Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:At least the summary is realistic about Swartz. (Score 1) 142

"(H)ate of the meritocracy? Really? You actually believe that we live in a meritocracy? Are you blind, or wilfully self-deluded, or are you simply trolling? Donald Trump has a lot of wealth and power, and a good chance of becoming POTUS. Do you really think it was "merit" that got him there? Wake up.

Presidents are merely public performers. They don't actual administration work, merely affirm decisions researched and arrived to by larger teams of administrators. Due to complexity of modern society it'll be absolutely necessary at least for some of those administrators(namely those who do actual work rather than perform for suckers) to be chosen via meritocracy. In practice it's impossible to avoid meritocracy, but it's possible to achieve different balances of meritocracy vs imitation of useful activity.

Comment Re:I think the problem is overstated (Score 1) 668

Every large gathering of people will have some drama queens, campuses or otherwise. The problem here with the way they're dealt with. It seems campus authorities are too lazy to investigate such situations fairly and thoroughly and allow drama queens to invent whatever they wish.

Comment Re:Stupid headline (Score 1) 425

Actually calorie IS outdated. Scientific community moved to SI units like joule. The fact that calories instead of joules are used to measure energy stored in food shows that no genuinely new research was done in that area since nineteenth century.

Comment Re:Playing with numbers (Score 1) 729

You have absolutely misunderstood me. I cited existence of anti-trust laws as evidence of the fact that everyone, including government, knows about artificial nature of money and property. I don't need to make any suggestions because other people already working on limiting it. It just takes time, and often regulatory organs can be affected by regulatory capture. Suggestions like removing corruption are of course theoretically sound, but who will do that? People who get paid for doing the opposite? The only way is to stop bitching and go work there yourself.. But the very existence of such organs proves artificial nature of money and fallibility of markets.

Comment Re:Playing with numbers (Score 1) 729

Can you provide me an example of argument that you in your altered state of consciousness would accept as one? I still honestly really don't understand what you expected. I just shared my understanding of the situation, that's it. And you were like Peter Griffin asking "And?" long after it was appropriate.

Comment Re:Playing with numbers (Score 1) 729

I just explained to you how things work and how it relates to subjective nature of property and money. Yet you expect some suggestions from me. Why? It's just like if I described structure of solar system to you. Would you in that case expect suggestions of improvement from me? Like adding new planets? Or removing some?

Comment Re:Playing with numbers (Score 1) 729

What law I would want to change is irrelevant. It never was relevant. The only thing relevant is that laws change to deal with market failure. An example here would be introduction of american anti-trust laws, or activity of regulatory organizations like FCC. But in the end the decisions are made by concrete people and there are always consequences from each decision. Those decisions must be made based on understanding how exactly market works, not magic belief it'll fix everything.

Comment Re:Playing with numbers (Score 1) 729

You're incorrect. No parroting was involved here. You just chose to answer to me like to some commie-mutant-traitor, yet there was nothing along those lines in what I wrote. There's nothing non-obvious about money being abstract construct without direct relation to material things, and that's the only thing I stated. In order for market forces to work there must be astronomic number of participants, and even then market failures are always possible. Money are a mechanism, and each mechanism can be exploited and subverted to work against its purpose. So fetishization of market and money might prevent one from perceiving an existing market failure and responding to it by modifying laws accordingly. This makes sense since property itself is creation of law and is enforced by state, thus only state in practice can decide what property is and what isn't and how exactly it should be enforced.

Comment Re:Playing with numbers (Score 1) 729

You didn't read what I wrote, right? Money is merely a mechanism, I object to its fetishization and you totally failed to show that there's something wrong with such point of view with those irrelevant rants. It seems to me you argued with someone else or you're just touched in the head..

Comment Re:Playing with numbers (Score 1) 729

You misunderstood. It was't about inequality, but rather about irrationality. The very idea that 1000 to 1 difference in income is somehow related to 1000 to 1 difference in talent or societal utility is irrational. The very idea that having more income is automatically good is irrational. Money are subjective and as long as a person has all his living needs fulfilled it shouldn't matter. Some nerds collect postal stamps, some nerds collect money, and for some reason collecting money became religiously mandated which leads to inefficiency. Why money collecting nerds should be valued more than other nerds?

Slashdot Top Deals

One small step for man, one giant stumble for mankind.