". The deniers are not people who having legitimate qualms with the theories and data behind AGW. Those are skeptics and those are fine to have and indeed important in the scientific process. The deniers are the people who *know* that AGW is wrong, or believe that it has to be wrong because the consequences are antithetical to their worldview (e.g., the idea that there could actually be downsides to American capitalism and industry) or for some other reason that has nothing to do with the science. That's denialism. These people would never be convinced by any amount of evidence in favor of AGW. They don't even care. As such, they are correctly labelled deniers.
Now, perhaps some AGW fans are too broad with their use of the term, and perhaps some of them forget their own equivalents -- those people who just *know* AGW is right because capitalism is evil, facts or no facts. And that's a sad truth. That doesn't diminish or destroy the usefulness or correctness of the term "denier".
That's all fine and dandy if your GUI is fairly linear, but if you need to be able to interact with it while it is doing those long running tasks, then you will need threads. I've seen plenty of programs that don't use threads (or don't use them properly) and parts of the GUI are unnecessarily frozen while you wait for some task that could just as well be done in the background to finish.
I think I responded to the wrong comment.
Basic theory of computation. It's not even grad level.
The GUI will not be responsive if you are doing a blocking I/O call from the UI task. This is not debatable.
I think I'm going to go with the documentation on XNU and the guy who just did a year of research on kernel memory allocation over some 7 digit Slashdot weirdo whose only reasoning is "marketing fluff".
Nearly everything you said is wrong. You can use old shell scripts if you want (and some distros do just this), I've never seen it crash, it doesn't have to have anything to do with the DE and configuration is blindingly simple, unlike SysV, which I guess doesn't really have any standard configuration (and thus is, in fact, extremely obscure).
What people use who don't have time to futz around with overcomplicated terminal readers and have real work to get done.
Yes, and then when we screw it up, we'll need massive volcanoes to keep the poles cool while people live in squalor for a thousand years. Not what I'd like to see.