And Amazon has had a PE of over 100 for a long time and has more than doubled in the past 2 years. Its current PE is 315! My point is that making a trading decision is not as simple as looking at the PE.
That's a bad analogy because an insurance company's sole purpose is to pay out when something goes wrong. A better analogy would be hiring an incompetent security guard who fails to prevent a robbery and then trying to make the security guard compensate you for the loss. But even that would be overreaching because Goldman was hired to sell the company and not to provide due diligence. A lot of (often greedy) people got burned when the dot com bubble busted. It's funny how when the markets go up, nobody complains but when they go down, the lawyers come out, even though the processes involved are exactly the same, only the outcomes are different. Yet it's the process that determines whether something is ethical or not.
They don't always advise people on strategy, often they advise people on how to execute strategy and in those cases whether they agree with the strategy or not is irrelevant because that's not what they're hired for. For example, you may think China's economy is going to increase more than expected in the next few years and may hire Goldman to advise you on which assets are most likely to increase (or decrease) in value if you're right. Goldman may completely disagree with your hypothesis but that's not what you hired them for.
I RTFA and while it says that another division of Goldman Sachs was skeptical about L&H, there is no evidence that the 4 guys who handled the account had any knowledge of it or communicated with that division. Nor is there any evidence that they had any motive to sell Dragon Speech to L&H when they had a lot of other credible suitors like Ford & Sony. Was Goldman Sachs sloppy? I'd say yes. But the real fraud was committed by L&H and as much as I don't like Goldman Sachs, it's not their fault that the folks at L&H were con men.
(Defense and energy) Companies get governments to engage in war to make sure bullets sell and to gain control of the natural resources the other country has.
You simply restated your opinion without providing any backing and ignored my example. So are you saying that facebook raising $16B in their IPO via Wall Street is not an example of capitalism?
Capitalism is a method of allocating resources through the private sector and that's precisely what Wall Street does. If I give you money to start your business, did I produce something? How is that any different from a company like facebook (which I hate btw) going public and getting $16B to expand its business?
Capitalism is just one method of allocating resources. Another method of allocating resources is to have the gov't do it - i.e. communism.
I don't understand how they could usefully cache https data. Most https data is going to contain personal information like your bank account balance for example. Caching makes sense when the data is the same for a lot of users - like a slashdot article - and those sets of data are usually not sent over https.
There have been articles on how space travel is now sustainable but the sole customer here is the government and this is no more sustainable than all those solar companies that were making billions just a few years ago but are now teetering on the verge of bankruptcy now that gov't subsidies have evaporated (First Solar for example has gone from being a $15B+ to being a $1B+ company in 1 year).
I think this is a great achievement but let's not fool ourselves, this is not a private venture that's sustainable w/o taxpayer support.
The same subject has been covered in "Here's looking to Euclid". It describes tests done on an Amazon tribe to see how they visually interpret numbers. Unlike most modern adults who visualize number spaced linearly, they visualized them spaced logarithmically. Their reasoning was that the intervals between numbers start (relatively) large and become smaller as the numbers get larger. i.e. from 1 to 2 it's a 100% increase but from 2 to 3 it's only a 33% increase and so on.
That happens pretty much in any college setting where you have a group of guys and is certainly not limited to the comp-sci department. In my experience nerds tend to actually be more respectful towards women than your average male student.
The question isn't if some women can be great coders, the question is if women on average can program as well as men on average. One piece of anecdotal evidence doesn't translate into "female programmers kick ass".
I grew up in a 3rd world country at a time where computers weren't so ubiquitous and attended a very small school (~250 students for grades 1-12) where there was no gender bias, certainly there was no software industry and we didn't know anything about the culture as it exists today. When the school offered an introductory computer course (5th grade), 18 guys and 2 girls signed up. How do you explain that? The same applied to our math club. Boys just seemed to be drawn to that more, while girls tended to do better in literature and biology.
I think women are simply inclined towards different occupations than men. That doesn't mean that exceptions don't exist and that you can't have a kick-ass female programmer but I think the notion that every occupation needs to employ an equal number of women and men is silly.
TFA seems to imply that she was banned for "engaging" with the spammer (over 300 times!) and not for being spammed, so I think they're totally justified in banning her.
You're completely off. The point is to protect domestic makers of solar panels. China is subsidizing its solar panel makers so much that they're able to sell solar panels at prices significantly below what it costs to make them! How can any non-subsidized competitor compete in this environment? They can't. And once the competitors go out of business, I suspect those subsidies will decrease or go away and lack of competition ultimately leads to higher prices and lower quality products thus also screwing customers in the long term.
to end the war on drugs. because this would significantly reduce the work-load of the courts and allow them to have more jury trials.
Among the prisoners, drug offenders made up the same percentage of State prisoners in both 1997 and 2004 (21%). The percentage of Federal prisoners serving time for drug offenses declined from 63% in 1997 to 55% in 2004.[8] In the twenty-five years since the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, the United States penal population rose from around 300,000 to more than two million.
because there is no subsidy. instead of adding a line item on your monthly bill that says "phone unit payment $20" they jack up the cost of your minutes by $20. so you're actually paying for the phone on a monthly payment plan. @tmobile 500 minutes with "subsidized" phone costs more than 500 minutes with an unsubsidized phone, so the "subsidy" is nothing more than a marketing gimmick.
Identifying that outliers exist in both directions is not enough. You need to quantify them in order to reach the conclusion that they would cancel each other out over a large population and it is not clear at all that the rates would be roughly the same in both directions. Intuitively, it seems that the number of people who would NOT seek help when really sick would be much less than the number of people who would seek help even though they're completely healthy.
Oil emits far more pollutants than natural gas per equivalent barrel of oil, so if using natural gas reduces oil usage, it actually reduces damage to the environment.
To me, government is any person or organization that attempts to oppress me through the use of force. For example, I would classify slavery as a form of (very small and local) government from the point of view of the slave even if there is no state involvement. In that sense, I agree that the only ethical government is the one that protects individuals from oppressive governments.
By definition, government must be a product of the free market (because when the government didn't exist, the market was free). The free market strives to increase productivity, and security is a necessary component of productivity. If someone robbed you, you could privately resolve the matter and you might ask some of your stronger friends for assistance. Over time these friends might form a security business and they might realize they can increase their profits by just taking stuff... or if they're nice, they could form a police force and have property laws. In any case, this is how the government evolves. You say that the government is inherently evil but from the individual's point of view, so are other people. And the gov't is there to prevent them from trying to govern you.
Property laws are the most basic form of government regulation. If someone beats you over the head with a bat and takes your wallet, who's to say that he didn't just "earn" your wallet? Should the government use force to protect people's property or should it simply let the fittest people survive on their own? By providing law and order, the government allows for an environment where productivity (as opposed to brute force) is rewarded most... and if you agree with property laws then you're not advocating for a truly free market, so where do you draw the line? If you say you're only in favor of laws that increase productivity then you're of the same opinion as those who support gov't regulation in general - you just have a different opinion of which laws work and which ones don't but you both agree that the law should be used to boost productivity.
Slashdot Mirror
And Amazon has had a PE of over 100 for a long time and has more than doubled in the past 2 years. Its current PE is 315! My point is that making a trading decision is not as simple as looking at the PE.
But getting 9 feet in the air? That is seriously hard, and no craft I've seen has gotten close.
If you can't be bothered to RTFA then at least WTFV, it shows their craft getting up 8 feet in the air.
That's a bad analogy because an insurance company's sole purpose is to pay out when something goes wrong. A better analogy would be hiring an incompetent security guard who fails to prevent a robbery and then trying to make the security guard compensate you for the loss. But even that would be overreaching because Goldman was hired to sell the company and not to provide due diligence. A lot of (often greedy) people got burned when the dot com bubble busted. It's funny how when the markets go up, nobody complains but when they go down, the lawyers come out, even though the processes involved are exactly the same, only the outcomes are different. Yet it's the process that determines whether something is ethical or not.
They don't always advise people on strategy, often they advise people on how to execute strategy and in those cases whether they agree with the strategy or not is irrelevant because that's not what they're hired for. For example, you may think China's economy is going to increase more than expected in the next few years and may hire Goldman to advise you on which assets are most likely to increase (or decrease) in value if you're right. Goldman may completely disagree with your hypothesis but that's not what you hired them for.
I RTFA and while it says that another division of Goldman Sachs was skeptical about L&H, there is no evidence that the 4 guys who handled the account had any knowledge of it or communicated with that division. Nor is there any evidence that they had any motive to sell Dragon Speech to L&H when they had a lot of other credible suitors like Ford & Sony. Was Goldman Sachs sloppy? I'd say yes. But the real fraud was committed by L&H and as much as I don't like Goldman Sachs, it's not their fault that the folks at L&H were con men.
(Defense and energy) Companies get governments to engage in war to make sure bullets sell and to gain control of the natural resources the other country has.
You simply restated your opinion without providing any backing and ignored my example. So are you saying that facebook raising $16B in their IPO via Wall Street is not an example of capitalism?
Capitalism is a method of allocating resources through the private sector and that's precisely what Wall Street does. If I give you money to start your business, did I produce something? How is that any different from a company like facebook (which I hate btw) going public and getting $16B to expand its business?
Capitalism is just one method of allocating resources. Another method of allocating resources is to have the gov't do it - i.e. communism.
You can use your smartphone as a remote. It actually works pretty well.
I don't understand how they could usefully cache https data. Most https data is going to contain personal information like your bank account balance for example. Caching makes sense when the data is the same for a lot of users - like a slashdot article - and those sets of data are usually not sent over https.
There have been articles on how space travel is now sustainable but the sole customer here is the government and this is no more sustainable than all those solar companies that were making billions just a few years ago but are now teetering on the verge of bankruptcy now that gov't subsidies have evaporated (First Solar for example has gone from being a $15B+ to being a $1B+ company in 1 year).
I think this is a great achievement but let's not fool ourselves, this is not a private venture that's sustainable w/o taxpayer support.
Why would they lower prices if the pound loses value? They'd want more pounds in that case ...
Bad analogy. CNN already does that if you want to view their "Live TV" video.
well that's embarrassing
The same subject has been covered in "Here's looking to Euclid". It describes tests done on an Amazon tribe to see how they visually interpret numbers. Unlike most modern adults who visualize number spaced linearly, they visualized them spaced logarithmically. Their reasoning was that the intervals between numbers start (relatively) large and become smaller as the numbers get larger. i.e. from 1 to 2 it's a 100% increase but from 2 to 3 it's only a 33% increase and so on.
That happens pretty much in any college setting where you have a group of guys and is certainly not limited to the comp-sci department. In my experience nerds tend to actually be more respectful towards women than your average male student.
The question isn't if some women can be great coders, the question is if women on average can program as well as men on average. One piece of anecdotal evidence doesn't translate into "female programmers kick ass".
I grew up in a 3rd world country at a time where computers weren't so ubiquitous and attended a very small school (~250 students for grades 1-12) where there was no gender bias, certainly there was no software industry and we didn't know anything about the culture as it exists today. When the school offered an introductory computer course (5th grade), 18 guys and 2 girls signed up. How do you explain that? The same applied to our math club. Boys just seemed to be drawn to that more, while girls tended to do better in literature and biology.
I think women are simply inclined towards different occupations than men. That doesn't mean that exceptions don't exist and that you can't have a kick-ass female programmer but I think the notion that every occupation needs to employ an equal number of women and men is silly.
TFA seems to imply that she was banned for "engaging" with the spammer (over 300 times!) and not for being spammed, so I think they're totally justified in banning her.
You're completely off. The point is to protect domestic makers of solar panels. China is subsidizing its solar panel makers so much that they're able to sell solar panels at prices significantly below what it costs to make them! How can any non-subsidized competitor compete in this environment? They can't. And once the competitors go out of business, I suspect those subsidies will decrease or go away and lack of competition ultimately leads to higher prices and lower quality products thus also screwing customers in the long term.
to end the war on drugs. because this would significantly reduce the work-load of the courts and allow them to have more jury trials.
Among the prisoners, drug offenders made up the same percentage of State prisoners in both 1997 and 2004 (21%). The percentage of Federal prisoners serving time for drug offenses declined from 63% in 1997 to 55% in 2004.[8] In the twenty-five years since the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, the United States penal population rose from around 300,000 to more than two million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate
because there is no subsidy. instead of adding a line item on your monthly bill that says "phone unit payment $20" they jack up the cost of your minutes by $20. so you're actually paying for the phone on a monthly payment plan. @tmobile 500 minutes with "subsidized" phone costs more than 500 minutes with an unsubsidized phone, so the "subsidy" is nothing more than a marketing gimmick.
Identifying that outliers exist in both directions is not enough. You need to quantify them in order to reach the conclusion that they would cancel each other out over a large population and it is not clear at all that the rates would be roughly the same in both directions. Intuitively, it seems that the number of people who would NOT seek help when really sick would be much less than the number of people who would seek help even though they're completely healthy.
Oil emits far more pollutants than natural gas per equivalent barrel of oil, so if using natural gas reduces oil usage, it actually reduces damage to the environment.
To me, government is any person or organization that attempts to oppress me through the use of force. For example, I would classify slavery as a form of (very small and local) government from the point of view of the slave even if there is no state involvement. In that sense, I agree that the only ethical government is the one that protects individuals from oppressive governments.
By definition, government must be a product of the free market (because when the government didn't exist, the market was free). The free market strives to increase productivity, and security is a necessary component of productivity. If someone robbed you, you could privately resolve the matter and you might ask some of your stronger friends for assistance. Over time these friends might form a security business and they might realize they can increase their profits by just taking stuff ... or if they're nice, they could form a police force and have property laws. In any case, this is how the government evolves. You say that the government is inherently evil but from the individual's point of view, so are other people. And the gov't is there to prevent them from trying to govern you.
Property laws are the most basic form of government regulation. If someone beats you over the head with a bat and takes your wallet, who's to say that he didn't just "earn" your wallet? Should the government use force to protect people's property or should it simply let the fittest people survive on their own? By providing law and order, the government allows for an environment where productivity (as opposed to brute force) is rewarded most ... and if you agree with property laws then you're not advocating for a truly free market, so where do you draw the line? If you say you're only in favor of laws that increase productivity then you're of the same opinion as those who support gov't regulation in general - you just have a different opinion of which laws work and which ones don't but you both agree that the law should be used to boost productivity.