It also talks about hijacking other senses to compensate for missing senses, such as using electrodes in your mouth to compensate for lack of eyesight.
Thanks for the comment. There is no doubt that the banking industry helped to expand the bubble and I believe you that these instruments (or rather lack of adequate models) made it worse. Also, it is very clear that the government should have imposed regulation on how much of the value needed to be backed by assets.
On the other hand blaming the crisis on financial instruments (like the original article did ) seems a bit silly -- perhaps those factors reinforced the bubble but they did not make it happen.
The problem comes if people have to downgrade - or in particular, they can't keep up mortgage repayments due to loss of job, meaning they have to sell (especially a problem if they're in negative equity).
That's right -- if you act on the assumption that house values will rise you are encouraged to buy a bigger house than you can afford. In the worst case you just sell the house, pocket the difference and start renting or buy a smaller house. On the other hand, if the values drop, you have negative equity and would probably have to declare bankruptcy.
Well, it is similar to saying that stock prices always rise. It is true on some very large scale as a long-term trend. However it is cold comfort for people whose holdings are wiped out.
Certainly, the stability of real estate prices was way oversold.
You forget the underlying problem: the bubble in housing prices. As long as the house prices kept rising any idiot could take a 0% interest adjustable mortgage and make money 3 years later by reselling the house. Of course, analytical models showed the repayment rate on such mortgages to be high leading to lending more money.
Once the house prices started sliding the party was over.
You are a little bit off base, but not too much:) Undecidable and "underspecified" is the same thing. Godel showed that _any_ system of axioms is either contradictory or underspecified (meaning that something like the fifth postulate exists). Cohen showed that the Coninuum Hypothesis is independent of the standard axioms for set theory (Zermelo-Frenkel axioms). So you are right, it is exactly like the fifth postulate, on the other hand it is an example of incompleteness.
> there will be some things that are true but which can't be proven to be true within the system
Close but not exactly -- there will be statements P, such that neither P nor (not P) can be proven within the system. However, whether such things are not necessarily true or false in themselves.
For example the continuum hypothesis was shown to be independent of the axioms of the set theory. Therefore, you can add it as an axiom or add its negation as an axiom. It is not true or false in any reasonable sense (although, admittedly most people choose to think of it as being true, whatever that means).
It is similar to airline security mentality -- make everything secure by installing a fancy machine. If it is sufficiently expensive, it must be effective.
Well, if your claim against DELL is frivolous then the judge would be justified in making you pay DELL's legal fees. However you may have a reasonable claim, which is just not strong enough to win in court or, for example, lose on a technicality. In that case being bankrupted by DELL's legal bills does not seem very fair.
Slashdot Mirror
If they aren't aiming for "comatose", they're at least hoping that the stomach pains will keep us from doing anything unexpected.
Just make sure these stomach pains don't make you spend too much in the toilet!
Depends on which senses are being compensated for.
It also talks about hijacking other senses to compensate for missing senses, such as using electrodes in your mouth to compensate for lack of eyesight.
They used to do it in Guantanamo.
> I'm sure that's right out of the CIA 'Robust Interrogation' handbook. When do they get to pulling out the fingernails?
They pull them in a graduated manner to increase the response.
20k hours is almost three years of continuous use.
Thanks for the comment. There is no doubt that the banking industry helped to expand the bubble and I believe you that
these instruments (or rather lack of adequate models) made it worse. Also, it is very clear that the government should have imposed regulation on how much of the value needed to be backed by assets.
On the other hand blaming the crisis on financial instruments (like the original article did ) seems a bit silly --
perhaps those factors reinforced the bubble but they did not make it happen.
The problem comes if people have to downgrade - or in particular, they can't keep up mortgage repayments due to loss of job, meaning they have to sell (especially a problem if they're in negative equity).
That's right -- if you act on the assumption that house values will rise you are encouraged to buy a bigger house than you can afford. In the worst case you just sell the house, pocket the difference and start renting or buy a smaller house. On the other hand, if the values drop, you have negative equity and would probably have to declare bankruptcy.
Let's make the rules even more complicated. Nothing helps to combat fraud and "technical violations" like some extra 70-80 pages of documents.
Well, it is similar to saying that stock prices always rise. It is true on some very large scale as a long-term trend.
However it is cold comfort for people whose holdings are wiped out.
Certainly, the stability of real estate prices was way oversold.
You forget the underlying problem: the bubble in housing prices. As long
as the house prices kept rising any idiot could take a 0% interest adjustable mortgage and make money 3 years later by reselling the house. Of course, analytical models showed the repayment rate on such mortgages to be high leading to lending more money.
Once the house prices started sliding the party was over.
You are a little bit off base, but not too much :)
Undecidable and "underspecified" is the same thing. Godel showed that _any_ system of axioms is either contradictory or underspecified (meaning that something like the fifth postulate exists). Cohen showed that the Coninuum Hypothesis is independent of the standard axioms for set theory (Zermelo-Frenkel axioms). So you are right, it is exactly like the fifth postulate, on the other hand it is an example of incompleteness.
If you cannot add (not G) as an axiom without causing a contradiction, that shows that G must be true.
> there will be some things that are true but which can't be proven to be true within the system
Close but not exactly -- there will be statements P, such that neither P nor (not P) can be proven within the system.
However, whether such things are not necessarily true or false in themselves.
For example the continuum hypothesis was shown to be independent of the axioms of the set theory. Therefore, you can add it as an axiom or add its negation as an axiom. It is not true or false in any reasonable sense (although, admittedly most people choose to think of it as being true, whatever that means).
That's why we don't have worms and viruses any longer.
Compare it to the watch that does not show time (for only $300k):
http://gizmodo.com/377071/300000-watch-doesnt-tell-time-but-shows-if-the-sun-is-up
It is similar to airline security mentality -- make everything secure by installing a fancy machine.
If it is sufficiently expensive, it must be effective.
Actually, they did not construct it, they proved that it can be constructed using some special properties of nano-particles.
Don't answer questions. If you must talk, please state the following: 1) "Am I under arrest?" If YES, then say, "I want a lawyer."
This line of action may come across rather as rather peculiar during court proceedings.
Driving constantly at slower speed definitely saves fuel for the single vehicle.
Slower than what? I doubt driving at 1mph would save much fuel.
You will need at least LSD.
Why wasted? You can listen to audio books. Enjoyable and educational.
First, I think you have op-ed in mind, not the editorial.
Murdoch may have many faults but this is not one of them. The op-ed pages in WSJ
have been notoriously conservative for a long time.
We all know Microsoft has them, but I was surprised to learn that South African
ministers possess horns as well.
Well, if your claim against DELL is frivolous then the judge would be justified in making you pay DELL's legal fees.
However you may have a reasonable claim, which is just not strong enough to win in court or, for example, lose on a technicality. In that case being bankrupted by DELL's legal bills does not seem very fair.
I think it is fair that the court has discretion.