Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:IL had free rides to all senior citizens 2008-2 (Score 1) 7

IL had free rides to all senior citizens 2008-2011 costs forced them to cut it to just low-income seniors.

No, there are no free rides. What you mean is, "Illinois decided to have taxpayers buy rides for certain people from 2008 to 2011" ... and ... "they couldn't get the taxpayers to pay even more, so they cut down the number of rides the taxpayers were buying to a more select group of those certain people."

Comment Re:Alexander Hamilton (Score 1) 1429

The nuclear option can only be brought up by the majority. This is because the majority is needed to change the rules either at the beginning of the session or during the session (through the trickery of claiming that something is not "rules change" but merely an "interpretation" -- such as in "We, the majority, agree that the word 'pi' in the Senate rules should be interpreted as having the exact value of 3").

A nominee can only be kept from being voted on by either a filibuster by the minority or by the majority simply deciding they don't choose to schedule it.

The "nuclear option" was put on the table by Reid a week or two before the election (when he foolishly assumed Democrats would control the Executive AND the Senate) not to force a nominee to be put up for a vote but to make sure that the Republicans couldn't stop the confirmation from happening by invoking a filibuster.

So, putting the nuclear option on the table really had nothing to do with forcing votes on a nominee - the (assumed) Democrat majority in the Senate could do that whenever they wanted.

Comment Re:Narrow (Score 1) 49

None of the features will be as small as 10nm in size, just like none of Intels 14nm chips have features even close to as small as 14nm.

The current trend in labeling since transistors started on their vertical adventures is to extrapolate an "equivalent" feature size based on overall transistor density. These TSMC-made chips have about a 30% higher density than their "14nm" chips, just as Intels "10nm" chips will have about a 30% higher density than their "14nm" chips.

Comment Re:Not really the whole story... (Score 1) 49

Intel is only "refining" the 14nm design through the natural course of their "tick-tock" process (which has now added a third "tock", which seems likely to be due to lack of real competition).

No its because their 10nm test yields aren't even close to economical.

Intel has blown their advantage. I'm sure someone will reply with "but its not real 10nm" while being completely ignorant that not only isn't Intel doing "real 14nm" that they are the ones that invented lying about feature size.

Comment Re:Wrong even if correct (Score 1) 223

Deflation is worse than inflation.

- nonsense, that's an unqualified statement. Deflation is not worse than inflation, it is only inconvenient for the debtors and of-course USA government is the biggest debtor out there, but in general USA federal, state, municipal governments are all debtors, also USA corporations and individual are debtors. Of-course now that USA is this unproductive and cannot feed itself without 500Billion/year trade deficit deflation is worse for USA that inflation because Americans want to write off the value of the debt without paying for it.

Deflation increases the value of your savings, thus discouraging you from working

- and yet in the 19th century, on the gold (not standard, just on the gold), USA economy was actually growing and became the most productive economy, turning USA into a net exporter nation from being an importer and an afterthought to the European countries.

Currencies are stable when the money supply expands at about the same rate as the productivity of the country's citizens

- nice try, Orwell, currencies are stable when their value does not fall over time.

This completely Orwellian nonsense redefinition of stability as of something that is losing value at a constant rate is complete garbage that the mainstream and government propaganda has pushed over the last half a century to produce completely economically illiterate population (such as I am observing here now).

The other reason why Orwell would be proud of you today is that you actually bought into the 'increasing productivity of citizens' from your nonsensical government. USA productivity is so ridiculously low that it cannot feed itself without a yearly injection of over 500 Billion USD, which has been more or less the trade deficit for at least 20 years now.

The whole reason we abandoned the gold standard is that it's really stupid to base your economy's health on the gamble that the amount of gold miners dug out of the ground each year would match the rate of growth of your country's GDP.

- Ha ha ha ha, you abandoned the gold standard because your expenses have grown so far beyond your ability to produce that you had to *default* on the dollar and completely get away from the principle of sound money so that you could print your debts away, not for any other reason whatsoever.

As to the amount of gold, it's absolutely irrelevant, the year to year global production increases the total amount of accessible gold by about 1.5%. If USA actually wanted a *STABLE* inflation rate, it could *EASILY* stick to the global gold mining rate.

As to the number of recessions per year, all of them were due to government manipulation of the money supply, introduction/going of off of fiat (talking about the 19th century), introduction of the Federal reserve in 1913 and allowing the Fed to monetize Treasury debt in 1917, printing crazy amounts of money to buy bad UK debt from France in the late 1920s, which caused the bubble that blew up and that recession was turned into depression by Hoover's and FDR's policies of more monetary expansion and other intervention policies.

1971 default simply removed the remaining pretence to any form of stable money and allowed the government to increase inflation to the levels that businesses found it no longer acceptable to try and work within that system and moved production out of the country (and of-course the government growth became unstoppable with the unlimited printing powers, so taxes, laws, regulations became unstoppable as well, normal businesses could not compete with government connected and sponsored ones).

As to Bitcoin, it acts purely as money and has 0 intrinsic value (it has no value beyond being money), so it cannot replace real money that has value whether it is used as money or not. However this does not mean that Bitcoin cannot be used as a very interesting speculative instrument.

Comment Re:Net worth is over $86 trillion!!! (Score 2) 223

Except that the actual USA debt is over 221 Trillion (counting federal, State, municipal, corporate and personal). You are completely underestimating the actual debt, that's first, secondly you are greatly overestimating the earning potential (revenue that can be collected). You are also completely underestimating the inflation level and employment, basically the numbers you are playing with are nonsensical. Of-course the value of USA as a land mass, all of the untapped resources, companies that can still be bought out, things of that nature certainly are valuable, yet what exactly are you proposing to do at this point? USA already mortgaged all of that out, a person can be evicted from his house, will USA population be evicted from the Continent?

Comment Re:$50 billion for 50,000 jobs? (Score 1) 282

Okay, yeh, the government taxes $1 mil/ job out of the economy. If that was the case, then given that MILLIONS of people in the U.S. that work, the government would be rolling in money.

Tax revenue: $7.14 trillion

Sum of:
Federal: $3.64 trillion
State: $2.05 trillion
Local: $1.45 trillion

So yes, the government is rolling in money.

Comment Re:Wrong even if correct (Score 1) 223

In the simplest model, sure, we have 4% more money and 4% more stuff, so prices should be stable, right? But instead demand leads supply in a growing economy, so prices go up.

You think that there isnt a demand for currency and that supply and demand dont also apply to it, because you continue to be an ignorant fuck.

It is *your* model that is "simple" while you try to attribute your error to me.

You took an economics course and forgot 90% of it. You remain ignorant and will continue to remain ignorant while you continue to think that making things up is a substitute for veracity.

Comment Re:Wrong even if correct (Score 0) 223

Inflation is a symptom of a healthy economy. The money supply should be increasing as the economy increases.

Just wow at the completer ignorance of what inflation is.

If both increase at the same rate, there is no inflation, you economically ignorant fuck. Why are you pretending to be knowledgeable about a subject that you clearly are not? Surely you know that you arent knowledgeable on this subject.

Why are you being dishonest? What gain are you getting by pretending to know something that is patently not true and therefor you dont know?

Comment Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. (Score 1) 282

Big firms are powerful, and the US had done everything possible to destroy the unions where were the only force that could have resisted them.

Decline in US labor pricing power due to globalization did that. And we would still have globalization even if the US erected trade barriers way back when. Here is the usual failure to understand basic causes and to attribute current failure to convenient scapegoats.

Comment Re: We knew this going in (Score 1) 490

Say that after the coming battle over the very existence of Social Security.

Why haven't Social Security payouts already been trimmed back by the necessary quarter or more to bring future liabilities in line with future revenue? It makes little sense to complain about fights over the existence of Social Security if no one has done anything for the long term viability of Social Security ever since its inception.

The dissolution of Social Security is inevitable unless one is willing to stabilize it fiscally.

Comment Re:We knew this going in (Score 1) 490

C) If I have to carry B)'s analogy any further, there's really no point in even responding.

Ultimately, this is where we go. It isn't the analogy that's the problem. It's the lack of evidence for the supposed seriousness of global warming, both the actual degree of warming and the cost of the supposed harm of global warming.

Poverty is such a serious threat because there is a well known correlation between poverty and high human fertility. And overpopulation already is a key driver of many big human problems like war, disease, habitat destruction, pollution, global warming, etc.

To claim that global warming is bigger than one of the biggest problems on Earth requires more than analogy, it requires evidence.

Comment Re:Wrong even if correct (Score 5, Insightful) 223

Deflation is worse than inflation. Inflation devalues your savings, thus encouraging (forcing) you to go out there are do more work to earn more money (generate more productivity). Deflation increases the value of your savings, thus discouraging you from working - why bother doing something productive when the money you have stuffed under your mattress is increasing in value enough to pay for your living expenses?

Currencies are stable when the money supply expands at about the same rate as the productivity of the country's citizens (basically GDP - a combination of population growth and increased productivity due to technological advances). That causes prices to remain stable when measured in the currency. Ideally, a government with a fiat currency moderates their money supply to slightly exceed this productivity growth rate, which causes a slight amount of inflation (prices slowly climb). Yes it's true that when a government screws things up (e.g. Venezuela right now), it can cause massive problems. But like regular oil changes for your car, there's a huge incentive for all governments to maintain their own economy.

The whole reason we abandoned the gold standard is that it's really stupid to base your economy's health on the gamble that the amount of gold miners dug out of the ground each year would match the rate of growth of your country's GDP. Historically, the amount of gold mined each year did not keep pace with economic growth, resulting in deflation, which led to higher economic instability. If you look at the history of recessions in the U.S., in the 45 years since 1971 when we went off the gold standard, there have been 6 recessions, or 1 per 7.5 years. In the 45 years prior (1926-1971) there were 9 recessions, or 1 per 5 years. The 50 years before that (1875-1925) saw 13 recessions, or 1 per 3.8 years. And the 50 years before that (1825-1875) saw 13 recessions as well. The amount of economic contraction during recessions has also been smaller since we went off the gold standard.

Unfortunately, bitcoin perpetuates this stupidity. Its value is based on (1) the rate at which people are able to "mine" bitcoins by solving increasingly difficult math problems, and (2) its total supply is capped at about 21 million coins. The very fact that bitcoins are appreciating in value is evidence that it's a terrible choice of a currency. You want the prices of staple goods to remain relatively stable in a currency. Instead, bitcoins are so deflationary that early adopters are literally able to live off of bitcoins they've stuffed under the mattress, instead of actually doing any productive work. A currency which enables that behavior is fatal to an economy. I'm not saying all crypto-currencies are flawed, or that there's no benefit to taking a currency out of government control. Only that bitcoin is fatally flawed in that it accomplishes the latter in the worst possible way. The huge increase in the value of bitcoins since its inception is not an indicator of its strength, it's an indicator of its unsuitability as a currency. It proves that bitcoin is incapable of scaling properly with the number of people using it (productivity growth due to population increase). In that respect it's more like real estate - where people who were born earlier were able to buy up most of it cheaply, leaving the current generation unable to afford to buy a home.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best. -- Oscar Wilde