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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Economics is a social science (Score 1) 555

Because, you may have noticed many of his bold predictions are now revealed for what they were: a political agenda and not actual science.

Even if they aligned pretty well with political agendas, that doesn't by itself make them false. Keynesianism aligns well with political agendas. Marxism aligns well with political agendas. Climate change aligns well. Climate denialism aligns well. Anything in science can align or misalign well.

So, what did those predictions come to? Did they hit? Or did they miss? That's the only question that matters.

By the way: von Mises predicted 70 years in advance the results of the Russian economic planification experiment. His predictions aligned with libertarian political agendas. They came right all the same. If anything, that (and Hayek's) suggest libertarian political agendas have something more to them.

Comment Re:She makes mistakes, and punishes laid off worke (Score 1) 217

No, it hasn't.

Yes, it has, because when you wrote "your proposal would mean all startups would need to have their first employees be a watchdog group to set up controls so every future employee could never commit a crime" that's exactly what you did. Proceed in this manner and in a matter of hours you'll have a full set of workable proposals. :-)

By the way:

I would ever invest in any company / I would never start a company

That's fine. You'd be an employee or, better yet, a small scale entrepreneur. A world of small scale entrepreneurs is a good outcome for me. And, to be sure, it's part of an already developed economic system: Distributism.

Comment Re:She makes mistakes, and punishes laid off worke (Score 1) 217

It is simply silly.

No, it isn't. Suppose you yourself were living in the scenario I described above and, yes, if an individual below you commits fraud you are responsible too. How would you act? How would you setup your company so as to avoid being sent to prison by effect of middle managers' greed?

I'm sure the simple fact I asked question has caused you to begin thinking on possible risk mitigation solutions, hasn't it?

Now think an entire world of entrepreneurs thinking over that exact same question. Don't you think they'd have developed and kept improving best practices? Practices that are so ingrained in such a world's entrepreneurial culture they are taught in universities, absorbed in trainee years, and all but became second nature to anyone who deals with any significant amount of money?

Yes, it's workable. It might be unimaginable if you only spent one minute thinking about it. For a culture that spent (or were beginning to spend) tens of thousands of man-years thinking about it however, not so much. There, it's just how things are.

Comment Re:She makes mistakes, and punishes laid off worke (Score 1) 217

If they required these managers to invest significant amounts of their own money in the company before taking the job, they wouldn't take the job in the first place because it would always be a horrible investment from a diversification standpoint.

The simple and easy solution to this is to completely eliminate the shielding that exists between investors' personal assets and the concrete results of corporate policies.

If an investor is personally responsible for everything his money helped cause, then extreme diversification becomes a severe liability. Did you invest in an investment fund that purchased shares in your name from a company that was found to subcontract to a company involved in child slavery? Now you are guilty of personally trading in child slavery, will all the legal and criminal implications involved in it, including the legal obligation to fully compensate your victims, no workarounds allowed, not even insurance shielding. Don't want risk ending bankrupt and in jail because you put your money where it shouldn't be? Don't invest in anything you don't know perfectly well, be always on top of things, and never allow it to lead to anything even remotely socially negative.

That alone would do wonders in making the entire world of big business turn from the greedy rapaciousness we came to expect of it into one in which every rich person takes extreme care about where they put their money, as putting their money anywhere, including in a bank account, now has consequences that go far beyond merely losing that amount.

Investment funds would still exist, but they'd be very different. Instead of just huge analytical schemes trying to find where's the highest ROI and switching what they according this one single parameter, they'd have troops of managers directly combing very finely every legal and moral aspect of whatever they were looking into putting their clients' money so as to be absolutely sure not only their clients, but they themselves, would not end up poor and in jail.

Do you know that old saying according which freedom requires responsibility? Modern capitalism has set things in such a way that the rich have tons of freedom and very little actual responsibility. Fixing that doesn't require toppling capitalism. Rebalancing things so that responsibility grows proportionally with freedom would to the trick.

Comment Re:Probably a lie (Score 1) 163

PP was a project of of eugenicists back in the day. They didn't want to outright kill blacks, but they wanted blacks to have less children than whites and thus, over time, for their relative (and maybe absolute) numbers to decrease in comparison to that of whites, thus "whitening" American society. A "soft genocide", so to speak.

The Wikipedia article on PP's founder provides more details about her views. Which, it is important to note, aren't the current view of PP.

Comment Re:I'll tell you why (Score 1) 207

Stop trying to explain the past to people who read about it already.

Sure! I'll tell that to all my teachers back at the University, in particular the ones who taught me Philosophy of Science I to IV, Philosophy of Physics and Philosophy of Biology. They'll love finally finding themselves enlightened! Thanks a bunch! (y)

Comment Re:I'll tell you why (Score 2) 207

especially the natural philosophers, or as we call them now, scientists

No. Scientist work from within a set of philosophical assumptions about a huge number of things, assumptions that are taken as givens "just because".

The good philosophers open up that black box of assumption and go on questioning, HARD, every single one of those. And none of those stuff scientists assume can be falsified, because they're the very basis upon which non-falsifiable methodological constructs such as the principle of falsifiability are built.

Philosophy is the art of making the annoying questions, no matter who gets annoyed, all the while never accepting hand waves such as "well, it works".

Comment Re:I'll tell you why (Score 1) 207

Science is "how", philosophy is "why".

Actually, philosophy is "wait a minute..."

What all philosopher, from everywhere and every time, did best, was to look around, think really hard about what they were seeing, notice something didn't fit, and express it. Expressing it usually comes in the form of trying to solve the problem (it's rare the person who simply asks the questions and stays at that), so it isn't a surprise that such a proposed solution, being the first attempt at solving that problem no one else had noticed, is weak. But then come others who down the line actually manage to solve it well.

Aristotle, by all accounts the third philosopher, wrote a book called "Questions". If I remember correctly, it's 400 pages of just that. After 2400 years we solved 20% of the book, and most of those 20% solutions only very recently.

Add to that all the questions philosophers since then made, and how the attempt at solving those questions led to progresses in all area, and you see that the task philosophers have is actually quite important. Annoying as hell, but important all the same.

Comment Re:Bigger picture of opposing whaling per se (Score 4, Insightful) 214

If they don't want to eat whales or use their skins - that's fine - but they don't have the right to ram down their viewpoints down everyone else's throats, particularly other countries. It reminds me of abortion - if you don't like it, then don't have one but leave other people alone.

Precisely. And the same should be applied to laws against animal torture. If you don't like to slowly rip the flesh out from living kittens, then smashing their toes with hammers, and finally setting their bloodied bodies in fire, then just don't do it. As for those who enjoy hearing the screams of tortured dying kittens, let them. /sarcasm

Comment Re:How do they know? (Score 3, Informative) 316

This is precisely why I enable telemetry data in any software I use that uses it. If that specific bit data collection is in place, it will be used to determine future development of the software, so I well might try and help the software developers know that yes, I do use these menu options.

Alas, my telemetered usage of tab groups in Firefox didn't help this feature stay, and I wonder how many power users never let Mozilla know they use it in the first place. Sigh.

I've been considering moving to Pale Moon due to Mozilla's dumbing down of Firefox. The fun thing with that is that, while Pale Moon did this before, tab groups can be added back if one so wishes: Pale Moon Tab Groups add-on. And it also allows installing the Australis theme if one likes it (I do): Australium theme. So, yeah, I'm moving there sooner rather than later now...

Comment Re:Bad Example (Score 1) 222

Since eating a hamburger or a chicken sandwich is perfectly fine, morally speaking

Why, every moral person knows that, if it is for their own enjoyment, causing pain to another being is fine. For example, what's wrong with setting cats on fire? It's pleasurable to my eyes to see them running alight, to my nose to smell their burnt fur and flesh, and to my ears to hear them screaming. Ditto for, without anesthesia, burning chicken beaks, ripping pigs testicles and ripping cattle tails, then painfully slaughtering them. It makes their corpses' taste more pleasurable to my tongue, and that alone makes it right.


Comment Re:Ugh (Score 2) 191

OS X is not easy to use. It's counter-intuitive as hell.

It depends on your background. If you already know a UI, switching to another one will feel annoying and counterintuitive unless the new one works almost exactly like the first. But I remember reading that complete computer illiterate beginners, including small children, get up to speed in Mac OS X's UI in less time than they do in other UIs. If that's accurate, the claim that Mac OS X is in general more intuitive would be correct.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.