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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Regulation is the enemy of free markets. (Score 1) 53

You needn't continue, you should listen.

Government regulations are the opposite of free markets, free means free of government regulations. Free markets do not go haywire due to lack of government regulations, market did go haywire due to government regulations. Housing market, equity market, now bond market and money markets are all haywire and they are all haywire due to government regulations.

Governments regulate interest rates by ensuring that the so called 'reserve banks' (which have no reserves but only debt actually) control interest rates and create fake money, which is what destroys actual free market.

Fake, government regulated fiat and interest rates destroy free market operations and cause them to go haywire, which is what has been happening for over 100 years now, the Great Depression was due to the Feds creating fake money, the 1971 stagflation was government destroying the very principle of reserve and going full fledged retard with money being nothing at all but paper.

The entire USA and most of the rest of Western economy is a rude facade, there is no production behind it and only inflation creating one bubble after another, each new one having to be ever bigger than the previous one to continue the pretence that there is an actual economy, while the reality is that without production there is no economy and without real money there is no production and the real money is outlawed by the government.

The actual people responsible for the 2008, for the late 1990s, for 1970s, for 1930s and all the crap in between are in power, they are dictating the rules, the so called 'professors' propaganda pushers like Krugman are doing what they are trained and paid to do to help the government to stay in power and the useful idiots like the masses who buy into this crap are the ones who eventually pay with destruction of their economies and standards of living.

FDIC shouldn't exist. FDA shouldn't exist. Federal reserve bank shouldn't exist or at the minimum should HAVE RESERVES and should NOT be allowed to print paper money and manipulate interest rates.

Government should not be allowed to meddle with money or with business and specifically with individual rights of people and you are talking about 'free market going haywire'! Ha!

Comment: Re:Matlab (Score 1) 175

by aralin (#49515657) Attached to: Swift Tops List of Most-Loved Languages and Tech

.... nearly anyone who studies math learns MATLAB.

Hence the dread! Back in '94 to '99 I've been sysadmin at the math department of my university. Already then all the students that were learning Matlab dreaded the subject. I was observing lesson after lesson, year after year, since they happened at the Comp. Lab. I was managing, always the same thing.

Comment: Re:Meh. (Score 0) 75

by roman_mir (#49500645) Attached to: Rocket Lab Unveils "Electric" Rocket Engine

Ah, fucking hell, almost nothing new is new but if they can put satellites up at 6.6 million dollars a pop that is certainly new.

How many people come up with their own products that are really built from nothing into something that others want to use? The answer is: not many. Anybody who is able to start a company and bring a product up and succeed in all of this without losing their sanity, health, all the money and family in this world is a fucking hero as far as I am concerned.

Comment: p-value research is misleading almost always (Score 5, Interesting) 208

by SteveWoz (#49495363) Attached to: Social Science Journal 'Bans' Use of p-values

I studied and tutored experimental design and this use of inferential statistics. I even came up with a formula for 1/5 the calculator keystrokes when learning to calculate the p-value manually. Take the standard deviation and mean for each group, then calculate the standard deviation of these means (how different the groups are) divided by the mean of these standard deviations (how wide the groups of data are) and multiply by the square root of n (sample size for each group). But that's off the point. We had 5 papers in our class for psychology majors (I almost graduated in that instead of engineering) that discussed why controlled experiments (using the p-value) should not be published. In each case my knee-jerk reaction was that they didn't like math or didn't understand math and just wanted to 'suppose' answers. But each article attacked the math abuse, by proficient academics at universities who did this sort of research. I came around too. The math is established for random environments but the scientists control every bit of the environment, not to get better results but to detect thing so tiny that they really don't matter. The math lets them misuse the word 'significant' as though there is a strong connection between cause and effect. Yet every environmental restriction (same living arrangements, same diets, same genetic strain of rats, etc) invalidates the result. It's called intrinsic validity (finding it in the experiment) vs. extrinsic validity (applying in real life). You can also find things that are weaker (by the square root of n) by using larger groups. A study can be set up in a way so as to likely find 'something' tiny and get the research prestige, but another study can be set up with different controls that turn out an opposite result. And none apply to real life like reading the results of an entire population living normal lives. You have to study and think quite a while, as I did (even walking the streets around Berkeley to find books on the subject up to 40 years prior) to see that the words "99 percentage significance level" means not a strong effect but more likely one that is so tiny, maybe a part in a million, that you'd never see it in real life.

Comment: Re:Still vapor (Score 1) 104

by roman_mir (#49483303) Attached to: The Crazy-Tiny Next Generation of Computers

How about medical applications? 1mm^3 is actually small enough to be put in a pill and go through your digestive system. Cover it in some glass coating to avoid acid from melting it, swallow a bunch over a number of time intervals, have sensors on the surface that measure whatever can be measured and you may have some interesting results. It is still too big to be injected into your blood stream, need to shrink it another 10-100 times to do that I guess, but it is an interesting way to develop computing by combining it further with the medical field. You can actually embed 1mm^3 computers into your bones and other tissue and not even feel them probably, while they are sending their data to your phone and to your physician.

Comment: Re:People are tribal even when they don't realize (Score 0, Troll) 247

by roman_mir (#49476395) Attached to: EU To Hit Google With Antitrust Charges

As a libertarian my position never changed, I always root for the individual (and a company is property of an individual, so the same logic applies) to win against the violence of the collective. Governments are the ultimate and most violent (wars) representation of the collective. Government is the ultimate weapon of the mob against an individual and his freedoms. Realizing that the real virtue is in the Individual freedom and the non aggression principle is how you fix the issue of tribalism destroying rationality.

Comment: Those who can - do. (Score 0, Insightful) 247

by roman_mir (#49476255) Attached to: EU To Hit Google With Antitrust Charges

Those who cannot do - sue.

The entire premise of 'anti-trust' coming from a government, ANY government is laughable in every possible way. The only real monopolies that can abuse power are created by governments and it is government power that is abused by them, as for Google and other companies that compete among each other and may become dominant (for some time) in a market - this is due to the choice of the clients, who collectively vote for that company to be in a more dominant position at that time.

Comment: Re:Yeah, right. (Score 1) 892

Absolutely 100% correct.
Also I would like to add that if this strategy is somehow supposed to 'help women' it is also going to backfire, just like all such nonsensical regulations rather than market based ideas do. There are plenty of women who will get hurt through the indirect action of their husbands/significant others not being able to get a better paying job.

Even if men were payed more because they were better negotiators (which is not the reason for the higher pay that *some* men command over women as you have already mentioned) it doesn't mean that lowering their pay (which is all that this proposed 'solution' is) will not hurt women! Many of those men have women in their lives and when a man's potential earnings are capped by such artificial barriers those women (and the entire families) will also feel the sting.

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann