Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:What to know (Score 4, Insightful) 533

Your outdated "value-adding" "service provding" skills are so 20th century. 21st century careerism is about networking. Networking. Networking. Netowrking.

Look at item number one on TFAs list.

1. Take names. ...

In five to 10 years, that will all be different and the person who you ignored because they were boring and couldn't help you will be the person who could have won you an important opportunity.

Network! Impress people! Dress right! Booze people up! This is how successful companies are made. You will not attract the rright venture capital with your simple abilities. Most companies won't even use those anyway.

2. Problem solving. .....

Problem solving is essentially the same thing you learned in abstract in seventh or eighth grade or whenever you learned simple algebra.

See! Look at this! The people this guy is writing for don't even know how to solve problems. They just code stuff nobody really needs -- and they're still successful! You think your ability to analyse and abstract is something all the cool kids will pay for? Think again. Your geek/nerd/hipster/bro-grammer cred wil matter far more.

6. Work more than 40 hours per week.

Profession? You think programming is a profession. Get back on that hamster wheel and like it code monkey. And get some hair dye. First sign of a grey hair or stress line from yellow packs like you and we sack you and hire a fresh young grad to suck into a husk.

5. Think in terms of a career, not a series of jobs.

Translation: "You can either join the fed-money, app-cloud bullshit wagon, or you can learn to love foodstamp lines. Either way, it'll still be a superior outcome to any science-fiction fantasy you imagined programmers were capable of making in a rational universe. The Market wants fart-buttons, not robots, so drink the kool-aid or join the lowest caste of contract workers you, you, you..... Loser."

No wonder so many programmers go into management.

Comment: Re:So.. what? (Score 1) 255

I didn't argue for a money free world. I argued that money is not the relevant factor in the energy debate.

If you thing counting paper dollars and electronic euros is somehow going to meaningfully contribute to the sourcing, production, and distribution of electrical energy over the next five decades, please saddle your own unicorn, ride back to the 1960s and count all the pounds shillings and pence spent back then and their relevancy to energy today. It won't add up to a whole lot.

Comment: Re:Leftist drive (Score 1) 393

by Baldrson (#47658919) Attached to: 3 Congressmen Trying To Tie Up SpaceX

Anon writes: "Your tax scheme will destroy every company that thinks long-term enough to be able to survive a hiccup."

Argument by assertion.

"I'll just transfer all of my capital assets to the city of Detroit"

It doesn't matter to whom you transfer the assets for lease-back. They'll be assessed on the market value of the assets and you'll be assessed on the market value of the lease. Any attempt to void the requirement of liquidation through, say, an asset that self-destructs if it isn't biometrically linked to your "shrewd" butt will be seen for what it is: Interference in the liquidation of the asset, which will result in criminal and civil damages exactly equivalent to doing damages, with criminal intent, to any public good.

, whos politicians I own, and lease it back with a poisoned contract. Poof, now I'm paying no taxes, and I've got the city by the nuts, because this also means that they've screwed if they piss me off.

Comment: Re:Devleopment Risk Management (Score 1) 393

by Baldrson (#47658889) Attached to: 3 Congressmen Trying To Tie Up SpaceX

I'm taking Musk at his word that he wants to see fair and open competition as his self-interest is based on a belief in his own superiority in a "may the best man win" spirit. I see no indication from Musk, as yet, that he is engaged in public sector rent seeking, so I tend to take him at his word here.

Comment: Devleopment Risk Management (Score 2) 393

by Baldrson (#47657973) Attached to: 3 Congressmen Trying To Tie Up SpaceX

As a person credited with launch service privatizing legislation by Congressman (Ron Packard, R-Ca), in his introduction of my congressional testimony on private space development, the Congressman who sponsored that legislation, let me weigh in:

If your own money is at stake, you approach risk management in a very different way than when someone else's money is at stake.

Public funds for development results in a very different sort of risk management than private funds for risk management.

The typical argument for public funding of development is that the risk management under private funding is to, basically, not bother taking the risk at all -- and that therefore the public must.

Well... this has as its unspoken assumption that the downstream benefit is so great that it is clearly justifiable to take the risk. OK, let's go with that assumption and then let us further ask: Why is it that the capital markets are failing in their primary reason for existence: To manage investment risk?

The folks arguing for public funding of development need to provide answers for that question taking the form either of, a renunciation of the primary principle of capitalism -- since the public becomes more competent at investment the less risk there is -- or, proposals to correct the statutory regime under which investment is made so that the capital markets function properly.

In my role promoting private over public investment in launch services development, I was aware that there was, indeed, a capital market failure that needed to be fixed through statutory changes in the tax system. Yet I proceeded to promote private over public investment. Why? Because in the foregoing discussion of trade offs between private vs public risk management there goes unspoken the risk that a positive feedback system can easily develop where political action is funded by tax dollars, however indirect. This positive feedback system results in a body politic that excludes from political influence those who are not receiving tax dollars -- such as inventors in the garages who are trying to bring even incremental improvements to the market. Moreover, this lack of political influence is compounded by the fact that such inventors are seen as business risks by those whose political action is predicated on the technical ignorance of politicians -- hence government funds not only fund political action, but actively suppress improvement.

There is simply no way out of this mess but to, first, turn off the funding sources if at all possible, so that it is possible to then address the real underlying capital market failure that results in lack of investment in viable technologies of great value.

The role guys like Musk should be taking on here is to point out the capital market failure and recommend appropriate fixes in the statutory environment so that there is no place for the public sector rent-seeking of government funded political agencies, posing as technology companies, to hide.

One year after I gave my testimony before Congress, I did make a proposal for just such a reform in the tax and regulatory code in the form of a white paper which I sent to various think-tanks in the beltway. The problem is those think-tanks are, themselves, now funded by the same positive feedback loop that actively supports existing cash flows and their expansion -- which includes avoiding any reforms that would correct the capital market failures to which technosocialist political agencies point to justify their receipt of taxpayer money.

Here's what Musk needs to promote:

Replace all taxes on economic activity with a single tax on net liquidation value of assets. This is rational in that those assets enjoy government protection in a manner similar to the protection provided by property insurance corporations. In other words, taxes become a service fee equivalent to the insurance premium paid to a mutual insurance company in which all citizens are stockholders, in exchange for the lawful protection of the assessed property rights. Economic activity -- as a form of humanity in action -- is not taxed, nor is human capital arising from, say, investment in education (ie: no slavery direct or indirect).

Liquidation value is chosen for a very specific reason: Assessment can be objectively accomplished through bids held in escrow. The monetary base can then be viewed as the "mark to market" or liquidation value of assets in the economy, with the money supply defined by the bids in escrow. An owner can accept an escrowed bid at any time, thereby liquidating his property right and transferring ownership to the high bidder. Tax liability can be deferred as long as the total liability accrued does not exceed the liquidation value. Once it exceeds the liquidation value, the transfer of ownership is executed and the liability is paid. The high bid in escrow for a given property right is _not_ assessed as a taxable asset, but other, lower, bids, are taxed.

This isn't the only statutory reform needed but it is the most important to get the capital markets moving and remove taxation of income and capital gains resulting from high payoff risk taking.

Comment: Dr. X, On Which List Will You Appear? (Score 2, Insightful) 541

by Baldrson (#47647939) Attached to: Geneticists Decry Book On Race and Evolution

*RING* *RING*

Callee: Hello?

Caller: Hello, Dr. X, this is Dr. Y from [insert watchdog group name]. How are you today?

Callee: Uh, ok.

Caller: We're doing a survey. Your paper "[insert name of paper]" is cited in a NYT Best Seller that justifies taking babies of some races and putting them into blenders for smoothies. Do you oppose taking babies of some races and putting them into blenders for smoothies or not?

Callee: (Thinking to himself: "This guy is obviously nuts but then half of academia is nuts and they can cut off mine as well as all my future government grants for looking at them crosseyeed.") Why, NO! I absolutely oppose the use of my work to in any way shape or form to justify taking babies of some races and putting them into blenders for smoothies! Where is the bastard that so abused my inherently anti-racist work so I can consider suing him!?!?"

Caller: Thank you Dr. X. That will be all.

Comment: The Rest Is White Man Keepin' Us Down (Score 1) 227

by Baldrson (#47647241) Attached to: About Half of Kids' Learning Ability Is In Their DNA

So what? Everyone knows that race is a social construct so there can't be any genetic correlations with race of social significance independent of racism's social construction.

Therefore, the racial disparities that appear in society are the result of the White Man keepin' us down! The Heterosexual White Man that is.

Open the borders!

Comment: Re: Wyvern = Wyrm (Score 2, Insightful) 306

To properly need to debug such a language, you would need to be aware of all of the possible rules, pitfalls, bugs, and race conditions of every language under its hood.

At a basic level, is your "if else" condition running on it's Java or C++ or C version? Does it catch exceptions? Where is data being handled in memory? Are buffer overruns possible in some of these languages?

No one human could possibly we simultaneously cognisant of all possible sources of error. Programs in such a language would be a security disaster waiting to happen.

Comment: Re:Wyvern = Wyrm (Score 4, Interesting) 306

The standard NSA tatctic for introducing security holes into a system is to obfuscate things so that holes are hard to spot and find. SELinux is probably such a system, and this polglot language -- which effectviely makes debugging impossible -- is likely another.

You can measure a programmer's perspective by noting his attitude on the continuing viability of FORTRAN. -- Alan Perlis

Working...