Forgot your password?

Comment: SO scoring is not comparable across questions (Score 1) 352

by Toby The Economist (#36789036) Attached to: Study Shows Programmers Get Better With Age

Can't post a comment on his blog. Post and preview just reload the page. Cookies are on for blogspot and I've a google.com account. No other way to contact Peter. I presume blogspot requires cookies enabled for some additional domain, but there's no way to find out. I'm gobsmacked as ever that a major web-site either doesn't know or doesn't care this occurs - both causes are stupifying.

My would-be comment;

I believe this analysis is fundamentally incorrect, due to the StackOverflow scores having a different meaning than that required for this analysis to be valid.

Difficult questions and answers, which require a great deal of specialist knowledge, receive very few votes, since almost no developers are qualified to hold an opinion.

I've answered questions on lock-free data structures which have in the end obtained one or two votes - because hardly anyone has spent the years required becoming competent in this field.

I've provided one sentence of grandma-wisdom about someone's problem at work with their boss asking them to use pirated software and I think I received 40 votes - 400 points.

Quick and simple answers to simple questions receive the highest number of votes.

I think the scoring system actually reflects the most popular answer for a single given question; that the scoring system is only meaningful *within the answers for a single question*. It selects and rates between them.

As such, this higher-level analysis, comparing scores *across questions*, is fundamentally incorrect. It requires scores to be a type of indicator which they are not.

To summarize; if answers requiring years of learning lock-free gains very few votes, but one-liners telling someone they'll have more problems in future get very many votes, the actual number of votes an answer receives does not indicate the skill or experience of the person posting the answer. It only reflects the rating of answers *for that one question*. If you wish to compare answers on a per person basis across questions, I think all you can do is consider the position of the answer within all the answers for that question, and assign a value to that position.

If this were done, my lock-free answer, which was top of the list of a very short list, would receive the top score, which my one-liner, which was I think second or third of the answers to that question, would receive a lower score.

Comment: Amazon censor negtive review by not accepting them (Score 1) 201

by Toby The Economist (#36617306) Attached to: Could Amazon Reviews Be Corrupt?

I've written one or two Amazon reviews - normal reviews, quite positive, they were accepted.

Then I bought a DVD - a Nick Cave live in concert DVD - and I panned it. (There was a logo, "MC", on a black oval, BIG, and present ALL THE TIME through the whole video, in the top left - it ruined the DVD). I said - "don't buy it".

Amazon never posted that review.

I've thought for a long time that Amazon censors reviews - if it really pans the product, it doesn't get on the Amazon site. ALL the Amazon reviews are in that sense corrupt, because Amazon remove the really negative reviews. You only see the more positive reviews.

Comment: what about freedom? (Score 1) 848

by Toby The Economist (#36436920) Attached to: Italy Votes To Abandon Nuclear Power

> progress?

This is wrong in so many ways.

If I want to build a nuclear power plant, that's my business (as long as I don't pollute the environment and so on).

It's my money, I bought the land, the people building it agreed to build it in exchange for the money I pay them, etc.

Then I can produce energy. Now, if there are Italians who don't *want* energy from nuclear sources, then what should happen is that they should buy their energy from providers who offer non-nuclear plans.

This way those who agree with nuclear can buy nuclear and those who don't, don't. We don't have any one group forcing itself on everyone else - which is what we see here, both in Italy and in Germany, just by different means.

If nuclear really is unpopular, if enough people don't want it, it really won't exist, not because we happen to have an untrustworthy State or fickle Public which for now ban it, but because the mass of people just won't buy the stuff.

What's happening now in Italy and in Germany is really horrible. It's unfree. It's one group forcing something upon everyone else.

Slashdot however is IME rather left-wing and is in favour of using the State to force things upon others, so long as whatever it is being forced is something Slashdot approves of, like State funded science subsidy or flights to Mars. Slashdot does not understand freedom.

Comment: Slashdot disappoints (Score 0) 174

by Toby The Economist (#36344146) Attached to: India's Schooling Experiment Tests Rich and Poor

Slashdot disappoints the hell out of me.

You'd think - you'd hope - this would be a liberal forum. Would have a care and an interest in freedom.

But every time I talk about *freedom* - about NOT forcing other people to do things - I get modded flamebait or troll.

Whenever someone posits forcing others to do things you LIKE, you're all for it. Shit yeah, tax the hell of people for research-this or free-eduction-that or travel-to-mars-by-2020 the other.

Whenever someone describes people being forced to do things you don't like, you're up in arms!

The idea that people *shouldn't be forcing others* is alien to Slashdot - this forum is no different to any other; neo-conservative, red-neck religious, left-wing liberal - you all have the things you like and the things you don't like, you all completely disagree on what those things are, but you DO all believe in forcing others to do what you want.

From my POV, it's all one and the same.

This post too will, if it's read - the thread is old now - will be modded flamebait. Slashdot - like all those other forums - does not comprehend existential criticism. Anything which invalidates Slashdot is flamebait/troll. It's a way of not thinking.

Comment: Act of Evil (Score -1, Flamebait) 174

by Toby The Economist (#36342228) Attached to: India's Schooling Experiment Tests Rich and Poor

That education act was an act of pure evil.

If I take my money, which belongs to me, and I open *my* school, it's *my* business - and no one elses.

No one else has *any* right to come along and order me around - let alone ordering me who my students will be.

There's this thing, it's called Freedom. It means no one can force you to do things, or deceive into doing them - unless they're acting in self-defence, and this isn't self-defence.

India is poor for a reason - it's Government. The State is profoundly corrupt and protectionist. This act is just another example of the State forcing others to do its bidding.

Comment: Re:Tabloid trash (Score 1) 858

by Toby The Economist (#36177664) Attached to: BitCoin, the Most Dangerous Project Ever?

With US debt at 14.3 trillion dollars and with countless examples through history of hyperinflation causing default and massive human suffering, it is not obvious to me that deflation is worse.

Moreover, you must consider *why* deflation or inflation is occurring.

If inflation is occurring because the State prints money, not only is that theft, but it is a situation where the State has the potential to massively abuse its monopoly and destroy the economy. This is a major risk and problem.

If deflation is occurring because no new money is being created while at the same time the economy is generating new wealth, it is easy then print roughly the correct amount of new money.

The latter situation is, I think, obviously preferable to the former.

Comment: Re:Tabloid trash (Score 1) 858

by Toby The Economist (#36151290) Attached to: BitCoin, the Most Dangerous Project Ever?

I wrote:
> Why do I have to use the Government's money?
> Why can't I use my own?

You've replied by telling me I can use euros...

There's a difference between using another State issued currency (euros, etc) and issuing *your own currency*.

What about *freedom?* if I want to issue my own currency and someone else will accept, why can't I?

The State has given to itself the monopoly of money. This permits the State to abuse its position and, for example, devalue the currency to fund spending. If a multitude of free, independent currencies were available - rather than a very small selection of monopoly monies (e.g. all State monopoly currencies) this would not be possible, since any currency being abused by its issuers would immediately be exchanged for trustworthy currencies.

People in general benefit hugely from a reliable, simple medium for the long term storage of wealth. When this is not available, everyones lives are made more troublesome and a consequence of this is that long term economic growth - the process which makes us all richer and brings the poor into wealth - is reduced.

Comment: Re:Tabloid trash (Score 1) 858

by Toby The Economist (#36151254) Attached to: BitCoin, the Most Dangerous Project Ever?

> You don't have to use Government money.

Incorrect. Fiat currency is a State monopoly. Private individuals *are not permitted, by law, to issue fiat currency*.

Along with that, the fact you *can* barter is irrelevant, because it doesn't change the fact that the general freedom to issue currency is denied by the State.

> The thing about State creation of money is not that it isn't topical, but that it's largely irrelevant.

The US Government has recently created truly vast amounts of money. I think it incorrect to assert this is irrelevant. We will see what happens.

Comment: Re:Article Has a Very Strange Conflict (Score 1) 858

by Toby The Economist (#36141466) Attached to: BitCoin, the Most Dangerous Project Ever?

I live where we don't trust Government statistics and notice all four major currencies in a devaluation race and gold at 1500 USD an ounce.

Also, have a look at this, it's a long term graph showing the real value of sterling since 1750.


Inflation in the UK is rising and has just topped 4%. It'll be worse in the USA.

Comment: Re:Tabloid trash (Score 1) 858

by Toby The Economist (#36141410) Attached to: BitCoin, the Most Dangerous Project Ever?

Think about freedom.

Why do I have to use Government money?

If one individual has a contract with another, what business or right does a third party have to impose conditions on that contract?

Regarding the creation of money by the State, I mention that as a particular problem because it is a major topical issue.


by Toby The Economist (#36140344) Attached to: BitCoin, the Most Dangerous Project Ever?

> Does anyone honestly think the promise of protection from inflation will cause people to ask for their paycheck in BitCoins?

I'm interested. The alternative is investment, which is problematic due to the risks involved and bureaucracy, or gold, which is highly speculative.

I'd give a -lot- to have a stable, trustworthy, inflation free currency, something not subject to Governmental manipulation. Right now I hold as little fiat currency as possible, simply because the State keeps stealing wealth from me by devaluing the currency.

Either way, whether or not this BitCoins are going to be THE solution, they are A solution, and the more solutions there are, the better.
