1. So everyone would rush to publish a trivial paper which cites nothing. Cite trade with another of your papers to ensure at least one paper by someone else cites this trivial paper. Become king of the hill using a trivial paper.
2. If logically, your paper cites 3 and you know anyone is unlikely to cite this paper. This makes the potential score of your paper to be 0/3 = 0. How to game this?
You know 10 other people in a similar situation. You cite trade with them, getting everyone's score 10/13. Much better than 0.
Opinion yes, but completely baseless and incorrect. I've pointed you to XDA where you can see at least 50 open bootloader phones, but you've been unable to name a single recent HTC or Samsung android phone.
No one else shares the "opinion" - if you notice, no one came to your rescue. Depending on definition of certain words, I even agree with those "others", but you are just wrong.
So, found any "locked" recent Samsung android phone?
So? Now I've told you who the "others" are. None of them came to your rescue. Now tell me, why are you such a pussy that you have to involve "others" in a simple discussion about your own "opinion " that the "average " android phone is "locked"?
My apologies, I meant the expectation value. I thought it would get tedious to put expectation value everywhere. Corrected version below.
No. People expect to value a good meal more than the dollars they spend on it, that is the only reason why it is advisable to try to(1) have a good meal. If they don't, which is rare but possible, it is completely foolish to try to have a good meal for the price.
But for financial products, where you pay money and get back money, this isn't that straightforward. It only makes sense to buy a financial product when either you expect to get back more money than you paid, including time value of money (e.g. possibly mutual funds), or at least you expect to get back more money "value" (e.g. possibly insurance).
Both insurance and nice meal are justifiable by expected "value" of goods or services received that is more than that of paid. Both subjective. But as you despised all subjective looks, with that perspective, trying to buy good meal and insurance are both foolish.
(1) : "Try to" because meal might turn out to be bad.
Lotteries are rarely non-foolish, so I don't understand what you mean. Though the "value" of dreams they inspire could be considered to be larger than lottery ticket price;).
I'm sorry, are you putting me on? Would you seriously ask "where is nice objective dollars" in "having a good meal" or "wearing a comfy pair of shoes"?
No. People value a good meal more than the dollars they spend on it, that is the only reason why it is advisable to have a good meal. If they don't, which is rare but possible, it is completely foolish to have a good meal for the price.
But for financial products, where you pay money and get back money, this isn't that straightforward. It only makes sense to buy a financial product when either you get back more money than you paid, including time value of money (e.g. possibly mutual funds), or at least you get back more money "value" (e.g. possibly insurance).
Both insurance and nice meal are justifiable by "value" of goods or services received that is more than that of paid. Both subjective. But as you despised all subjective looks, with that perspective, buying good meal and insurance are both foolish.
Rest easier is also subjective. And completely compatible with people valuing dollars more when scarce. But incompatible with your argument that "subjective look is not worth much".
I did put it when I got time. You linked me somewhere else too. They just weren't as wrong as you are. Just accept it - I am right and you are wrong. It is really as simple as that.
Obviously. I was asking whether you would say it is always foolish to buy insurance since it is economically lossful. To that you said that no, you buy to avoid catastrophic loss.
I ask, economically, why does it make sense to buy insurance when it necessarily involves a statistical certainty of economic loss. Why must catastrophic loss be avoided by overpaying by buying insurance if dollar is not more valuable when scarce?
I think, and i am saying it, that without my "subjective " look, or an equivalent, insurance can never make sense. Do you disagree? And why?
And why would you overpay for avoiding catastrophic loss? Especially if you don't agree dollar is more valuable when scarce? And if you do agree, that's what I am saying, on which you say it's a subjective look and not necessarily useful.
The statement surely doesn't apply to a judge. It is not a judge who is "punishing" the sinner/criminal, but the state. The judge is just the medium through which the state chooses to act.
That is one good reason why institutionalized justice is much less of an "infinite loop" than mob justice. One sees much less of an urge to revenge themselves upon police, lawyers, paralawyers, courtroom staff, judge, jury, because they act according to a system. The whole process is as non-violent and logical as such processes can be, so that baser instincts are in check. And also because there are too many of them.
No, an insurance policy is not a savings vehicle. Even life insurance isn't, since the actuarial premiums on average are in excess of the expected payments + investment returns (all numbers suitably discounted), or else an insurance company couldn't exist as a going concern.
That is correct. But the principle is that the same dollar is more useful in some circumstances. Roughly analogous to the diminishing marginal value concept of money, but not exactly.
So when you are sick, or breadwinner in your family is dead, a dollar is likely to be more valuable to you than to one who is not in similar situation. So it is completely correct while everyone pays more insurance premiums than everyone together receives insurance payouts. But since the payouts go to those who likely value the dollar more, total value of insurance is positive.
Purely financially, it does end up creating a situation where people end up subsidizing each other. Looking at it value wise, everyone gains.
Which particular note from Buffet were you referring to, BTW? I have read some of those, but maybe not this exact one.
Well, I do like to prove wrong the opinionated fools with wrong and baseless opinions, yes.
The more unfair tactics they use, the better. You tried changing the subject, hiding behind other people, and lengthening the argument needlessly. So yes, it is fairly satisfactory for me, thanks.
It is not called merely a "deficiency" when the entire premise is baseless. And it was completely my intention to point out that the entire premise is baseless.
You have surreptitiously modified the "answer" over time, and tried to shout down when I pointed that out. But the original premise remains a completely technologically illiterate idea.
Slashdot Mirror
1. So everyone would rush to publish a trivial paper which cites nothing. Cite trade with another of your papers to ensure at least one paper by someone else cites this trivial paper. Become king of the hill using a trivial paper.
2. If logically, your paper cites 3 and you know anyone is unlikely to cite this paper. This makes the potential score of your paper to be 0/3 = 0. How to game this?
You know 10 other people in a similar situation. You cite trade with them, getting everyone's score 10/13. Much better than 0.
Opinion yes, but completely baseless and incorrect. I've pointed you to XDA where you can see at least 50 open bootloader phones, but you've been unable to name a single recent HTC or Samsung android phone.
No one else shares the "opinion" - if you notice, no one came to your rescue. Depending on definition of certain words, I even agree with those "others", but you are just wrong.
So, found any "locked" recent Samsung android phone?
Weak, weak, weak. What a pussy you are. How about some self-control? You've conclusively lost the argument got it?
So? Now I've told you who the "others" are. None of them came to your rescue. Now tell me, why are you such a pussy that you have to involve "others" in a simple discussion about your own "opinion " that the "average " android phone is "locked"?
Ok, I apologize profusely . I thought you had some idea what you are talking about.
My apologies, I meant the expectation value. I thought it would get tedious to put expectation value everywhere. Corrected version below.
No. People expect to value a good meal more than the dollars they spend on it, that is the only reason why it is advisable to try to(1) have a good meal. If they don't, which is rare but possible, it is completely foolish to try to have a good meal for the price.
But for financial products, where you pay money and get back money, this isn't that straightforward. It only makes sense to buy a financial product when either you expect to get back more money than you paid, including time value of money (e.g. possibly mutual funds), or at least you expect to get back more money "value" (e.g. possibly insurance).
Both insurance and nice meal are justifiable by expected "value" of goods or services received that is more than that of paid. Both subjective. But as you despised all subjective looks, with that perspective, trying to buy good meal and insurance are both foolish.
(1) : "Try to" because meal might turn out to be bad.
Lotteries are rarely non-foolish, so I don't understand what you mean. Though the "value" of dreams they inspire could be considered to be larger than lottery ticket price ;).
I'm sorry, are you putting me on? Would you seriously ask "where is nice objective dollars" in "having a good meal" or "wearing a comfy pair of shoes"?
No. People value a good meal more than the dollars they spend on it, that is the only reason why it is advisable to have a good meal. If they don't, which is rare but possible, it is completely foolish to have a good meal for the price.
But for financial products, where you pay money and get back money, this isn't that straightforward. It only makes sense to buy a financial product when either you get back more money than you paid, including time value of money (e.g. possibly mutual funds), or at least you get back more money "value" (e.g. possibly insurance).
Both insurance and nice meal are justifiable by "value" of goods or services received that is more than that of paid. Both subjective. But as you despised all subjective looks, with that perspective, buying good meal and insurance are both foolish.
Rest easier is also subjective. And completely compatible with people valuing dollars more when scarce. But incompatible with your argument that "subjective look is not worth much".
Where is nice objective dollars in "rest easier"?
Please explain what you mean by that Mr Coward who didn't dare to attack the others like you attacked me. Who are those others?
Same "others" as in your own this very post.
you are a master at baiting
Thanks.
utter waste of time.
Learn to take responsibility for your own actions.
what's your excuse?
Like I said earlier, I love proving wrong the opinionated fools with wrong and baseless opinions.
I did put it when I got time. You linked me somewhere else too. They just weren't as wrong as you are. Just accept it - I am right and you are wrong. It is really as simple as that.
BTW, why do you have to hide behind "others" ?
"Rest easier" is not consistent with "subjective look is not worth much"
Why do they rest easier if they don't value scarce dollar more?
Obviously. I was asking whether you would say it is always foolish to buy insurance since it is economically lossful. To that you said that no, you buy to avoid catastrophic loss.
I ask, economically, why does it make sense to buy insurance when it necessarily involves a statistical certainty of economic loss. Why must catastrophic loss be avoided by overpaying by buying insurance if dollar is not more valuable when scarce?
I think, and i am saying it, that without my "subjective " look, or an equivalent, insurance can never make sense. Do you disagree? And why?
And why would you overpay for avoiding catastrophic loss? Especially if you don't agree dollar is more valuable when scarce? And if you do agree, that's what I am saying, on which you say it's a subjective look and not necessarily useful.
It is not emotional, the value of dollars when scarce is practical. Do you also say that diminishing marginal value is not an economics concept too?
What is economic value of insurance then? It is a statistically certain loss, "economically" as you put it.
Without this subjective look, it is always foolish to get insurance (unless mandated by law, of course) . Is that your statement?
Overlarge insurance would be less valuable precisely for this subjective "value" reason : dollar isn't that valuable when in oversupply.
The statement surely doesn't apply to a judge. It is not a judge who is "punishing" the sinner/criminal, but the state. The judge is just the medium through which the state chooses to act.
That is one good reason why institutionalized justice is much less of an "infinite loop" than mob justice. One sees much less of an urge to revenge themselves upon police, lawyers, paralawyers, courtroom staff, judge, jury, because they act according to a system. The whole process is as non-violent and logical as such processes can be, so that baser instincts are in check. And also because there are too many of them.
But Netflix and Amazon will gladly pay since it it means no small company can ever compete them in such a market.
I did ask
BTW how is the search for "locked" recent Samsung or HTC Android phone going ?
which is the real subject matter, which you have been avoiding for a while now.
Come on, if an "average" Android phone is "locked", it shouldn't be difficult to find a "locked" phone from such dominant companies, should it?
In your "initial post", I hadn't even asked this question.
Not sure what title and what label you are talking about. It appears that you are incapable of communicating with anybody properly.
Great, I get one more opinionated idiot to prove wrong whenever I fancy.
BTW how is the search for "locked" recent Samsung or HTC Android phone going ?
Hey! What a coincidence. I live here too.
No, an insurance policy is not a savings vehicle. Even life insurance isn't, since the actuarial premiums on average are in excess of the expected payments + investment returns (all numbers suitably discounted), or else an insurance company couldn't exist as a going concern.
That is correct. But the principle is that the same dollar is more useful in some circumstances. Roughly analogous to the diminishing marginal value concept of money, but not exactly.
So when you are sick, or breadwinner in your family is dead, a dollar is likely to be more valuable to you than to one who is not in similar situation. So it is completely correct while everyone pays more insurance premiums than everyone together receives insurance payouts. But since the payouts go to those who likely value the dollar more, total value of insurance is positive.
Purely financially, it does end up creating a situation where people end up subsidizing each other. Looking at it value wise, everyone gains.
Which particular note from Buffet were you referring to, BTW? I have read some of those, but maybe not this exact one.
Oh, yes, I forgot the other unfair tactics you used - cry "bully!!!" and question motivation but not reply to the same question yourself.
Well, I do like to prove wrong the opinionated fools with wrong and baseless opinions, yes.
The more unfair tactics they use, the better. You tried changing the subject, hiding behind other people, and lengthening the argument needlessly. So yes, it is fairly satisfactory for me, thanks.
It is not called merely a "deficiency" when the entire premise is baseless. And it was completely my intention to point out that the entire premise is baseless.
You have surreptitiously modified the "answer" over time, and tried to shout down when I pointed that out. But the original premise remains a completely technologically illiterate idea.