They could put their money where their mouths is in a very trivial way. Sell future contracts betting against average temperature increases (although they'd have to be inflation adjusted for me to bite). Not really an option for an individual because no one would trust your credit worthiness that far out.
The description should both describe preferred embodiments sufficiently precise to allow someone skilled in the art to implement it and the way in which the patent distinguishes itself from prior art, at least that's what the USPTO says.
Who said it was pejorative? I just think it is an apt metaphor to explain the attraction of raiding, it is more meant as a counterpoint to people who accentuate the anti-social aspect of MMORPGs than anything else.
I neither disrespect linedancers nor casual raiders (or raiders who want to be recognized as one of the first to complete for that matter).
Warhammer wasn't strictly PvP... also it was pure casual, nothing similar to WoW Arena. So they lost the competitive PvP players before they even began.
There are only 2 realistic end games for the majority in my opinion, linedancing practice (raiding) and player made faction world building and warfare (Eve, Darkfall). The chance of the second happening are just about 0.
For a select group skill based PvP (Guildwars, WoW arena) is a viable end game... but that's not for the masses IMO.
I don't believe in giving any market participants privilege either, everyone should be able to directly put their bids in without leaking information to brokers or market makers.
You can't look at volatility in isolation... the risk of selling just before the cut off in a flash crash represents a risk in the current situation which can't be accounted for with the nice steady state low spreads.
The risk of corruption and market manipulation (which we know for a fact has already occurred, see the whole information dealing controversy with the exchanges) will cause an across the board depreciation of all stocks not captured in the lower spreads.
The costs of HFT are very hard to calculate...
Market makers have no easier time determining the direction the market will go as anyone else. If the market makers try to extort a consistent high spread in a once every hour match up there will consistently be money to be made every hour by undercutting them. Of course this assuming they aren't given privilege, which they shouldn't.
That's 72 hours of liquidity gone, there is an opportunity cost there... an opportunity cost measured in true dollars going into the pockets of speculators. Basically we have traded wider spreads for higher instability, is it a good trade? Maybe, dunno.
Personally I think bids and offers should be matched up only once every hour... I don't see any need for this stuff to happen at wire speeds.
QE is the only policy which is politically tractable to balance trade, although something like import certificates like Warren Buffet proposed might be better (and export tariffs when necessary to balance foreign ownership of domestic assets). Balanced trade is a necessity to get out of the problem where western countries can't redistribute wealth any more because any such measures hurt their international competitiveness... pulling both the government and their citizens into a morass of debt instead just to keep the economy going, a trick which we have managed to keep going for 3 decades.
A trick which is running out of steam, although China would love to keep it going... just to absorb the last little bits of know how and industry they can from the west.
Hell China probably has some hope that free market fundamentalism is so strong in the west that we will force ourselves into a deflationary spiral (rather than printing money) and at the end of the ride buying our countries out from under us with their foreign exchange reserves... something we really really shouldn't let happen, free market be damned.
What if the Republicans cement their power and the bankers (who hate inflation) take over control of the Fed though? QE is obviously beneficial to the economy as a whole, but the powers rallying against it (a combination of stupid people and people who'd throw their granny off a train for short term gain) are powerful.
Not as long as Helicopter Bernanke is in power of the Fed. Bernanke has no problem at all growing the Fed balance sheet into the stratosphere if it's necessary to sustain jobs. If China refuses to buy US debt at low interest rates he will... the same thing goes for the UK, there too inflation is a secondary concern to maintaining jobs, their central bank will absorb as much debt as necessary to keep interest rates low. Only the EU is really in danger of throwing it's economy off a cliff because Germany is refusing to allow inflation.
I don't think China is quite as stupidly free market fundamentalist as us... I think at some point in the future after we have outsourced all we can outsource China is going to change it's monetary and tariff policy to go from a trade surplus country to a sustainable trade deficit country (you can sustain a trade deficit indefinitely if you have enough income from foreign investment, which we don't... our trade deficit is fueled by debt, not investment in China). At which point it won't just allow wage inflation, it will force it (it is necessary, the economy and technological base can't be sustained without a consumer base).
Hell, I could see the west stay free trade fundamentalist even then... just letting themselves be bled dry.
China has run much higher average inflation than the west, corrected for inflation their wages doubled.
Fiat currency and debt obligations are not wealth... they are deferred consumption, and in a world of fiat currencies potentially nothing more than air. China on behalf of it's citizens has deferred the most consumption of any country in the world, in order to make their labour cheaper. Those dollars in the reserves were not gathered by exports, the government doesn't export... the government printed extra Yuan to get those dollars.
I never said China's citizens were suffering, the slavery bit was hyperbole... their wages are collectively depressed in the short term to give US/EU citizens a better deal on the services. Hell, maybe given the democratic choice "want to all earn around half of what you otherwise earn for another decade to absorb more industry from the west" they would make that choice... but at the moment it's not really a choice they get to make.
What China does is smart, just as QE in the west to evaporate China's foreign exchange reserves is smart... neither is moral.
First link : Hong Kong Second link : Average not median Third link : ? Who's point are you trying to prove? 4/5 : meh.
Entrepeneurs create jobs... the rich just provide capital. There is an overlap between the two classes, but they are not necessarily the same. Also without demand neither entrepeneurs nor the rich create anything, demand predominantly is created in the west for the moment (partly fueled by debt with artificially low interest, held down by China).
Every dollar in those reserves is a dollar not in the pocket of Chinese workers (if the Yuan appreciates their wages corrected for inflation increase). Their wages are depressed so Americans can get cheaper products (in the short term) and China can attract more outsourcing. Excellent long term strategy, but in the short term their citizens are getting artificially low wages to make it possible.
Trade deficits can only be maintained by increasing the amount of debt in foreign hands... China has been willing to give you such a very good deal on the loans that neither government NOR the private sector could resist. Both are in debt, as a direct result of Chinese willingness to trade product for IOUs.
So deep in debt that there are two options to get things in balance again. A deflationary depression or a sustained high inflation.
The UK government might be cutting spending... but their central bank is fully committed to QE.
Germany is a special case, it is essentially the China of the EU... causing a similar unsustainable situation.
I never said the US should restrict itself to materials and energy from the US... I specifically said there should be no tariffs on them. I said subsidies should be used to try to become self sufficient.
The USD should be losing value, it's the natural evolution of a currency from a country with a trade deficit. America is uncompetetive with low infrastructure investment precisely because the USD has not been allowed to fall by it's trading partners (which have printed money and buying up dollars to make sure that doesn't happen). In the short term the Chinese rather have US factories through outsourcing than factory output, and is selling it's citizens into slavery to make it happen.
Of course the US should never have gone along with that scam, since at some point the Chinese will decide they have enough factories... and divert factory output to internal consumption, at which point the US will neither have the cheap goods nor the factories and will be properly double fucked
Personally I'd suggest the FED does QE++, immediately setting an inflation target of ~15% for the next 10 years (and no of this pushing on a string malarky, Bernanke was 100% correct... if the inlation target can't be met for more than 6 months send in the helicopters, stimulus checks for all citizens). At the same time there should be a 10 year plan for gradually increasing tariffs, which after 10 years will be such that any trade deficit from a previous year is completely offset by the tariffs next year. With the exception of raw materials, no tariffs on that... but subsidies to increase internal production where strategically necessary (so electricity, green and nuclear, rare metals that sort of stuff).
After 10 years most of the debt build up by persistent trade deficits will be gone, inflated away, trade will be balanced (making sovereign decision making about how wealth should be distributed possible again) and you should be well on your way to raw material and energy self sufficiency.
This road is open to the US because it is united (unlike the EU) and the most resource self sufficient country in the world... when push comes to shove the US can take care of itself if it has to, it has no need to be forced into a situation where it destroys it's industrial infrastructure over time and lose it's sovereignty.
3 mile island didn't have a big pool of liquid sodium. The safety record of water moderated reactors is excellent... the safety record of liquid sodium cooled breeders is still up in the air. I personally don't think it looks promising. MSR looks promising, but isn't anywhere near a commercial reactor design.
In the meantime though your ideal society fundamentally can't exist... so make the best of it or make use of that equality Sam Colt gave you, you have the freedom to opt out with a final bang.
Existing societies are based on voluntary consent, you can agree with the landlord or you can get out... whether you can find somewhere to get out to is not the landlord's problem. This occurs in any situation with land ownership, whether implicitly by the state or pure private ownership, for the very simple reason that there is limited land and unless you are lucky you don't get born a land owner.
This is even ignoring things like shared horizons, water, air, etc. which necessitates cooperation (by force if necessary).
You are born 200 years too late... there are too many people and too few natural resources for your utopia to be able to exist, sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
They could put their money where their mouths is in a very trivial way. Sell future contracts betting against average temperature increases (although they'd have to be inflation adjusted for me to bite). Not really an option for an individual because no one would trust your credit worthiness that far out.
How is surfacestations.org relevant? It shows that surface data isn't terribly reliable and nothing more than that.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/so_thats_why_surfacestationsor.php
As they explain it there is simply more redundancy for more significant bits.
AFAICS it's robust, not lossy by default.
The description should both describe preferred embodiments sufficiently precise to allow someone skilled in the art to implement it and the way in which the patent distinguishes itself from prior art, at least that's what the USPTO says.
Who said it was pejorative? I just think it is an apt metaphor to explain the attraction of raiding, it is more meant as a counterpoint to people who accentuate the anti-social aspect of MMORPGs than anything else.
I neither disrespect linedancers nor casual raiders (or raiders who want to be recognized as one of the first to complete for that matter).
Warhammer wasn't strictly PvP ... also it was pure casual, nothing similar to WoW Arena. So they lost the competitive PvP players before they even began.
There are only 2 realistic end games for the majority in my opinion, linedancing practice (raiding) and player made faction world building and warfare (Eve, Darkfall). The chance of the second happening are just about 0.
For a select group skill based PvP (Guildwars, WoW arena) is a viable end game ... but that's not for the masses IMO.
I don't believe in giving any market participants privilege either, everyone should be able to directly put their bids in without leaking information to brokers or market makers.
You can't look at volatility in isolation ... the risk of selling just before the cut off in a flash crash represents a risk in the current situation which can't be accounted for with the nice steady state low spreads.
The risk of corruption and market manipulation (which we know for a fact has already occurred, see the whole information dealing controversy with the exchanges) will cause an across the board depreciation of all stocks not captured in the lower spreads.
The costs of HFT are very hard to calculate ...
Market makers have no easier time determining the direction the market will go as anyone else. If the market makers try to extort a consistent high spread in a once every hour match up there will consistently be money to be made every hour by undercutting them. Of course this assuming they aren't given privilege, which they shouldn't.
That's 72 hours of liquidity gone, there is an opportunity cost there ... an opportunity cost measured in true dollars going into the pockets of speculators. Basically we have traded wider spreads for higher instability, is it a good trade? Maybe, dunno.
Personally I think bids and offers should be matched up only once every hour ... I don't see any need for this stuff to happen at wire speeds.
QE is the only policy which is politically tractable to balance trade, although something like import certificates like Warren Buffet proposed might be better (and export tariffs when necessary to balance foreign ownership of domestic assets). Balanced trade is a necessity to get out of the problem where western countries can't redistribute wealth any more because any such measures hurt their international competitiveness ... pulling both the government and their citizens into a morass of debt instead just to keep the economy going, a trick which we have managed to keep going for 3 decades.
A trick which is running out of steam, although China would love to keep it going ... just to absorb the last little bits of know how and industry they can from the west.
Hell China probably has some hope that free market fundamentalism is so strong in the west that we will force ourselves into a deflationary spiral (rather than printing money) and at the end of the ride buying our countries out from under us with their foreign exchange reserves ... something we really really shouldn't let happen, free market be damned.
What if the Republicans cement their power and the bankers (who hate inflation) take over control of the Fed though? QE is obviously beneficial to the economy as a whole, but the powers rallying against it (a combination of stupid people and people who'd throw their granny off a train for short term gain) are powerful.
Does that take into account their foreign exchange reserves? You really need to subtract those from public debt for an accurate picture.
Not as long as Helicopter Bernanke is in power of the Fed. Bernanke has no problem at all growing the Fed balance sheet into the stratosphere if it's necessary to sustain jobs. If China refuses to buy US debt at low interest rates he will ... the same thing goes for the UK, there too inflation is a secondary concern to maintaining jobs, their central bank will absorb as much debt as necessary to keep interest rates low. Only the EU is really in danger of throwing it's economy off a cliff because Germany is refusing to allow inflation.
I don't think China is quite as stupidly free market fundamentalist as us ... I think at some point in the future after we have outsourced all we can outsource China is going to change it's monetary and tariff policy to go from a trade surplus country to a sustainable trade deficit country (you can sustain a trade deficit indefinitely if you have enough income from foreign investment, which we don't ... our trade deficit is fueled by debt, not investment in China). At which point it won't just allow wage inflation, it will force it (it is necessary, the economy and technological base can't be sustained without a consumer base).
Hell, I could see the west stay free trade fundamentalist even then ... just letting themselves be bled dry.
China has run much higher average inflation than the west, corrected for inflation their wages doubled.
Fiat currency and debt obligations are not wealth ... they are deferred consumption, and in a world of fiat currencies potentially nothing more than air. China on behalf of it's citizens has deferred the most consumption of any country in the world, in order to make their labour cheaper. Those dollars in the reserves were not gathered by exports, the government doesn't export ... the government printed extra Yuan to get those dollars.
I never said China's citizens were suffering, the slavery bit was hyperbole ... their wages are collectively depressed in the short term to give US/EU citizens a better deal on the services. Hell, maybe given the democratic choice "want to all earn around half of what you otherwise earn for another decade to absorb more industry from the west" they would make that choice ... but at the moment it's not really a choice they get to make.
What China does is smart, just as QE in the west to evaporate China's foreign exchange reserves is smart ... neither is moral.
First link : Hong Kong
Second link : Average not median
Third link : ? Who's point are you trying to prove?
4/5 : meh.
Entrepeneurs create jobs ... the rich just provide capital. There is an overlap between the two classes, but they are not necessarily the same. Also without demand neither entrepeneurs nor the rich create anything, demand predominantly is created in the west for the moment (partly fueled by debt with artificially low interest, held down by China).
Here is my proof :
http://www.chinability.com/Reserves.htm
Every dollar in those reserves is a dollar not in the pocket of Chinese workers (if the Yuan appreciates their wages corrected for inflation increase). Their wages are depressed so Americans can get cheaper products (in the short term) and China can attract more outsourcing. Excellent long term strategy, but in the short term their citizens are getting artificially low wages to make it possible.
Trade deficits can only be maintained by increasing the amount of debt in foreign hands ... China has been willing to give you such a very good deal on the loans that neither government NOR the private sector could resist. Both are in debt, as a direct result of Chinese willingness to trade product for IOUs.
So deep in debt that there are two options to get things in balance again. A deflationary depression or a sustained high inflation.
The UK government might be cutting spending ... but their central bank is fully committed to QE.
Germany is a special case, it is essentially the China of the EU ... causing a similar unsustainable situation.
I never said the US should restrict itself to materials and energy from the US ... I specifically said there should be no tariffs on them. I said subsidies should be used to try to become self sufficient.
Yet the median barely budges ... it's not the rich which create demand, it's the poor and middle class.
The USD should be losing value, it's the natural evolution of a currency from a country with a trade deficit. America is uncompetetive with low infrastructure investment precisely because the USD has not been allowed to fall by it's trading partners (which have printed money and buying up dollars to make sure that doesn't happen). In the short term the Chinese rather have US factories through outsourcing than factory output, and is selling it's citizens into slavery to make it happen.
Of course the US should never have gone along with that scam, since at some point the Chinese will decide they have enough factories ... and divert factory output to internal consumption, at which point the US will neither have the cheap goods nor the factories and will be properly double fucked
European here
Personally I'd suggest the FED does QE++, immediately setting an inflation target of ~15% for the next 10 years (and no of this pushing on a string malarky, Bernanke was 100% correct ... if the inlation target can't be met for more than 6 months send in the helicopters, stimulus checks for all citizens). At the same time there should be a 10 year plan for gradually increasing tariffs, which after 10 years will be such that any trade deficit from a previous year is completely offset by the tariffs next year. With the exception of raw materials, no tariffs on that ... but subsidies to increase internal production where strategically necessary (so electricity, green and nuclear, rare metals that sort of stuff).
After 10 years most of the debt build up by persistent trade deficits will be gone, inflated away, trade will be balanced (making sovereign decision making about how wealth should be distributed possible again) and you should be well on your way to raw material and energy self sufficiency.
This road is open to the US because it is united (unlike the EU) and the most resource self sufficient country in the world ... when push comes to shove the US can take care of itself if it has to, it has no need to be forced into a situation where it destroys it's industrial infrastructure over time and lose it's sovereignty.
3 mile island didn't have a big pool of liquid sodium. The safety record of water moderated reactors is excellent ... the safety record of liquid sodium cooled breeders is still up in the air. I personally don't think it looks promising. MSR looks promising, but isn't anywhere near a commercial reactor design.
In the meantime though your ideal society fundamentally can't exist ... so make the best of it or make use of that equality Sam Colt gave you, you have the freedom to opt out with a final bang.
Existing societies are based on voluntary consent, you can agree with the landlord or you can get out ... whether you can find somewhere to get out to is not the landlord's problem. This occurs in any situation with land ownership, whether implicitly by the state or pure private ownership, for the very simple reason that there is limited land and unless you are lucky you don't get born a land owner.
This is even ignoring things like shared horizons, water, air, etc. which necessitates cooperation (by force if necessary).
You are born 200 years too late ... there are too many people and too few natural resources for your utopia to be able to exist, sorry.