Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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).

×

Comment: Re: Good grief... (Score 2) 668

by countach74 (#49109283) Attached to: Bill Nye Disses "Regular" Software Writers' Science Knowledge
I don't think he meant that a comp sci grad knows nothing of the inner workings of the equipment he works on, only that he doesn't know every detail. Perhaps I assume too much, but you probably don't know every technical detail about the telescope you're using, yeah? I imagine the average astronomer knows at least enough to do his or her job and not a lot beyond that. The point is, that's how much the average comp sci guys know about EE. Enough. :)

Comment: Re:The Dangers of the World (Score 1) 784

by countach74 (#48832031) Attached to: Parents Investigated For Neglect For Letting Kids Walk Home Alone
Kidnapping as we general think of it (a stranger taking a child with nefarious intent) is exceptionally rare. In the United States, there are some 100 incidents per year. I don't mean to contradict anything you've said; I think you're right on the money. Just thought I'd throw a number out there. The thing that I don't understand is how do we get that it's all right to hold the parents responsible for someone else's actions? It's not like they deliberately had their children walk home in an area that they thought would result in injury or death to either child. If someone kidnaps, murders, rapes, etc, shouldn't that fall on the individual her perpetrated such crimes? Having laws on the book to to criminalize hypothetical scenarios doesn't seem helpful at all. (To be clear, I think there is a stark difference between allowing children to walk home, vs intentionally putting children in harm's way so that something likely will happen to them.)

Comment: Re: There is no single "fair" value. (Score 1) 602

by countach74 (#48524185) Attached to: UK Announces 'Google Tax'

I am very aware of this argument, but it is wrong. Gold's viability and value as a currency comes earlier in the market process. There is a sort of paradox when transitioning to a non-commodity money; Ludwig von Mises thought it impossible. Like you said, one way to overcome the paradox is by force of government, and it's been assumed for quite a while that without the force of government, such a money would never come to be... well... money. The argument for this is compelling, but we know it to be wrong simply by looking at Bitcoin. Bitcoin had absolutely no worth, and as such, was completely arbitrary in exchange, yet someone thought it cool enough to try and eventually it stated to hold its own exchange value.

Lastly, *nothing* has intrinsic value: if you simply mean to say that a good has other use cases besides money, that is fine. But the use cases it has are precisely because we have assigned it such. Gold isn't "naturally" worth anything. It is only worth something because we have found uses for it.

Comment: Re:There is no single "fair" value. (Score 1) 602

by countach74 (#48517655) Attached to: UK Announces 'Google Tax'
Physical currencies generally have more disadvantages to advantages when compared to virtual ones. There really is no reason, economically, for a currency to be backed by a commodity. There are, however, very real problems that are introduced by inflationary policies and the use of fiat currency. The biggest hurdle for virtual currencies to overcome is to get off the ground in the first place and to be assigned a value by society. (Remember, there is no such thing as "intrinsic" value: a thing only has a value if people assign value to it. Commodities like gold have other uses besides currency, which make them easier and more likely to bootstrap as into a state of money, but that does not mean a virtual currency can never come about as money. Bitcoin has proven that notion wrong.)

Comment: Re:Bullshit Stats. (Score 1) 496

by countach74 (#48434189) Attached to: As Amazon Grows In Seattle, Pay Equity For Women Declines
I have made no such claim that the market is flawless. But if you understand value theory (value is not a price, but is subjective; value ends up indirectly determining price), then you will know that the market is the *only* way to come to a sensible price. It is the only way by which we can calculate how scarce resources should be used amongst their alternative uses, in what quantity, etc. It may seem nonsensical to you, but if for some reason, all of the western world values a steaming pile of shit, shit will become a scarce resource and have a price associated with it. Just because I don't want shit doesn't mean other people don't and that its price should be lower than, say, a pound of rice. It may turn out that the desire for shit was misplaced sometime in the future, it is abandoned, but that doesn't prove anything at all.

Comment: Re:Bullshit Stats. (Score 1) 496

by countach74 (#48434129) Attached to: As Amazon Grows In Seattle, Pay Equity For Women Declines
Oh, how so? It outlines the same things that have been echo'ed here, that there women make decisions that negatively affect their earning power. That's not to say that those decisions are poor decisions--only an individual can decide if such a sacrifice is worthwhile. As for linking to a book, apologies. I only did a very brief search; it's a political topic and most of the results are political in nature, not scientific.

Any program which runs right is obsolete.

Working...