Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!



93 Harvard Faculty Members Call On the University To Divest From Fossil Fuels

SEE Re:What does it mean to divest? (214 comments)

You call it "key", but it's pointless. Profits on the trade of stocks accrue to traders, not the underlying company. Making Exxon's stock price collapse with a "successful" divestment campaign can wreck any number of stock traders, pension boards, and mutual funds, but it does not remove a single cent from Exxon's bottom line.

4 days ago

93 Harvard Faculty Members Call On the University To Divest From Fossil Fuels

SEE Re:What does it mean to divest? (214 comments)

What is divestment but a form of boycott?

Boycotts of a company's products work because the operations of a company are making and selling the product, and not buying that product cuts off their income, lowering their profits. Boycotts of a company's stock, on the other hand, have no affect on the company's operations at all, and do not affect either income or profits. The business goes on as normal.

There is _nothing_ that compels an "automatic, equal and opposite transaction"

Um, yes, there is. The fact that until someone buys the stock, you have not actually sold it. This is really, really basic. Otherwise there's no sale. Every single successful sale of stock ever, by definition, is also a successful purchase of stock by the counterparty. Until someone other than Harvard buys the stock from Harvard, Harvard has not yet divested itself. Since the amount the other party paid and the number of shares they receive is identical to the amount Harvard receives and the number of shares Harvard gets rid of, the divestment is automatically coupled to an equal and opposite investment.

selling stock can actually generate a positive feedback loop that causes _more_ stock to be sold.

But it cannot cause more stock to be sold than is bought. Because without a buyer, there is no sale. Transactions have two parties and two sides and both sides are always in balance.

Yes, if lots of people want to sell the stock and few want to buy, that makes the stock price go down, and because lots of stock traders are stock price speculators, that can have a herd effect. So what? The price of stock does not affect the operations or the balance sheet of the business in the slightest.

Stock price only matters to investors who are gambling on share price appreciation. There are a lot of investors like that, but not all. Plenty of people buy stock for the dividends, and your divestment campaign simply makes the stock more attractive to those people. Net, what you do with a divestment campaign is change the owners of the company from people who want the stock price to go up to people who want the company to pay high dividends - and the former care a lot more about bad PR than the latter. Divestment, insofar as it has any effect on a coal company, will make that company less sensitive to social pressure that might affect the stock price and more interested in maximizing operational profit to maximize dividends.

4 days ago

93 Harvard Faculty Members Call On the University To Divest From Fossil Fuels

SEE Re:What does it mean to divest? (214 comments)

No, divestment doesn't touch income at all, in the slightest, much less "profoundly". Boycotts and sanctions do, and what hurt South Africa was the boycotts and sanctions. If they were calling for Harvard to boycott energy from fossil fuels, there would actually be an economic point to the petition.

Divestment, on the other hand, does precisely nothing to income. In order to divest, Party B, the divestor, sells Party A's stock to Party C. Party C invests in the stock to the exact same extent that Party B divests. It's an automatic, equal-and-opposite transaction. And Party A doesn't have its operations affected in the slightest.

4 days ago

93 Harvard Faculty Members Call On the University To Divest From Fossil Fuels

SEE Re:What does it mean to divest? (214 comments)

Which makes me wonder where the "Why is this on Slashdot!?" crowds are.

Now, now. I think it is news that at least 93 members of the Harvard faculty are so ignorant of how the stock market works that they don't notice that any divestment by any party, by necessity, is automatically matched by an equal investment by the counterparties who buy the stock from the divestor.

The problem is the headline, which should read something like, "93 Harvard faculty members admit they're as ignorant of economics as creationists are of biology". Well, and a summary that seems to think it's possible for any divestment campaign to have victories. But, still, the underlying fact 93 Harvard professors are ignorant fools is worth noting.

5 days ago

Nat Geo Writer: Science Is Running Out of "Great" Things To Discover

SEE Re:Level of public funding ? (290 comments)

Right now, our current observations combined with general relativity say 96% of the universe is unaccounted-for by anything resembling a solid theory in quantum mechanics. Or, conversely, our current observations combined with quantum mechanics says general relativity is so wrong that it only can be made to work by assuming a mass-energy budget 25 times greater than that of the actual universe. So how can there not be anything huge to discover?

Granted, the stuff might be beyond our ability to discover, but we pretty blatantly don't know what's actually going on.

5 days ago

Why There Are So Few ISP Start-Ups In the U.S.

SEE Re:You people are so ignorant... (223 comments)

This is not because of "regulations" it's because of anti competitive measures like "franchise fees"

So, it's not because of "regulations", just government . . . I guess we'll call them "rules" . . . that require payment of fees in order to be allowed to compete?

If the government, at any level, has the regulatory power to say no to new competitors entering a business, the incumbents in that business will spend money at that level to convince them to say "no" to new competitors. It has happened every single time, with every single industry than any country every has ever allowed its government to regulate what businesses may enter a market. From medieval guilds to Elizabethan patents to taxi medallions to the FCC, it always happens.

And it happens every single time because regulation causes corruption. Public choice economics can no more be repealed by the ignorant but well-meaning than pi can be made to equal exactly 3.

about two weeks ago

Linux May Succeed Windows XP As OS of Choice For ATMs

SEE Re:Well Duh... (367 comments)

Why? In large part because it was an easier migration from OS/2 to XP than to anything else, that's why.

And OS/2 was there because in the late 1980s and early 1990s IBM was backing it and the other available choice was SCO Unix.

about three weeks ago

Church Committee Members Say New Group Needed To Watch NSA

SEE Re:Just disband it (143 comments)

The top is the President, unless someone has evidence he gave an order to stop the spying and it was disobeyed.

about a month ago

Church Committee Members Say New Group Needed To Watch NSA

SEE Re:Nice that they're trying.. (143 comments)

Oh? Has the NSA defied a direct Presidential order?

If and when Obama, head of the Executive Branch, tells the NSA to stop collecting, and they keep collecting anyway, then we can start talking about how the NSA is only beholden to its own agenda.

In the meantime, there's no reason at all to believe the buck does not stop with the President. This is not "NSA spying" any more than that the war in Iraq was the "Department of Defense's war".

about a month ago

Church Committee Members Say New Group Needed To Watch NSA

SEE Re:Beyond oversight? (143 comments)


It's not like Obama has issued an order for the NSA to stop domestically collecting metadata right now. If he did that and the NSA kept collecting, then there would be an issue about whether the NSA was "by nature beyond oversight".

Rather, what we have here is the NSA doing what the President has told them they can do. Pretending the NSA is a rogue agency is simply letting the person in charge - the President - off the hook.

about a month ago

Environmentalists Propose $50 Billion Buyout of Coal Industry - To Shut It Down

SEE Re:Better uses for $50 billion (712 comments)

The atmosphere is, on the books, $0 in assets. That doesn't mean you can phase out use of the atmosphere and not wreck the economy. Imagine how much damage the economy would take if you stopped people from using the atmosphere and instead required that they acquire necessary gasses from non-atmospheric sources.

about a month ago

Scottish Independence Campaign Battles Over BBC Weather Forecast

SEE Re:Makes sense (286 comments)

Scotland will still be part of the EU,

No, it won't still be a part of the EU. As a newly-independent state, it does not inherit membership in any limited-membership treaties. Scotland will have to petition for admission to any such it wishes to join, including the EU. It will then, under EU rules, have to get the unanimous consent of all EU members to join the EU.

I know the SNP says otherwise; the SNP is spouting nonsense.

Now, it's highly likely that the EU will be willing to let it in. However, there's no way it'll be let in without satisfying the rest of Europe on entry conditions.

This is why, in fact, there's no major question on what currency Scotland will use at all. It will either use the Euro from day one or use a local currency locked in the ERM II with the auto-glidepath to joining the Euro, because agreeing to do that will be a condition of joining the EU (nobody has any reason to give the Scots a way to take the Swedish dodge).

Scotland will not get any of the Thatcher-negotiated rebate, because none of the members of the EU have any reason to give it any part; the real wrangling will be between UK-EWNI and France on how much of the Scottish-proportional portion the UK keeps and how much is eliminated.

Scotland will at the same time assume a proportional portion of the British debt, because every EU member looking at its own separatist movement and its own debt will want to make the point to their separatists that independence won't mean escape.

about a month and a half ago

US Secretary of State Calls Climate Change 'Weapon of Mass Destruction'

SEE So, is he bragging? (401 comments)

I mean, Kerry's the guy who as Senator led the charge to kill the Integral Fast Reactor back in '94, easily making him one of the 100 people alive in the world today who are personally most responsible for carbon emissions. So, when the fucking asshole talks about the threat of climate change, is he bragging about his role in causing it?

about 2 months ago

Wayland 1.4 Released — Touch, Sub-Surface Protocol, Crop/Scale Support

SEE Re:So... what is it? (128 comments)

You won't need X if you use QT or GTK3

Yes, I know. Reminds me of Micrografx Mirrors and WLO.

about 3 months ago

Wayland 1.4 Released — Touch, Sub-Surface Protocol, Crop/Scale Support

SEE Re:So... what is it? (128 comments)

Wayland's an effort to stuff a pointless layer of abstraction underneath X on Linux in order to make performance worse and debugging more difficult.

(Yes, yes, they say it's an effort to replace X. But look at how they're doing the compatibility with X - running a full X server on Wayland in order to run X apps. Then look at how much effort they've put into making Wayland portable to other varieties of *nix.)

about 3 months ago

Linus Torvalds: Any CLA Is Fundamentally Broken

SEE Re:Contributions NOT wanted (279 comments)

It wouldn't be a "publicly acceptable reason" if it didn't have plausibility at a first glance.

The question, then, is if any of the reasons given actually have any merit, as opposed to mere plausibility. Which would require someone to come up with an example of when a CLA actually saved a project, or a lack of a CLA actually killed a project.

about 3 months ago

Nokia Takeover In Jeopardy Due To Alleged $3.4B Tax Bill In India

SEE Re:what's the basis for the dispute? (226 comments)

The basis is that Nokia is a bunch of idiots that actually tried to do manufacturing in India, showing all the judgment they did when they went with Windows Phone as a platform.

See, India's intelligentsia, by and large, doesn't like manufacturing. It might be necessary to some degree, but, offered a chance to replicate Taiwan or China's success by starting with cheap manufacturing, they'd decline. They want to jump straight ahead to a service/software economy via education rather than pass through an intermediate step of actually making physical things. So the basic self-interested counterbalances that you'd see elsewhere ("But we need to learn from Nokia so we can do this!" or "We need to treat Nokia well so others will build plants here too!") are weakened.

So, there's going to be a new owner for the factory, and thus there's an opportunity to extract protection money. After all, it's not like India wants manufacturing anyway.

about 4 months ago

Is GWU Econ Prof. Nick Szabo Satoshi Nakamoto?

SEE Re:Why hide? (120 comments)

Well, mostly, because this way people don't send me fundraising letters.

about 4 months ago

Piracy Offers Heavy Metal a New Business Model

SEE I'm so the "nerd" in "News for Nerds" . . . (246 comments)

. . . I saw this headline and expected to see something about the use of lead and mercury in attacks on commercial shipping.

about 4 months ago

Critics Reassess Starship Troopers As a Misunderstood Masterpiece

SEE Re:Unless, of course, you study the author... (726 comments)

reflected the chauvinism of the nationalist, technocratic exceptionalism of the '50s -better living through chemistry, etc that presaged the rise of the military industrial complex and corporatism masking itself as progress.

Oh, yeah, that's Heinlein, all right, as exemplified by his very next book, Stranger in a Strange Land.

Look, Robert Heinlein was a writer of speculative fiction. The whole damn point was to extrapolate, odd consequences included. Which is why you get such radically different results (Double Star, Starship Troopers, Stranger in a Strange Land, and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, for example, all having completely incompatible takes on modern democracy) depending on what premises Heinlein was playing with at the time.

Ideally making the point to the thoughtful reader that the reader's society and that society's accepted theories, conscious and unconscious, are just as guilty of absurdities as those explored in the books. But some readers are too dense to notice that, and some are so invested in the propriety of their absurdities that they abandon all rational thought in their defensive denouncements.

about 5 months ago


SEE hasn't submitted any stories.


SEE has no journal entries.

Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account