Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Honest serious question here... (Score 2) 124

Who would care to remove the calculator?

I mean this seriously. I don't use it often, as the math I may need to do is more often statistical stuff where it's beyond the calc, but fine in Excel, but there's still plenty of times I use calc.

Who has so little space on their computer that removing calc is going to make a difference? That one sort of feels like, "We need to add one more thing to the list of things removed..." "Cortana! Everyone hates it!" "No, Bob, we can't take that out. We'll let them uninstall calc instead."

Comment This is not a software error.... (Score 1) 211

This is software working exactly as written. An error would be it adding 2 + 2 and getting 3.99999999999997.

This is an error of either the coder, who didn't want to bother coding in the exceptions to the good behavior rules, or the project manager who didn't provide the good behavior exceptions to the coder, or perhaps even the state, for not highlighting the necessity of the exceptions to the software provider.

The code is blameless here. #notallcode

Comment Good riddance... (Score 2) 61

I don't think I saw anyone who liked the notification center.

It only took 300+ pages of negative comments and a couple years for Google to realize this was a feature that literally nobody wanted.

And one that was turned off, by as many people as possible, as soon as they could.

Comment Re:Waaaahhhhh!! (Score 2) 688

Well, we are just hearing his side of this (in this article).

Are there forum / list logs that back him up on this?

It's quite possible that Linus had good and valid reasons for not going Garrett's route, in addition to the "name issue", and that Garrett is only using the name issue to make it look like the reasoning was petty.

Comment Re:Ideology not reality ... (Score 1, Interesting) 157

Where do you clowns come from, really? You obviously know NOTHING about Austrian economics, yet you're all out here like ventriloquist dummies telling the world how bad it is. It's like the Red Scare with everybody talking about how bad commies were, but nobody knew anything about them other than what the establishment had told them.

I'm sure you pray at the temple of Keynes, like all the other "Nobel prize" winning economists do. You know, those same ones whose policies have ruined the economies we have now. But we'll just ignore that, right?

Ok, little AC, I'll reply.

Austrian economics is, at best, a pseudoscience, and at worst, fabulist storytelling by one charlatan to another, in an effort to explain things that they either don't understand, or actively refuse to understand, because they say "we don't need math or empirical testing".

Austrian econ uses praxeology (application of deductive reasoning, applied to a set of "unquestionable" axioms) to generate its further generate implications, scenarios, and results. Of course, these unquestionable axioms are quite questionable - they take them as blind faith, "because we've said them, they must be true". Often in there, they reject formal logical analysis of their axioms, instead choosing to use verbal analysis, because it's easier to weasel word your way out of corners. (Fingers are often inserted in to the ears of young Austrian economists at this point, as they say, "la la la la, I can't hear you".)

Then there's their use of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which uses many terms that they've mis-defined (they change the meanings of words to be whatever they want, so when they misuse them, they can say "You just don't understand"), such as "inflation" and "natural rate".

ABCT ultimately is better at explaining why the Austrians and libertarians are such hardcore goldbugs and why they rail against the Fed so much than it is at explaining actual business cycles.

The Austrians get around the problems of market failures, natural monopolies, morality, and rationality through the use of clever wordplay. They rely on an extreme form of methodological individualism based on the "action axiom" as described above. To wit: Because only individuals exist, only individuals can act. Societies cannot act because, to quote Margaret Thatcher, "there is no such thing as society." Therefore, all action can be described at the individual level. If an action is good or moral for one individual, then it must be good or moral in the aggregate because good + good = good. In reality, only basic game theory is needed in order to refute this. Austrians claim, for example, that savings represent money that will be invested in the future, and so money can never be "hoarded." They entirely reject the paradox of thrift.

Even the hero/founder of the school admitted it was BS.

Ludwig von Mises himself wrote of his theory: "Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience... They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts."

F.A. Hayek wrote that any theories in the social sciences can "never be verified or falsified by reference to facts." By the way, he won one of those Nobel prizes for Economics that you sneered at, for his "theory of money and economic fluctuations". That would be the last actual contribution by the Austrian school to economics as a whole, in the last 40 years.

(Special thanks to RationalWiki for significant portions of this post.)

Comment Re:Ideology not reality ... (Score 1) 157

Oh yeah, this is just going to total Austrian econ. The idea that math has anything to do with economics (macro or micro) is heresy to them.

I rather hope this takes off, and well, so that we can finally bury von Mises.

There was an apocryphal story at my university that one of our Econ professors has been arrested once for urinating on the grave of von Mises. I may have to get in touch with him, and see if he's willing to give it another go.

Comment Re: So the good questions were ignored. (Score 4, Insightful) 557

We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.

Does the interviewee go through the original post and look at everything that got a score of 5? That's a fairly low bar to hit, and probably a bit unreasonable.

I think it more likely that one of the editorial types gathered up the questions, using the best spelled of various repeats among questions (ok, that's a stretch), and decided what to send. I don't expect that they'd send anything that was outright abusive, no matter what score the question had, or how many people supported it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek