Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Waaaahhhhh!! (Score 2) 681

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.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 684

The problem with equating the living conditions in traveling to Mars/living on Mars with the Age of Sail is that in the Age of Sail, the environment was not inimical to human life.

Yes, life on a sailing vessel was difficult. Cramped quarters, problems with diet and nutrition, and so on.

But you could breathe. You could step out on the deck of the ship for fresh air (relatively speaking). You can't do that on a space capsule.

You could catch fish, or land on an island to forage to supplement your diet. You can't do that when the nearest land mass is millions of kilometers away.

There are going to be a substantial number of problems to overcome regarding any sort of long-term survival on Mars.

Comment Re:Is this proportional to the number of systems? (Score 1) 47

I know a guy who works for the local university IT department, and at the beginning of every semester, there's the hassle of ensuring minimum security/virus protection protocols on all the new computers and laptops (and probably tablets too) that students bring to campus.

You'd be surprised by the number of students who get a case of the chapped ass over installing the mandated virus protection before using the university's network.

Comment Re:Ideology not reality ... (Score 1, Interesting) 157

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.)

Comment Re:Ideology not reality ... (Score 1) 157

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.

Comment Re:Just a question (Score 4, Insightful) 389

Yeah, I can't possibly figure out why we would want to do anything for a people that were systematically killed, evicted off their lands, repeatedly lied to by the government, repeatedly had treaties broken by the government, kept from practicing their religion, had their kids taken away, had their sacred lands taken away for mining if anything valuable was found on those lands, shoved onto reservations (which could also be taken away if anything valuable was found there), and treated as inferior in every way.

Gosh, it's almost like we realized we were giant assholes to a particular group of people for a few centuries and feel bad about it.

Comment Re:Hmmm. (Score 2) 410

But if Reddit (or any other site) bans a topic of conversation, they are not infringing on your free speech rights. You're still free to say it. Just not there.

You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to force others to listen.

Furthermore, most sites have a "terms of use" agreement for people who post comments. If you agree to those terms of use, you are inherently accepting any limitations in those terms of use, and can't reasonably claim that they're denying you freedom of speech if they mute/ban you if you breach those terms.

Reddit is not required to give you a forum for something they don't want on there.

Comment Re: So the good questions were ignored. (Score 4, Insightful) 557

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.

Comment Re:Journalism (Score 1) 210

Actually, depending on the content of the article and the work-relationship with the paper, the writer of an article can be sued. Also, if you're writing for a newspaper that has any sort of real coverage (not some local market shopper or low circulation paper), then a lot of those articles... especially the ones that might jump-start a lawsuit are vetted, edited and checked multiple times.

Mind you, if they're just repeating something off of the AP wire, then that tends to pass the buck back up the food chain.

Letters to the editor skip past this with the "The views expressed in these letters are not the views of this paper" boilerplate.

As for why these reviewers could get sued. Well, it's the U.S. You can initiate a lawsuit against practically anyone for practically any reason. Actually winning the lawsuit can be a lot trickier, though.

Also, a lot of these review sites, especially ones like Yelp, typically contain some legal boilerplate saying that the reviewer is the one responsible for the content of their review, you have to be honest about it, etc.

So, if these are fake reviews (the reviewer never actually used the business in question), and are just badmouthing the business to be jerks... well, that's actionable.

"From there to here, from here to there, funny things are everywhere." -- Dr. Seuss