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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:you mean... (Score 1) 536

Haha, your post is a great example for "the market is always right and therefor everything is perfect, and perfect is whatever the market does" circular reasoning.

Your response is a perfect example of the folly and totalitarian leanings that opponents to free markets always have.

Free markets are highly imperfect in terms of the goals that progressives always want to achieve: fairness, equality, justice, efficiency, democratic control. The problem with other economic systems that promise to do better in these areas is that they universally end up even worse than free markets.

But the real reason for adopting free markets is much simpler: it's the only economic system compatible with a liberal society.

Comment Re:you mean... (Score 1) 536

In an ideal world this would be the only way to get rich. In the real world many people also get rich by 1) inheriting 2) pure luck 3) questionable (illegal or unethical) businesses. Many rich people also slowly get even more rich by investing very conservatively (which every idiot can do)

You're just being envious and judgmental here.

You need both: investments and consumption. If you take away consumption too much, you end up in exactly the situation we are now: People are not primarily investing in things which are useful to average people, but they invest in tools which may make existing businesses slightly more profitable

And how do those "existing businesses make profit" if nobody consumes? Your argument makes no sense.

In fact, the problem in the US is that Americans are incentivized by government to consume too much, instead of saving for retirement and investing in their future. Those other "advanced nations" that progressives always like to point to (Germany, Japan, etc.) discourage consumption and encourage savings much more strongly than the US.

Comment Re:management (Score 0) 77

Ah, yes. Academia is trying to copy that "success story". In companies, at some time so much trash will have accumulated from this strategically utterly demented approach that they go down the drain or at least into a major crisis.

Companies generally deliver cheaper and better products year after year. In contrast, the cost of public education grows faster than inflation while the quality is either stagnant or actually declining.

The "utterly demented approach" is that we keep shoving more and more money into public education, given that more money clearly has no demonstrable positive effect overall.

Comment Re:management (Score 0) 77

I think parent is taking the modern university to be a company. Even liberal arts institutions like mine are now explicitly run that way.

The vast majority of universities in the US and Europe are either publicly funded or non-profits; when they are non-profit, almost all their research funding still comes from the government.

When publicly funded or non-profit organizations tell you that they are "run like businesses", they are lying to you. Businesses need to be run such that they make a profit from what they sell, and such that people voluntarily give them their money. Universities get most of their money from the government, both directly in grants, or indirectly, as government-backed student loans.

The one area where there is an overlap between businesses and universities is that both are run by greedy people. But in the case of actual businesses, the greed of the people who run it is checked by the need to actually appeal to customers and deliver a net value, while the greed of university administrators is largely unchecked by markets or performance.

Comment Re:management (Score 0) 77

Couldn't have anything to do with short term outlook by poor management in companies? Instant results under pressure to perform on the bottom line.

Most published scientific research comes from academic institutions and public funding. Therefore, these problems have mostly to do with the way the US government awards research grants to academic researchers, and the perverse incentives that creates for public and non-profit research universities in how they hire and promote.

Corporate researchers are generally under much less pressure to publish than academic researchers, and when they do, it tends to be in areas where verification is much easier and more immediate.

Comment Re:that's an understatement (Score 1) 152

I'm not "arguing" with analogies at all. I'm trying to explain to you simple facts in a way that you might understand, using your own analogy as a starting point. To put this bluntly and without analogies: anthropogenic climate change is not fast enough to cause serious problems; furthermore, if humanity were to institute massive interventions in order to try to avoid it, it would lead to massive poverty and starvation across the world. Your attitudes towards climate change are irrational phobias.

Comment bad substrate, adds nothing (Score 2) 157

I can't figure out why you would want to build anything on top of Go; the language has several intrinsic design shortcomings and limitations that are reflected in its runtime.

Between C++, C#, and Swift, I see little reason for another compiled language (add Python and JavaScript for interpreted languges). If you really want something more obscure and less associated with big companies, add D and Ruby to the list.

Comment Re: We Need More Programming Languages! (Score 1) 157

I posted about this last time the python wars were on ;)

there should be 2 concepts that are never co-mingled. there is 'define a block' for the computer and 'define a block' for humans.

python's mistake was that they combined them. what we SEE (and makes sense, based on our 2d vision/brain abilities) needs to be something to show us, quickly, what a block is. indenting works and that's fine.

what the computer PARSES does not need visual 2d help. the computer parser needs to be so robust that it is immune to our petty 'what we SEE' things. for this, we use brackets or begin/end blocks or what the hell bash uses (never liked it, but its also a block structure that is immune to spaces, more or less). and you can post code that is messed up by good old html and 'webmasters' and then extract it via a download, compile it and it will work.

with python and other misguided languages, a simple mistaken space format change - which often happens when posting code to forums - will totally blow your code reliability. it MAY or may NOT work. even if it works, is it actually correct? yeah, that can be pushed left. and that, too. it still 'works' but is it RIGHT?

sigh. this is fucked up, guys. it happens enough that we need to learn our lesson, say 'nice try' but it did NOT work out.

we need to keep the computer parser block stuff separated from our 'presentation layer' that we, humans, use to create and edit and read source code.

give me brace-based c code, totally mess up the spacing and I can run it thru a beautifier (for me, just plain emacs) and I'll SEE what you meant by your code. just cannot do that with the python style languages.

please, language creators of the next generation: learn from this. guido is a smart guy, but he's not perfect and he was 100% wrong when he decided to COMBINE those 2 concepts. good try, pat on the back and all that, but admit it didn't work out and lets move on, already!

Comment Re:Deforestation (Score 2) 152

If you're including recent figures, then you need to figure in that oceanic pollution is disrupting the life of plankton, which produce most of the oxygen in the atmosphere. I doubt that the figures are recent enough to reflect the recent plankton die-offs, but expect the Oxygen levels of the atmosphere to take a sharp dip over the next few centuries. (it's a pretty slow cycle.)

Comment Re:Cheaper to get hacked than do security maintena (Score 1) 55

PHP? It's been my impression that right there you have identified one of the main security problems with your system.

FWIW, any rapid changeover is going to introduce its own costs and problems, but it is possible to write secure software which will generally pay for itself over time. Just not in the next quarter, or probably the next year. And you need to do decent Q/A testing before releasing the software. You still won't catch everything, but with the right design exploits won't propagate from module to module.

The real problem is trying to change too much too quickly and without sufficient Q/A. Doing that will save you money over the long term, but not over the short term, and it will mean that you don't adopt the latest glitz very quickly...and often not at all. So your image, as well as your actuality, won't be "cutting edge" but rather "solid and reliable". There are reasons the "cutting edge" is frequently called the "bleeding edge".

Slashdot Top Deals

"It doesn't much signify whom one marries for one is sure to find out next morning it was someone else." -- Rogers