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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 327

Corporations are a fact of life in our current economic system.

That's nice. Regardless, shilling for a particular set of corporations makes you a corporate shill. It doesn't change anything if you claim to be an unwitting corporate shill.

Don't want to be a shill? Then don't attack someone's standards just because he asserts the right of the public to control where public money goes.

Wouldn't hurt to apologize, either.

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 327

I'm perfectly happy to have you communicate your disapproval to your elected representatives. I'm not trying to prevent that at all.

"I have good intentions," says the lying corporate shill. Too bad your actions say otherwise.

I just disagree that the program was a waste, that's all.

Then just say so instead of sniping at others for having unreasonable standards of "perfection".

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 327

The public controls how public money is used mostly through their elected representatives, especially at the federal level.

What do you think communicating public disapproval to said representatives is meant to do, you liar? Rip off the mask, and you suddenly gained the ability to grok my point.

You tried to disqualify the public from disapproving of their very own representatives, you anti-democratic shill. "it sounds like unreasonable standards of perfection to question how public money is used!"

The public gets a say in how public money is used, period. If you don't like the public's standards, don't beg for public money, corporate parasite.

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 327

Or you fail at getting your point across.


You tried to disqualify me from your first response. Somehow, "the public gets a say in how public money is used" is translated into, "you want perfection".

I gave you a chance to walk it back, but your misrepresentation was deliberate, and you have doubled down on it.

In attacking my position, you attack the right of the public to control how public money is used. I'd respect your anti-democratic position if you were upfront about it. Democracies have their failings - one is that they don't have strong defenses against special-interest liars like yourself.

It's still better than a negative return. And on top of the interest return you have people employed who pay taxes and participate in the national economy which is worth something.

Moving the goalposts AND economic ignorance. 10% over 20-25 years *is* a negative return. You can do better with bonds. And the worst part is that the 10% return is imaginary. Check back on that prediction in 25 years.

All these lies for what? So that a "green" corporation can get cheaper loan money from the government at the expense of the public. You lying corporate crony.

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 327

It sounds to me like your position is that the government shouldn't make loans with your tax dollars if there's any chance of it being lost. Period. Is that right?

Not even close. You fail basic comprehension. Or you're a liar. Or even both.

People have a right to do what they want with their own money. If they want it to be 100% lost, good for them. Basic rules of ownership and accountability.

Another example of how you fail basic comprehension:

The $5 billion to $6 billion figure was calculated based on the average rates and expected returns of funds dispersed so far, paid back over 20 to 25 years.

"Expected returns". Do you know what that means? It's not actual, or they'd use that instead of extrapolating out 20-25 years from now.

By the way, 10% return over 20-25 years is utterly horrible. Not that it's clear where you got that percentage.

But what does evidence matter? It's clear you want to believe self-serving nonsense from government bureaucrats and crony capitalists who siphon public money. And you're willing to lie to help them cover it up. Do you even get paid, or do you sell your integrity for nothing?

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 327

Like I said in the first place it sounds like you want a level of perfection out of government that is not humanly possible to attain.

Then you do not have the comprehension to criticize my position.

You can objectively measure a difference in the feedback loops. The VC who loses money loses his own money. The public servant who loses money loses the public's money.

Giving the same input to two systems with different feedback loops has different results. There's an entire field of study on it.

And I also said in any large organization waste is inevitable.

No one is disagreeing with this. But not all large organizations waste the same amount.

I think it's your standards that need adjusting.

I've given you your chance to make a point. You failed, and have instead lied about my position. What you think is now irrelevant to me.

My standard is that people have a say on how their money is used. It's about ownership.

At no point have I referenced the ideal level of organizational waste. If people want to choose 100% "waste" with their own money ... it's not my place to stop them.

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 327

Ok, here's a story from Forbes in 2012 about VC success. It says: "Over both 10- and 30-year periods, share of dollars invested that go to losing deals has been roughly 55%.".

So do you think that failure rate is a proper measure of the success of a government program?

When the VCs are willing to make risky bets, such that around 55% of their attempted deals fail ... what is government investment in less risky deals (7% failure) accomplishing?

I didn't say "the government gives itself an A+". In any large organization waste is inevitable. I see it where I work which is a subsidiary of a large company. All you can do is try to minimize it.

Of course you didn't. I interpreted your use of Congress's metric of 12% as a measure of success of government activity.

If they said 100% failure was acceptable, would that still be any good? The 12% is unjustified. The 7% is meaningless without justifying the first number.

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 327

Although you didn't mention Solyndra explicitly others in this thread have. The DOE program that Solyndra was part of had a budgeted failure rate of 12% (IIRC) as set by Congress when they passed the act that created the program. Last I heard the failure rate of the program was about 7% including Solyndra. I'd say that's a pretty positive outcome, probably better than most private VC funds.

You're telling me that the government gives itself an A+, and therefore there is no government waste. That's assuming something about government metrics.

If the government is doing better than VC funds, back it up with numbers instead of your imagination. Show me.

Why do you assume that something the government is involved in will automatically have more mistakes?

If you understood my point about skin in the game, you would not ask me that question.

Understand my point and come up with a better question. (Hint: I am not assuming what you just said)

Comment Re:Wow (Score 0) 327

Yeah, the government never should have sunk all that money into ARPANET, it would have just happened by Immaculate Conception when the economics made sense. Come to think of it, all that money the government sunk into quantum mechanics made no sense until there was use for it, then it would have miraculously evolved from its primordial ooze by bootstrapping itself into usefulness.

Waving a winning lottery ticket around doesn't prove that lotteries have EV > 1.

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 327

Because you can't just randomly call *anyone* specific, like you can with a phone.

Unlike those cellphones everyone carries that allow people to call *anyone* specific using radio waves?

A two way radio is still using specific frequencies and protocols to communicate. There is the matter of people listening in, but then again, that's not stopped people from using cellphones, either.

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 327

You missed the headline, or the article or the summary or all of it. Solar energy is now the cheapest energy on the planet.

The headline, article, and summary say nothing of the sort. You fail basic reading comprehension.

What it actually says is that Texas is building a lot of solar power without state subsidies.

Oil will not run out in 20 years.

With current usage, it will. That is a no brainer. With replacement of current cars by electric cars it, won't. That is a no brainer, too. So try to comprehend what I write instead of jumping to knee jerk reactions and making a fool of yourself.

We are 10 years beyond "peak oil" ...

See this graph?

10 years ago is 2005. Now which year in the graph has the highest oil production?

If you are unable to comprehend basic English, and do not know relevant facts, why should anyone care what you say on this topic?

Did it? Any proof of that? Over what course of years?

Too lazy to do your own basic research?

I'm sorry you find it mentally difficult to look up Wikipedia. I'm afraid you're not going to find a safe space here on Slashdot, however.

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 327

It sounds like you want a level of perfection out of government that is not humanly possible to attain.

That's not perfection, it's basic accountability.

The people who are wisest about taking risks are the ones who will personally pay when it doesn't work out. It's a fundamentally more stable system because the negative feedback loop against mistakes is tighter.

So rather than accuse me of wanting "perfection", you should ask yourself, "why do I want more mistakes?"

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 327

I get so fucking tired of this "picking winners and losers" bullshit. Venture capitalists do this all the time. Do you think the people who do analysis for the Department of Energy are bunch of drooling morons? Backing technology development that is in the public interest is exactly what governments are for. Just like venture capital, some of it is going to pan out and some of it isn't.

The difference is in who foots the bill. The VCs pick winners and losers with their own money. When they lose, they lose their own money. (minus government corruption stealing from the public to make them whole)

When the government picks losers, the public is paying the bill. The government employees who made the wrong pick, however, don't have any personal skin the game.

It doesn't take a drooling moron to make a bad decision and lose money. Nor is it stupid for the people footing the bill to object to its usage.

My computer can beat up your computer. - Karl Lehenbauer