Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do (Score 1) 244

You were implying that Adam Smith's writings aren't relevant to today

I don't believe I made that implication at all. Relevant to late 1700s US? Not very much.

So, according to those criteria, quantum mechanics, psychology, neuroscience, and much of modern engineering is also pseudo-science?

psychology - yes. Neuroscience is still arguably in its infancy, and much of modern engineering is applied science. Quantum Mechanics is the one case I'd considered addressing previously, as it is the one obvious hard scientific field that we're still massively struggling to come to grips with.

There is actually much less disagreement about economics than you think. And the fact that people like you find it utterly confusing is no more a sign of a failure of economics than people seeing faces and pyramids on Mars is a sign of a failure of astronomy.

Who says its confusing? It's a fact you cannot predict the future, which most practitioners assert they can. IMNSHO, the best you can do is attempt to see trends, and much like the stock market, you'll be just as accurate. Where is the huge trickle-down economic enrichment? We've seen just the opposite. Where is the communistic ideal? Every communistic society is failing or has failed. Economics apparently has failed to provide the path to global enrichment everyone says they want. Or, looked at another way, everyone has gambled to be the top 1% in those scenarios at the cost of the rest. I'd just make the simple statement that the economic models and theories are universally flawed, as none have proven accurate in real life. Given the scope of the model necessary, I'd say that it will likely be beyond our capacity to model accurately until we no longer need to model it. And I'd still say there's significant disagreement within the field of economics, and that the laissez faire viewpoint would initially enrich a small segment of business owners at the cost of everyone else except the lowest classes in the world (an admittedly huge percentage) as wage and price equilibrium is reached. But this would only happen in a perfect world where every country has the same policy. The current free trade policies are a similar process, draining jobs and money out of the US, and it will continue for the foreseeable future. If congress had balls, they'd slap a general tax on all transactions, including at the border, to make up for the lost revenue but that's yet another conversation.

Comment Re: These companies keep giving us reasons (Score 1) 384

A core that is changeable by an outside entity at that entity's will is not what I'd call stable and certainly not one I control. Currently, that's exactly what all flavors of Win10 have in common. I can't think of a single thing I'd use it for, much like I have no use for XBox games because I don't own an xbox, I'll have no use for Windows software as I won't own a windows box. Being personally MS free for the last 5 years has left me with no desire to dive back into that mess for any reason. Linux, OSX and BSD have served any need I have. Corporations aren't as tied to MS as they may think they are, if they'd just stop to think about it for a few minutes. IBM appears to be wholesale dumping MS. I wonder if it's a coincidence that the announcement came right before the revelations of Win10s forced update mechanism. There's also the Lenovo stupid pet tricks with BIOS etc.

Comment Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do (Score 1) 244

Who isn't aware of the East India Company? That still didn't stop someone from making chairs, saddles, bridles, wheels, carts, tools, clothes, etc, right here in the US, or the colonies as it were at the time. Recall what the topic is - it was the existence of monopolies and barrier to entry in the 1776-1790 time period, in the US. I hold that there was very very little of either at that time for the US. The East India Company was irrelevant to the US at the time, as Britain was in some state of war until the end of 1814. Your statements hold for Europe, but that's not the context in question. Europe's been in a bad state for a far longer period, and was the basis for Smith's criticisms. This was about a form of capitalism that had never been tried before, based on assumptions of a free market which as you correctly point out was highly hampered in Europe.

Economics is still pseudo science at best precisely because (irrational) human behavior is a major component. You can only model it probabilistically. Otherwise we'd have a proven theory, and the current state of disagreement over economic policy and which theory to follow is enough proof of the state of economics today. It's a guess, at best, much like which way the stock market is going to go today. You can't know because you can't know what future events may affect it, unless you have some sort of time lens handy.

Comment Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do (Score 1) 244

The cost of entry into most markets is high not because of capitalism or free markets, it is high because of government interference and regulation.

I would disagree. Take a look at building a chip foundry, automotive assembly line, textile mill, or pretty much any manufacturing process.

When the original capitalism and free markets were thought out, the known monopolies were so small as to be laughable

Nonsense. Read Adam Smith. Not only were there plenty of monopolies and barriers to entry, he recognized that the source of those monopolies and barriers to entry was government. He argued for free markets and against government interference precisely because he wanted to end the vast monopolies and barriers to entry that existed.

Again, I disagree. Smith was a philosopher and economist. A brief skim indicate his papers were theories on the economy, and his impressions of how things worked. Show me what "vast monopolies" and "barriers to entry" that existed prior to 1790 in the US, when he died.

Comment Re: These companies keep giving us reasons (Score 1) 384

If it is one thing MS does well it is backwards capability.

I pretty much laughed at this. I can tell you that the backwards compatibility statement from MS about 4.5 is patently false. Just try doing an elevation of privileges on an unprivileged process (ie, actually elevate the process above its base privilege). Works on .NET4, not on .NET 4.5, or, more accurately, not on .NET 4.5 on 2008SR2. It might work on .NET 4.5 2008... I didn't check. But, more telling is the last clause, which says well, maybe we aren't backwards compatible, but we allow you to run the previous versions of .NET in those cases, except for .NET4, which we completely nerfed. You also get stories like driver complaints or office issues or even with the new xbox.

Comment Re: These companies keep giving us reasons (Score 1) 384

My point isn't to immediately rewrite everything, etc, but to point out that migrating to Win10 with it's most likely highly unstable core by business standards will be the tipping point. You'll have 5 years to migrate, I'd suggest starting to look at that now, or be prepared to run Win7 past EOL, with whatever costs and risks that may entail. Given what's come out about Windows Business Update, and Enterprise updates, I know that I, as a business, would never sign off on allowing that into my shop. A core that I don't control I can't trust, and it's certainly not going into production.

Comment Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do (Score 1) 244

When the original capitalism and free markets were thought out, the known monopolies were so small as to be laughable, cost of entry was relatively fixed for all players and there were usually multiples, and there were significant hurdles to the international behemoths commonplace today. Today, cost of entry is high for anyone attempting to enter an existing market, the number of players is so small as to be laughable to be considered a choice, a key to free markets

Comment Re: These companies keep giving us reasons (Score 1) 384

Every 3-5 years, you need to upgrade, releases are done such that the window for upgrading is actually smaller, for at least part of the stack you use. So the costs are not only sunk costs, but a continual drain. You also have a continuing and increasing cost for maintaining your systems, especially given the new Win10 push cycles. Lastly, I'm assuming those existing custom applications are going to require significant updates when migrating to the latest windows versions, which will be required across the board in the next 3-4 years. So you can either sink a bunch of money into upgrading those apps, or migrate to something from at least this decade and more friendly to all.

Comment Re:Also, who does not separate drive control? (Score 1) 189

Separate busses at least restrict attack vectors, and remove an entire suite of potential vectors. That's not security theater, that's common sense. Security theater would be putting a cap on the plug, and calling it secure because it has a federal "Do not open unless authorized" sticker on it.

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. -- John Kenneth Galbraith