Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


+ - Money and wealth: clearing up some serious misconceptions-> 2

Submitted by KDan
KDan (90353) writes "I am not an economist. However, most people misunderstand money and its purposes and uses so badly that I feel compelled to write out my understanding of it. Perhaps because I am not an economist, this might help some. The first and perhaps most important mistake people make is to confuse money for wealth. The more I earn, the more I realise that wealth is not money, but the ability to generate money (and other things of value). This is akin to the difference between saying "I am a dancer" (i.e. I have the ability to dance) and "I was a dancer" (i.e. I once had it but I no longer have it). Being wealthy is equivalent to the first statement, while having money is equivalent to the second."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Why are we so worried about RAM (Score 1, Informative) 505

by cbrocious (#28408649) Attached to: Memory Usage of Chrome, Firefox 3.5, et al.

This is a false dichotomy. Most software that uses less RAM is actually also faster.

Nowadays, it's usually faster to recompute than read it all back from RAM, and if an interactive program uses a lot of RAM, then it's likely keeping a lot of junk in memory that it doesn't need.

Wow, this is a perfect example of completely misunderstanding memory-CPU tradeoffs. No. For a non-trivial amount of data, it is never cheaper to recompute the data, at access-time. It may be faster overall, as you might be able to use the freed RAM in a better way elsewhere, but it will never speed the accessing task up.

If you recompute the data constantly, it has to hit RAM and then read it back, unless you're dealing with a dataset small enough to be stored completely in cache, in which case this is a nonissue anyway. More caching is never a bad thing, so long as you set smart defaults for how the caching is done, and you allow the users to configure it. More RAM, in the hands of a smart developer, is a Good Thing (TM).

Comment: Re:It may be illegal.. (Score 3, Informative) 181

by cbrocious (#28044853) Attached to: Investigators Replicate Nokia 1100 Banking Hack
You don't even need to go the FPGA route. The baseband firmware on the iPhone has been patched for an unlocking, there's nothing stopping someone from patching it to change the IMEI built into the phone or the IMSI it "reads" from the SIM. Change these and the phone can become any other.

Comment: Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score 2, Insightful) 330

by cbrocious (#27251773) Attached to: Activists Use Wikipedia To Test Aussie Net Censors

I don't like the Neo Nazis. I'd rather they chose not to say what they say. But I will defend, to the death if needs must, their right to say it. Someday, I might find myself the lone voice of dissension. I'd hope no matter what my views you'd stand up and support my right to say them. Otherwise, one day *you* might be that lone voice...

I agree fully, and that's why my Troll moderation is nonsensical. Apparently I should've laid down the sarcasm a bit more thickly...

Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten