Great. Except there's no indication that the answers arrived at were bad. The methods were sub-optimal. They went 'round the barn more than needed. That's what "correct" means. You can't just make stuff up, fudge, and elide, right?
You've misinterpreted the statement. Sorry. And you've invented a cross to bear. The scientists at CRU aren't involved in policy. The fluctuations aren't hard to measure. Sports isn't science or even vaguely analogous. Nobody but you brought up Wall St. time frames. Climate scientists aren't environmental scientists. CRU isn't the only center for analysis and the other centers have published their data and methods.
So, insightful comment, old chap. You got nothing right!
The cooling nature of some industrial aerosols has been known for a long time. Just last Fall we were treated with the project to pump hundreds of millions of tons of SO2 into the stratosphere via 12 mile long tubes at the poles. In was in the Freakanomics book that was a 9 day wonder everywhere.
This had been going on for YEARS! Did nobody notice that 2 Judge Roy Beans had been putting kids in jail for trivialities? Did these bozos just sit on their kickbacks, saving them up for their retirement?
The Constitution doesn't explicitly say that the power to suspend habeas is given to the Legislature
I should think that's implied, given that the restriction on suspending it is located in Article I (The Legislative Branch), Section 9 (Limits on Congress)
That's why I said "explicitly". Yours is a reasonable conjecture. As was Lincoln's argument: that the rebellion would suspend the execution of all American laws in the areas he (Lincoln) specified in his habeas suspension directives. (It's part of life that a reasonable argument often counters another reasonable argument.) So, the assertion is that Lincoln's a monster for suspending habeas in an area getting ready to rebel? He had taken a vow to uphold the Constitution and to see that all the laws of the US were faithfully executed. To do that he made a questionable assumption about the suspension of habeas. Which is why I labeled the arguments painting Lincoln a monster and a dictator were purely rhetorical.
Contrast Lincoln's carefully constrained application and painful necessity with the Bush administration open-ended rationale and specious levels of threat. There are obviously terrorists seeking to do us damage. We know it. They know we know it. Yet, the courts aren't threatened with closing. We aren't in imminent peril. The Bush people just wanted to press a belief in the Unitary Executive and had a rubber stamp cowardly Congress to effect it.
The Constitution doesn't explicitly say that the power to suspend habeas is given to the Legislature. It does say though that habeas could only be suspended during times of invasion of rebellion. The Civil War was clearly an instance of rebellion. Lincoln's suspensions were constrained as to time and geography. The arguments painting Lincoln as a usurping monster are purely rhetorical.
The Bush suspension of habeas was the product of an attitude looking for an outlet, a bully looking for a weakling. Bush (et al) had a theory of the executive and wanted to exercise it. We aren't being invaded. There is no rebellion. There's no need to treat terrorists as something other than simple criminals.
Two points. First, he isn't making a new allegation. Second, does the friggin' Telecom Immunity Bill ring a bell? Hellooooooo, McFly. They didn't decide to protect these people on a hypothetical.
Perhaps you're right and most likely there is something there. But you do realise that you can substitute almost any government bill in there and any industry and have a scary conspiracy theory.
Myself, I would prefer to have a bit more evidence before I break my pitchfork out.
Somehow that doesn't sound like a reasonable response to a bill that was designed to prevent inquiry into a rotten situation. The courts are where evidence of crimes are supposed to be aired. Take the courts out of the equation and we're left with what?
Two points. First, he isn't making a new allegation. Second, does the friggin' Telecom Immunity Bill ring a bell? Hellooooooo, McFly. They didn't decide to protect these people on a hypothetical.
Actually, it is completely evolutionary. Random Selection is simply an explanation for the biological evolution we see on Earth. There's no reason why a designer couldn't use sequences of random mutations that are consciously and deliberately culled.
Doctors are resistant to change because they're at the top of the financial heap. So many of the tasks we now assign to doctors could be easily done by others and done cheaper and better. When I had a male doctor as my primary care provider, I would routinely ask for the Physician Assistant to see me for everything she was permitted by law to do. I received excellent care. Even difficult or exotic diagnoses are better performed by expert systems than by a human. You could get your diagnosis at a kiosk if you weren't too sick to type and read. A human could screen the output -- requests for narcotics, obvious error, malicious entry, spurious requests for tests, etc.
If there weren't so many people with such a financial stake in our horrific inefficient delivery system, we'd have had a French or German style medical system years ago. (3 days with such a system and anyone suggesting a return to our present system would be hanged by his thumbs in the town square. If we had a town square.)
IIRC, there was an environmental calamity for homo sapiens around 70,000 years ago and our numbers dropped to a couple of thousand. We'd spread out of Africa before that and didn't even depend upon a fragile technological social structure for getting our daily calories. Widespread use of nukes would stress our numbers like that. Africa isn't even immune from that anymore -- witness the famines, losses due to disease, and civil unrests. (Human v Human violence, aka hand to hand, after the detonations shouldn't be discounted when you calculate the losses due to nukes. )
We've done a lot of damage to the surface of the planet but that shouldn't be mistaken for having a good grip on things.
Last summer a thief, looking for copper, just bowled over a transformer around the corner with his car. A huge flash, a muffled *whump*, and then pitch darkness. All the neighbors met out in the street in pajammas wondering what the hell had happened. There was no thunderstorm. It wasn't particularly hot. It took a half hour for the electric company to react and get a truck on site and we were all pretty POed. It turns out that the effort had been part of a genuine conspiracy: someone else across town had done the same thing around the same time.
We never heard about the fate of the perps. A squirrel had arced a transformer in the neighborhood around 20 years before and turned into a frizzled squirrel-like sculpture.
I suffer from bad insomnia which I had thought was even worse until my wife proved to me that a lot of my sleeplessness was caused by my habit of dreaming that I was awake. I'd be lying in bed fretful because I couldn't sleep while my wife was trying to rouse me because I was snoring so loud.
The illusion of being awake was so strong -- the cliche that we can tell the difference between reality and dreams is a crock -- that I refused to believe her until I had to rouse her for doing the same thing.
My father was in the hospital when my grandmother (his mother) came by to see how he was recovering. Pretty well, he said. They talked of this and that and finally my father had to mention that though he was pleased that Grandma had stopped by he was puzzled because she'd died the month before.
A couple of years later, after Dad died, he came by to see me and would have said something except that his mouth had been sewn shut.
The inflation adjusted debt accrual rate for the US government in the past 8 years has been about 380 billion dollars per year. This is equal to 3.4% of the total size of the economy.
Ignoring inflationary measures by the US government, the GDP has shrunk, not grown, for quite some time.
Not to mention the evaporation of several trillions of dollars in housing value, stock value, and (now) worthless debt instruments. How much more of a contraction do people want?
Question
Recession: How is that defined?
Answer
In general usage, the word recession connotes a marked slippage in economic activity. While gross domestic product (GDP) is the broadest measure of economic activity, the often-cited identification of a recession with two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth is not an official designation. The designation of a recession is the province of a committee of experts at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a private non-profit research organization that focuses on understanding the U.S. economy. The NBER recession is a monthly concept that takes account of a number of monthly indicatorsâ"such as employment, personal income, and industrial productionâ"as well as quarterly GDP growth. Therefore, while negative GDP growth and recessions closely track each other, the consideration by the NBER of the monthly indicators, especially employment, means that the identification of a recession with two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth does not always hold. For information on recession, or business-cycle, dating, see: http://www.nber.org/cycles/jan08bcdc_memo.html.
. The real culprit was the unregulated market in credit swaps and derivatives.
No, that was secondary. those derivatives are pyramided on the housing bubble, which was cause by the fed holding interest rates below the rate of inflation for over a decade.
-jcr
Secondary? The sub-prime market was > 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the credit swap market. Low interest rates didn't CAUSE the over-leveraging. Lots of financial institutions didn't indulge in them. Your Wellington 401-k probably has skated through almost untouched, I bet. You're blaming the fleas for the dog's condition when the owner beats it with a stick.
Sub-prime lending would have produced only regional effects (in the "sand states") if that were the only thing wrong with the economy. Blaming sub-prime lending is ludicrous: it's scope is less than 3-5% the amount being sent to banks and other financial institutions. The real culprit was the unregulated market in credit swaps and derivatives. A market of 20-30 trillion dollars: around 2 orders of magnitude larger than the sub-prime mortgage problem. There were margins that would have shamed a stock broker in 1929.
This element is downplayed in some quarters because it demolishes the viability of unregulated capitalism just as sure as the Soviet Union demolished the idea of Communism. That destruction was what Alan Greenspan voiced his mea culpa over. Not sub-prime lending. Who would have thought that rich people would have had such destructive, greedy, and irrational capacities? Well, lots of people. Just not the ones with power and their smattering of Rand and Hayek in their heads.
Copyright, whatever it's merits, has spit to do with whether capitalism works or not.
Personally, I think the current copyright structure is ludicrous and -- like alcohol prohibition -- encourages disrespect for the law and the rights of others.
It's entirely reasonable that artists (people who consciously shape material) be given the sole right to benefit from their efforts for a reasonable length of time. The old 28 years with a single renewal was a reasonable length of time. Half of that would be reasonable. A bit longer would also be reasonable. Currently, the novel Ulysses (1922) is under copyright. I believe the poem "If" by Kipling is also under copyright. Both have long ago passed into our common heritage and demonstrate the ludicrous side of our current copyright regime.
The new model due to digital media is apparently a copyright span of nanoseconds. That's also unreasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
Great. Except there's no indication that the answers arrived at were bad. The methods were sub-optimal. They went 'round the barn more than needed. That's what "correct" means. You can't just make stuff up, fudge, and elide, right?
Informing policy is completely nebulous. Being a Reductionist is no way to go through life, son.
You've misinterpreted the statement. Sorry. And you've invented a cross to bear. The scientists at CRU aren't involved in policy. The fluctuations aren't hard to measure. Sports isn't science or even vaguely analogous. Nobody but you brought up Wall St. time frames. Climate scientists aren't environmental scientists. CRU isn't the only center for analysis and the other centers have published their data and methods. So, insightful comment, old chap. You got nothing right!
"Malfeasance" means something. What's insightful about simply regurgitating (and not supporting) a charge?
A complex statistical analysis was done sub-optimally. Learn to read.
"...though arriving at correct results" How does a mere kvetch get modded 5?
The cooling nature of some industrial aerosols has been known for a long time. Just last Fall we were treated with the project to pump hundreds of millions of tons of SO2 into the stratosphere via 12 mile long tubes at the poles. In was in the Freakanomics book that was a 9 day wonder everywhere.
This had been going on for YEARS! Did nobody notice that 2 Judge Roy Beans had been putting kids in jail for trivialities? Did these bozos just sit on their kickbacks, saving them up for their retirement?
The Constitution doesn't explicitly say that the power to suspend habeas is given to the Legislature
I should think that's implied, given that the restriction on suspending it is located in Article I (The Legislative Branch), Section 9 (Limits on Congress)
That's why I said "explicitly". Yours is a reasonable conjecture. As was Lincoln's argument: that the rebellion would suspend the execution of all American laws in the areas he (Lincoln) specified in his habeas suspension directives. (It's part of life that a reasonable argument often counters another reasonable argument.) So, the assertion is that Lincoln's a monster for suspending habeas in an area getting ready to rebel? He had taken a vow to uphold the Constitution and to see that all the laws of the US were faithfully executed. To do that he made a questionable assumption about the suspension of habeas. Which is why I labeled the arguments painting Lincoln a monster and a dictator were purely rhetorical.
Contrast Lincoln's carefully constrained application and painful necessity with the Bush administration open-ended rationale and specious levels of threat. There are obviously terrorists seeking to do us damage. We know it. They know we know it. Yet, the courts aren't threatened with closing. We aren't in imminent peril. The Bush people just wanted to press a belief in the Unitary Executive and had a rubber stamp cowardly Congress to effect it.
The Constitution doesn't explicitly say that the power to suspend habeas is given to the Legislature. It does say though that habeas could only be suspended during times of invasion of rebellion. The Civil War was clearly an instance of rebellion. Lincoln's suspensions were constrained as to time and geography. The arguments painting Lincoln as a usurping monster are purely rhetorical. The Bush suspension of habeas was the product of an attitude looking for an outlet, a bully looking for a weakling. Bush (et al) had a theory of the executive and wanted to exercise it. We aren't being invaded. There is no rebellion. There's no need to treat terrorists as something other than simple criminals.
Perhaps you're right and most likely there is something there. But you do realise that you can substitute almost any government bill in there and any industry and have a scary conspiracy theory. Myself, I would prefer to have a bit more evidence before I break my pitchfork out.
Somehow that doesn't sound like a reasonable response to a bill that was designed to prevent inquiry into a rotten situation. The courts are where evidence of crimes are supposed to be aired. Take the courts out of the equation and we're left with what?
Two points. First, he isn't making a new allegation. Second, does the friggin' Telecom Immunity Bill ring a bell? Hellooooooo, McFly. They didn't decide to protect these people on a hypothetical.
Apparently, there's a lot of people who want to confirm that knowledge of computer technology is evidence of having Aspberger's Syndrome.
Actually, it is completely evolutionary. Random Selection is simply an explanation for the biological evolution we see on Earth. There's no reason why a designer couldn't use sequences of random mutations that are consciously and deliberately culled.
I am not a layer?
Doctors are resistant to change because they're at the top of the financial heap. So many of the tasks we now assign to doctors could be easily done by others and done cheaper and better. When I had a male doctor as my primary care provider, I would routinely ask for the Physician Assistant to see me for everything she was permitted by law to do. I received excellent care. Even difficult or exotic diagnoses are better performed by expert systems than by a human. You could get your diagnosis at a kiosk if you weren't too sick to type and read. A human could screen the output -- requests for narcotics, obvious error, malicious entry, spurious requests for tests, etc.
If there weren't so many people with such a financial stake in our horrific inefficient delivery system, we'd have had a French or German style medical system years ago. (3 days with such a system and anyone suggesting a return to our present system would be hanged by his thumbs in the town square. If we had a town square.)
IIRC, there was an environmental calamity for homo sapiens around 70,000 years ago and our numbers dropped to a couple of thousand. We'd spread out of Africa before that and didn't even depend upon a fragile technological social structure for getting our daily calories. Widespread use of nukes would stress our numbers like that. Africa isn't even immune from that anymore -- witness the famines, losses due to disease, and civil unrests. (Human v Human violence, aka hand to hand, after the detonations shouldn't be discounted when you calculate the losses due to nukes. )
We've done a lot of damage to the surface of the planet but that shouldn't be mistaken for having a good grip on things.
Last summer a thief, looking for copper, just bowled over a transformer around the corner with his car. A huge flash, a muffled *whump*, and then pitch darkness. All the neighbors met out in the street in pajammas wondering what the hell had happened. There was no thunderstorm. It wasn't particularly hot. It took a half hour for the electric company to react and get a truck on site and we were all pretty POed. It turns out that the effort had been part of a genuine conspiracy: someone else across town had done the same thing around the same time.
We never heard about the fate of the perps. A squirrel had arced a transformer in the neighborhood around 20 years before and turned into a frizzled squirrel-like sculpture.
I suffer from bad insomnia which I had thought was even worse until my wife proved to me that a lot of my sleeplessness was caused by my habit of dreaming that I was awake. I'd be lying in bed fretful because I couldn't sleep while my wife was trying to rouse me because I was snoring so loud.
The illusion of being awake was so strong -- the cliche that we can tell the difference between reality and dreams is a crock -- that I refused to believe her until I had to rouse her for doing the same thing.
My father was in the hospital when my grandmother (his mother) came by to see how he was recovering. Pretty well, he said. They talked of this and that and finally my father had to mention that though he was pleased that Grandma had stopped by he was puzzled because she'd died the month before.
A couple of years later, after Dad died, he came by to see me and would have said something except that his mouth had been sewn shut.
The inflation adjusted debt accrual rate for the US government in the past 8 years has been about 380 billion dollars per year. This is equal to 3.4% of the total size of the economy.
Ignoring inflationary measures by the US government, the GDP has shrunk, not grown, for quite some time.
Not to mention the evaporation of several trillions of dollars in housing value, stock value, and (now) worthless debt instruments. How much more of a contraction do people want?
Question Recession: How is that defined? Answer In general usage, the word recession connotes a marked slippage in economic activity. While gross domestic product (GDP) is the broadest measure of economic activity, the often-cited identification of a recession with two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth is not an official designation. The designation of a recession is the province of a committee of experts at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a private non-profit research organization that focuses on understanding the U.S. economy. The NBER recession is a monthly concept that takes account of a number of monthly indicatorsâ"such as employment, personal income, and industrial productionâ"as well as quarterly GDP growth. Therefore, while negative GDP growth and recessions closely track each other, the consideration by the NBER of the monthly indicators, especially employment, means that the identification of a recession with two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth does not always hold. For information on recession, or business-cycle, dating, see: http://www.nber.org/cycles/jan08bcdc_memo.html.
. The real culprit was the unregulated market in credit swaps and derivatives.
No, that was secondary. those derivatives are pyramided on the housing bubble, which was cause by the fed holding interest rates below the rate of inflation for over a decade.
-jcr
Secondary? The sub-prime market was > 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the credit swap market. Low interest rates didn't CAUSE the over-leveraging. Lots of financial institutions didn't indulge in them. Your Wellington 401-k probably has skated through almost untouched, I bet. You're blaming the fleas for the dog's condition when the owner beats it with a stick.
Sub-prime lending would have produced only regional effects (in the "sand states") if that were the only thing wrong with the economy. Blaming sub-prime lending is ludicrous: it's scope is less than 3-5% the amount being sent to banks and other financial institutions. The real culprit was the unregulated market in credit swaps and derivatives. A market of 20-30 trillion dollars: around 2 orders of magnitude larger than the sub-prime mortgage problem. There were margins that would have shamed a stock broker in 1929.
This element is downplayed in some quarters because it demolishes the viability of unregulated capitalism just as sure as the Soviet Union demolished the idea of Communism. That destruction was what Alan Greenspan voiced his mea culpa over. Not sub-prime lending. Who would have thought that rich people would have had such destructive, greedy, and irrational capacities? Well, lots of people. Just not the ones with power and their smattering of Rand and Hayek in their heads.
Copyright, whatever it's merits, has spit to do with whether capitalism works or not.
Personally, I think the current copyright structure is ludicrous and -- like alcohol prohibition -- encourages disrespect for the law and the rights of others.
It's entirely reasonable that artists (people who consciously shape material) be given the sole right to benefit from their efforts for a reasonable length of time. The old 28 years with a single renewal was a reasonable length of time. Half of that would be reasonable. A bit longer would also be reasonable. Currently, the novel Ulysses (1922) is under copyright. I believe the poem "If" by Kipling is also under copyright. Both have long ago passed into our common heritage and demonstrate the ludicrous side of our current copyright regime.
The new model due to digital media is apparently a copyright span of nanoseconds. That's also unreasonable.