1479 posts • joined 2 Jul 2007
More not very helpful economics-speak
"There was a vast amount of money wasted in dealing with Y2K, then we splurged way too much on dotcoms and it's hardly surprising that we're investing less in the wake of one of the largest recessions of modern times".
What's the matter, don't you believe in free-enterprise capitalism and the magical powers of *** THE MARKET ***?
As for "hedonic adjustment", isn't that the clever scam by which the US government replaced the price of beefsteak with that of "hamburger" (cheapo mince to you and me) to disguise the rising cost of food? It doesn't fool anyone.
"A genius that seemingly doesn't believe in free speech".
Absolutely wrong. What that strip does is to explain, to people like you, what "free speech" actually means - and what it doesn't mean.
"Close the tax loopholes..."
But we can't do that! Then who would give us the money we need to con voters into thinking we'll govern in their interests?
Economists wear mental blinkers
Economics isn't a science; it's barely even a craft. Boiled down to essentials, it consists in looking for patterns in people's economic behaviour that can be analyzed mathematically. But already this forces economists to over-abstract from the real world. Consider the example given: the shortage of toilet paper in Venezuela was caused by the enforced low price for it. If you are an economist, you feel an irresistible urge to generalize from this single observation (really just a theory). But what happens when you consider the market for labour rather than toilet paper? If employers force the price way down, does that mean there will instantly be a shortage of labour? Only if people want to lose their houses, their families to starve, and their quality of life to plummet. There is no parallel between supplying toilet paper (you can use the same resources to do something more profitable) and supplying labour (because for most of us, it's the only asset we've got).
As for building houses, well yes: only 2-3% of the land is covered with houses right now. (Presumably that doesn't include roads, shops, government buildings, parks, etc.) How much of the land near you would you LIKE to be covered with houses? Half? Nine tenths? Thing is, economists can only think about one thing at a time, so then they can figure out how to optimize it. But to live a decent life you need scores of different things - breathable air, drinkable water, decent food, somewhere comfortable to live, clothing, a source of income which probably entails working, job satisfaction, pleasant colleagues, a good boss, security, exercise, hobbies, companionship, love, a chance to have children and bring them up to enjoy all those things, a good education system, freedom from excessive taxes, freedom from oppressive laws and authorities... and on and on and on. An economist is happy to say, "Well, you could easily have far more housing" because he doesn't care about all the other things you'd have to give up to get it.
That's why economists are not much use except to discuss other people's mistakes - in hindsight. In other words, as far as I can see, they're not much use.
Re: Thank the Democrats
"The reason there's a market in this case is because the US Govt, in the shape of the Clinton Administration, notably V.P. Al Gore and Ira Magaziner, took explicit steps to open the Internet up as a competitive space in 1995".
As it happens, I was making a living at that time precisely by writing about the Internet, the Web, middleware and associated software technology. And this is the first I have ever heard about the US Government's role in "opening up the Internet". It was open already: no further opening was needed (or, indeed, possible).
Would you care to explain what you meant, giving details?
Re: Human Nature
"If web-pages could be rated by users and those users votes weighted by their historic use / abuse of the system then we might get a little nearer to an acceptable marketplace for knowledge".
Back in the 1980s, when the likelihood of a global internet was increasing, I gave these matters some thought. Apparently the big issues, regardless of technology, are security, reliability, and trust. I mean "trust" in the sense of the reader trusting the content she reads, nothing to do with security.
One way of calibrating trust would be to have a hierarchy of evaluators, working rather like S&P, Moody's, and Fitch for credit rating. Their job would be to look at the content available on the whole Web in various categories, and assess it according to some kind of star-rating or percentage system. What refines this idea is that those evaluators, in turn, would be evaluated by a set of meta-evaluators. Rather recursive, but the idea is that market forces would work on the evaluation system so that the best evaluators become more successful.
Of course, different types of reader would need different evaluators. Someone who reads "The Sun", for example, and wants similar Web content, would have to patronize an evaluator specializing in that kind of thing. Whereas those who want informed, articulate, and objective political commentary would need an entirely different service.
Market forces can work efficiently, even on the scale of the Web. But they need the right institutions through which to work.
Re: Human Nature
"So, the question is: should tolerant society tolerate intolerance? The answer is, I think, not if it wishes to continue".
Have you overlooked the fact that if society doesn't tolerate intolerance, it is no longer tolerant?
Incidentally, this was one of the moral foundations of Ian Fleming's James Bond books (not to be confused with the virtually unrelated movies). Fleming was uncomfortably aware that a tolerant liberal society fell into the aforementioned bind when (or, as it actually turned out, if) confronted by ruthless enemies who did not play by its rules. His answer was that a handful of people like Bond should take it upon themselves to fight secretly in support of our values. In doing so, Bond knew very well that he was deliberately sacrificing his own moral character - a sacrifice that was all the more inspiring because it was so great.
Nothing new here
The great thing about the Web, as TBL created it, is that it can still be used in its original plain vanilla flavour for its original purpose. No matter how much crap is piled on top of the Web to help people make money by exploiting human weakness, the original efficient steel skeleton is still in there - just as the original Internet is still underneath the Web and email and...
I yield to no one in my disdain for all the crap that has been piled on top of the Web, and the motives of those who did that. But, as Theodore Sturgeon once told a horrified audience of SF fans, "90% of science fiction is crap. <Long pause...> But that's all right. 90% of *everything* is crap".
White elephants or paper tigers?
"The Chinese navy have been pursuing ways to crack American carrier groups for a good few years to stop any intervention in a Taiwan crisis".
The American carriers have been expensive white elephants for at least 50 years. Relative to the Chinese, perhaps "paper tigers" would be a better phrase. In 1939, most politicians and admirals thought battleships were still the bee's knees. By 1945, the brand-new Iowa class - by far the best battleships ever built - were essentially obsolete, and the only duty that could be given them was providing AA fire for the carriers. However the carriers themselves, instrumental in winning WW2, became extremely vulnerable to missiles and torpedoes.
The only reason they are still parading proudly around the seas - for all the world like HMS Hood in the 1930s - is that no one has had a big enough war with the USA to take them out. (Also, they are handy for bullying nations that have no air defences or submarines worth speaking of).
Besides, it's smarter for the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, etc. to let the Americans go on shovelling huge sums of money into carriers, ridiculously expensive jets to fly off from them, and escort forces than to demonstrate that they are obsolete, and have the USA start building ships that would actually be useful in a modern war.
Re: They've got you...
"They'd just redefine "transmit" to make sure they got you..."
This is, by the way, a perfect example of one reason (among many) why programmers have to be smarter and more careful than lawyers.
Redefining "transmit" to mean, effectively, "receive" (or, at most, "request") is absolutely typical of what lawyers do. One bunch of highly paid lawyers argue for weeks about the wording of a law, then another bunch of highly-paid lawyers argue (in front of a judge who is a yet more highly paid lawyer) about what that wording "really" means.
Whereas a programmer has to make his code state, at all times, exactly what the machine should do. Not nearly, approximately, figuratively, or somewhat. Exactly. If the code says anything in the slightest bit different, then that is what will happen - and the programmer will be blamed for it.
Whereas lawyers deal in ambiguity and uncertainty, prosper from it, live immersed in it, programmers have avoid it utterly. Which job is harder and deserves to be better-paid?
Re: Police would definitely use that information against them if they got the chance
@Psyx: "Key thing to remember: The police are not barristers. They have a *working* knowledge of the law, but are not experts and aren't supposed to be".
And yet it is their duty to arrest anyone whom they see (or hear about) breaking the law. How on earth can they do that if they don't know the law themselves?
Further. It is a well-known legal maxim that "ignorance of the law is no defence". In other words, if you unwittingly break the law you are just as guilty as if you had done it deliberately.
I recall being told by my accountant, a partner in a substantial firm and a specialist in company accounting law, that the relevant laws would fill an entire shelf of books and change so rapidly that even he cannot begin to keep up with them. Now consider how small a fraction of all the laws are concerned with accounting. No one - not the most dedicated, assiduous lawyer - can possibly have even a rough knowledge of them all.
Yet our legal system insists that every citizen must act as if he knew every law in detail.
Obviously, if policemen do not know the law they cannot enforce it. If they fail to enforce laws that are on the statute book, that's bad. But if they try to enforce laws that don't exist, that is catastrophic. In either case, contempt for the law will ensue.
There is one simply, glaringly obvious solution that our politicians will NOT try: drastically cutting down the number and complexity of the laws.
"...could potentially bypass..."
Do you think there are enough qualifiers in there? I could potentially become President of the USA, if I could convince them I was born there. Ukraine could potentially become the 51st state of the USA. This whole universe could potentially be nothing more than a dream. And as many as one of the things advertised on commercial TV could potentially do what it's cracked up to.
Pasteurized before you see it
"The US military has been forced to destroy a top secret hypersonic weapon just four seconds after its test flight begun".
By which time it was one-third of the way round the world...
"Is there any other kind?"
have you ever encountered the mainstream media? (aka "presstitutes")
Re: I've seen it...
"Yes, stuff like this is terrible to watch. Seeing actual people actually get killed always sucks, even if you don't like the person who died".
I couldn't agree more, and nothing would make me watch the beheading video.
Nevertheless... the actual killing is much, much, MUCH worse than the video - whether anyone watches it or not. If a million people are killed in Iraq and no one notices (quite deliberately)... did it really happen?
YES IT DID, and that is far worse than any video that could ever be made. Let's get our thinking and our priorities straight.
Re: Democratic process
It's hardly encouraging that you can get downvoted on The Reg for stating a fact. Oh well...
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
- William Butler Yeats
Re: first used by the Spaniards
"Wassat, like 460 BC or something?"
Bloody good guess, Stevie! I couldn't have done anything like as well without Wikipedia...
Tell us - do you find life easier with no brains and no ethics?
Re: All Muslims terrorist?
"Whereas at their core Christianity and Buddhism *by their written precepts* (and I know opinion on their 'canon' varies) restrict themselves to the personal/spiritual and as far as they involve themselves in the secular mainly teach separation, the Qu'ran teaches engagement in the political..."
Which doesn't explain why so many people down the ages have been killed, maimed and tortured by Christians and - yes, even Buddhists. Unfortunately, many adherents to (and even leaders of) religions depart rather widely from the prescriptions of their holy books (if any).
Although Jews, Christians, and Muslims all have the Old Testament to fall back on, which gives quite explicit and detailed instructions on unprovoked aggressive war, systematic and extremely effective genocide, rape, and enslavement.
"how did that work out for yo uin school?"
Generally speaking, I just avoided them. On the one occasion when they cornered me, I threatened them with a pitchfork, and they seemed discouraged.
"Concentration camps were (IIRC) first used by the Spaniards in their colonial wars in the Caribbean".
As a history graduate with a continuing interest in the subject, I feel very reluctant to accept any claim of "the first" on such a matter.
I suspect similar institutions have existed ever since enough space was cleared for an enclosed area and material provided for a fence. Certainly around 413 BC, after the Athenian expedition to conquer Syracuse was comprehensively defeated, the Syracusans imprisoned the few Athenian soldiers who survived in their silver mines and worked them to death. Perhaps the critical date - about 4,000 BC? - was when prisoners were no longer eaten, but merely detained (and occasionally beaten or tortured for the amusement of the guards). As for "who invented the concentration camp", who didn't? I wouldn't like to guess. Who was that nasty ruler in "The Scorpion King"? Oh yes, Memnon. Might have been him.
(For extra credit, please note that it's *incorrect* to claim that "democracies never wage war on one another". Athens and Syracuse were the first two democracies on record, and they fought a vicious war to the death - as it happened, of Athens).
Hypocrites R Us
Does seeing this count?
No, thought not.
Smart little fellows (or do I mean their genes?)
"...the male is a vanishingly-small 5mm".
Brilliant survival adaptation - imitate a microscopic canape. With any luck the female won't even notice him, or if she does go for something more substantial such as a nematode.
Re: Western morality
Maybe those downvoters who disagree so strongly with Archbishop Tutu and Nelson Mandela would care to identify themselves, and explain what exactly it is that they disagree with?
Assuming, of course, that they even troubled to follow the link and read the Haaretz article.
Re: Western morality
'Here's a question: how far back do you go? 66 years? That certainly doesn't take you back to the "original inhabitants"'.
Sorry, P. Lee, that doesn't hold up. I specifically stated that I was going back 66 years - to the Jewish seizure of Palestine in 1948, which involved taking by force land on which Palestinian people had houses and farms, on which they had been living for hundreds of years. Killing many of those who resisted. Shooting and blowing up lots of British armed forces personnel, civilians, and administrators - something the British government seems to have completely forgotten.
And I beg to differ: the "original inhabitants" I meant were precisely those who were thrown violently off their farms and out of their houses, and killed if they tried to resist.
You may argue that people have been violently expropriating land and killing anyone who resisted since the beginning of time, and you would be correct. One might point to the Norman Conquest of England as a classic example. The difference in this specific case, however, is that it occurred three years AFTER the end of WW2, which is always pointed to as the start of a new (UN) era in which it is absolutely NOT acceptable to do such things. Not to put too fine a point on it, the founders of Israel did to the Palestinians exactly what the Nazis did to other peoples whose land they wanted - just three years after the final defeat of the Nazis and the enshrining of international principles that told us such behaviour is utterly unacceptable. No student of human behaviour should be too surprised that the victims of the Nazis responded by adopting very similar behaviour themselves; but it's not right and it's not just.
Re: Western morality
"That mad rambling is proof of what exactly?"
What "mad rambling", Arnold? On this forum it's customary to indicate whose comment you are answering, either by quoting some of the text to which your comment is a reply, or by using a header such as "@RatFink" or "@AC/time/date".
As things have shaken out, it looks as if your comment refers to the Haaretz article citing Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela in support of the Palestinians. Was that your intention? And if so, what exact aspects of the archbishop's open letter, or Mr Mandela's remarks, do you object to?
Re: Western morality
Re: Anybody know if the SLAs for Azure include chargebacks for loss of business?
'Azure's SLA guarantees "at least 99.9% availability"'.
Or else... what? Guarantees are as cheap as breath. What does the customer get if the guarantee is not met?
"Anybody know if the SLAs for Azure include chargebacks for loss of business?"
From what I know of M$ (more than I want to) I am guessing "not so much".
"So one needs to implement an on premise data centre to backup the cloud?"
Thank you. I believe you have said the final word on the whole matter.
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Chromecast video on UK, Euro TVs hertz so badly it makes us judder – but Google 'won't fix'
- Yes, UK. Johnny Foreigner has better mobe services than you