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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:I think the problem is overstated (Score 1) 662

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Actually calorie IS outdated.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?

Comment Re:Playing with numbers (Score 1) 729

The problem is that money became object of fetish, a religious concept. Ultimately it's just an abstraction meant to facilitate trade. And if everyone go for making money rather than getting the work done then money as abstraction breaks down. It no longer performs its original purpose and results in various inefficiencies. If a manager's salary is 1000 times more than that of average productive worker then this manager is no longer a contributor to common goal, but rather a fetishized person akin to a religious figure or an aristocrat.

Slashdot Top Deals

The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes.

Working...