Not just that, shares you didn't borrow or even steal.
Talk about imaginary property:).
Anyway, it's funny they've only just prevented you from selling shares you don't own, when they:
1) Let people buy houses with practically no money at all - giving them big loans 2) Treat those loans as assets:). Slap a big fat AAA on them or something 3) Lend or borrow more money based on those assets. 4) Repeat and rinse. 5) Wait till the music stops, ask for Gov to bail you out with taxpayer money, say "Everyone was doing it" aka "Industry standard practice" and collect your big fat golden parachute.
I'm sure I missed some steps somewhere, but I think I'm not that far wrong given the way the market has blown up.
To me if private industry is going to get bailed out by public money so often, they should be better regulated and maybe profits more than a certain amount should be siphoned off by the government to a bail out fund.
It's not fair that they get to keep all the money during the good times, and during the bad times even people not involved have to bail them out.
Avast! There be too many pirates around these days.
We used plip.com and a "laplink cable" with parallel ports, and a null modem cable with serial ports so that we could get three machines to play doom coop - the usual back then was two PCs if you didn't have LAN cards.
I came up with the idea, but I think I was still a bit surprised when it actually worked.
Of course it wasn't that robust and sometimes the game went out of sync. Worked well enough though;).
I'm inclined that like most memory stuff, repeating something over and over again just makes it easier for you to remember it.
For some people the "reliving" session may itself be yet another traumatic event to add to their "wonderful life" so far. Imagine if you're a rape victim, getting raped in virtual reality over and over again.
Of course the trouble is it's often hard to conduct experiments in the field of psychology to prove efficacy. You can't go around giving 1000 people PTSD and do a "double blind" on the treatments. I suppose you could try it on rats first, but how well is that going to translate?
IMO I believe if people don't feel a strong _urge_[1] to talk about it tell them to think about something else and get busy with other more enjoyable things.
Same goes for the conventional wisdom on "bottling up anger". You let people bash stuff up because they feel angry, all it does is makes it become a trained/learned response. Fine if you want to learn to bash stuff up whenever you get angry, but not fine if you are trying to learn something else.
[1] Not because they _feel_ it's the right thing to do - based on "conventional" stupidity aka wisdom. If they do feel a strong urge, then yes let them do it.
Probably because your peripheral vision is more sensitive to rapid changes (as for most people).
Sit at your "farther away" distance from the TV and look to the side of the TV so that you see the TV in your peripheral vision. Does it appear to flicker? I bet it does for you.
It's useful to be able to detect quick moving stuff approaching from the side - like predators or enemies for instance. Those can really give you a headache pretty fast.
"Go ask a person who has lost sight in one eye (maybe not)."
I still have sight in both eyes, but I think with just one eye if your brain could in theory learn to perceive the 3D world when your head (and thus eye) moves about slightly and gathers different perspectives.
Similarly in each eye you only have one small high res spot, but your brain can use it to build up a bigger high res picture.
In countries like China, not having enough IPs for everyone = NAT = easier for the Chinese government to control their people.
In countries like USA, not having enough IPs for everyone = NAT = better for the Media Industry - since it is harder for people to start their own channels, and also do P2P stuff.
Puts on Evil Leader Hat- I don't see a problem, do you?
"If a person is able to employ the scientific method, but then fails to do so regardless of the reason, they are not a competent scientist, ipso facto"
Reiss was talking about _teaching_ _students_ the scientific method.
You do not have to teach competent scientists how to employ the scientific method.
You cannot teach all students in your classroom to be a competent scientist in 50 minutes.
But if at the end of a science lesson you can get nearly all of them to behave like competent scientists in a few more areas/things, you have done some good.
Well I think Reiss has proven that there is a high chance of people going crazy just because someone says "creationism" in the context of "classroom".
So his concerns are demonstrably valid.
His opinion is it should be dealt with rather than dismissed outright. I do not think he should have to lose his position just because of that.
Pity the fervent atheists declared fatwas on him, and kept saying he called for the teaching of creationism in the classroom, despite evidence to the contrary. Talk about faith vs evidence based;).
Usually saying "Your religious beliefs are bullshit" is counterproductive to teaching.
It boils down to if students mention creationism, science teachers should still figure out how to teach them the scientific way (e.g. evolution etc). People can hold two (or more) ideas in their head. Forcing them to decide between their religious beliefs and science in 50 minutes is not a good approach.
Also attacking students for their beliefs, is not very productive and a waste. People who think that students won't be attacked for their beliefs can take the example of Professor Reiss himself.
Professor Reiss himself has proven there is a problem with fervent anti-creationists.
They deal out fatwas without even examining the evidence.
What a waste - Reiss obviously understands how to teach people. In contrast the Dawkins bunch might win more arguments but win less people.
"but I found it objectionable on couple of points: Don't make creationism a special case"
From the reaction of everybody (fanatics from both religious and atheist camps) it seems that creationism is a hot topic.
And so it is a good topic for him to address and talk about specifically.
I don't think he really was saying it should be dumped on the curriculum. I think it's more like ensuring that students with creationist beliefs can still learn the scientific way of thinking, without being shouted down/out.
But it seems that even noncreationists Professors with religious beliefs aren't allowed in the classroom either.
It's ironic he has proven there really is a problem out there. Imagine the people who got him kicked out were in charge of teaching students.
"Here in Canada our Health system is stretched to the limit due to an aging population why allow something that further impacts health and strains that system?"
Ah, you should switch to storing stuff in Thallium then, that should deal with the aging population problem.
And while you're at it, encourage people to smoke more (while taxing it heavily).:)
Don't you think it's strange that the Financial Times, Daily Telegraph, Times Online, Guardian, New Scientist, Dawkins, two Nobel laureates and various bloggers are all reading his remarks differently from how you and I read it.
And it quotes him as: Professor Reiss, a Church of England clergyman, said: "Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson."
Anyway I hope the Royal Society keeps him in his current role (professor of science education), in my opinion he does know how to educate people, whereas all these journalists clearly don't.
In my opinion, either they can't read or they are up to no good.
You have found out what the person is good at and there's a existing need for that person in that role, so now you have to let them go because HR has some weird policy... Tsk tsk.
Imagine if the IT department said: we can't retain that person because our IT system doesn't allow us to change the "trainee programmer" field to "senior web developer" within one year.
Bosses with a clue threaten to sack people for saying stupid stuff like that (and sack people who say it too often).
Slashdot Mirror
Aye Aye Cap'n!
Tis greater looting than from them Spanish galleons.
If the voters keep voting for candidates that give them those subsidies and bail outs, that's what they want.
If people really reelected Bush, that's what they wanted.
That's called democracy and elections at work.
If you don't like that, you should vote to change it and convince enough people to do the same.
0 to 9?
:).
I would think -5 to +5 would be more appropriate
That way even if I didn't like any of the candidates it would be worth getting my butt off to vote just for the chance of seeing the following happen:
Interviewer: "Candidate A, it looks like you won, but you have a negative net total of -1570, how can you then say you have been given mandate?".
That would be so worth it.
Not just that, shares you didn't borrow or even steal.
:).
:). Slap a big fat AAA on them or something
Talk about imaginary property
Anyway, it's funny they've only just prevented you from selling shares you don't own, when they:
1) Let people buy houses with practically no money at all - giving them big loans
2) Treat those loans as assets
3) Lend or borrow more money based on those assets.
4) Repeat and rinse.
5) Wait till the music stops, ask for Gov to bail you out with taxpayer money, say "Everyone was doing it" aka "Industry standard practice" and collect your big fat golden parachute.
I'm sure I missed some steps somewhere, but I think I'm not that far wrong given the way the market has blown up.
To me if private industry is going to get bailed out by public money so often, they should be better regulated and maybe profits more than a certain amount should be siphoned off by the government to a bail out fund.
It's not fair that they get to keep all the money during the good times, and during the bad times even people not involved have to bail them out.
Avast! There be too many pirates around these days.
They should be walking the plank.
Yeah, but I'm a shareholder of companies too, and I don't like companies that think short term.
Not all shareholders think short term.
A company's management can choose to attract different shareholders to hold their stock - and even say so publicly.
If you keep focusing on rewarding short term shareholders, naturally you will end up having a lot of short termers holding your stock.
sneakernet Doom?
;).
We used plip.com and a "laplink cable" with parallel ports, and a null modem cable with serial ports so that we could get three machines to play doom coop - the usual back then was two PCs if you didn't have LAN cards.
I came up with the idea, but I think I was still a bit surprised when it actually worked.
Of course it wasn't that robust and sometimes the game went out of sync. Worked well enough though
You're thinking of this movie?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekXxi9IKZSA :)
"Wonder who gets the blame for the intelligence failures of 2000 - 2004?"
The US voters?
I saw huge numbers of intelligence failures in the past two elections.
But where are the studies that show that "reliving the trauma" is better in general?
There's so far evidence that the popular method of "reliving or talking about it" isn't such a good idea:
http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/06/venting-emotions-after-trauma-predicts.php
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1296912
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/11/mentalhealth.healthandwellbeing
I'm inclined that like most memory stuff, repeating something over and over again just makes it easier for you to remember it.
For some people the "reliving" session may itself be yet another traumatic event to add to their "wonderful life" so far. Imagine if you're a rape victim, getting raped in virtual reality over and over again.
Of course the trouble is it's often hard to conduct experiments in the field of psychology to prove efficacy. You can't go around giving 1000 people PTSD and do a "double blind" on the treatments. I suppose you could try it on rats first, but how well is that going to translate?
IMO I believe if people don't feel a strong _urge_[1] to talk about it tell them to think about something else and get busy with other more enjoyable things.
Same goes for the conventional wisdom on "bottling up anger". You let people bash stuff up because they feel angry, all it does is makes it become a trained/learned response. Fine if you want to learn to bash stuff up whenever you get angry, but not fine if you are trying to learn something else.
[1] Not because they _feel_ it's the right thing to do - based on "conventional" stupidity aka wisdom. If they do feel a strong urge, then yes let them do it.
I'm not so sure about the quality of random perl fragments from google searches.
I found the perlipc docs quite useful - if you're not just writing throwaway scripts you are going to have to handle signals and exceptions.
http://search.cpan.org/~rgarcia/perl-5.10.0/pod/perlipc.pod
Then there's also:
http://faq.perl.org/
Some people use the perl cookbook - http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596003135/
So far I haven't really had need to look at that much.
Probably because your peripheral vision is more sensitive to rapid changes (as for most people).
Sit at your "farther away" distance from the TV and look to the side of the TV so that you see the TV in your peripheral vision. Does it appear to flicker? I bet it does for you.
It's useful to be able to detect quick moving stuff approaching from the side - like predators or enemies for instance. Those can really give you a headache pretty fast.
"Go ask a person who has lost sight in one eye (maybe not)."
I still have sight in both eyes, but I think with just one eye if your brain could in theory learn to perceive the 3D world when your head (and thus eye) moves about slightly and gathers different perspectives.
Similarly in each eye you only have one small high res spot, but your brain can use it to build up a bigger high res picture.
Astronauts are considered "home team".
;)
Cosmonauts = evil russkies.
Now that China is the other bogeyman country, we have to give their astronauts a different name to distinguish them. Hence taikonaut.
Try to keep up with the propaganda will you?
Maybe someone will send them a bomb one day.
:).
A bomb that only blows up if they accept the terms and open it
Yeah exactly what I was thinking.
If they really want to catch terrorists, perhaps the government should secretly sponsor many free open wifi spots - fast access, no blocking etc.
And then log the traffic, mac addresses and rough physical locations (you can do triangulation to figure where the users are).
And also plant cameras in the vicinity.
So when the bombers log on to brag about it, there is a higher chance of the cops being able to pick them up for "investigation".
It's even great that they use email - you could automate stuff on receipt of the email.
Expensive? Yes. Effective? I don't know, but probably more effective than trying to discourage open wifi.
In countries like China, not having enough IPs for everyone = NAT = easier for the Chinese government to control their people.
In countries like USA, not having enough IPs for everyone = NAT = better for the Media Industry - since it is harder for people to start their own channels, and also do P2P stuff.
Puts on Evil Leader Hat- I don't see a problem, do you?
"If a person is able to employ the scientific method, but then fails to do so regardless of the reason, they are not a competent scientist, ipso facto"
Reiss was talking about _teaching_ _students_ the scientific method.
You do not have to teach competent scientists how to employ the scientific method.
You cannot teach all students in your classroom to be a competent scientist in 50 minutes.
But if at the end of a science lesson you can get nearly all of them to behave like competent scientists in a few more areas/things, you have done some good.
"I think he expressed his views rather poorly in what was said originally, making it easy to misread unless you look very closely"
I think the title and blurb added by Guardian didn't help at all.
Anyway even if the teacher doesn't mention creationism, what happens if the student brings it up?
Do you shout him out of the classroom like the fanatical atheists have shouted Reiss out of his position in the Royal Society?
I'd have thought that would be unlikely, but now I'm not so sure - perhaps Reiss's concerns are well founded.
Well we just had an educated and clear thinking professor of science education being forced to resign for something he did not do.
I guess that's progress eh?
Well I think Reiss has proven that there is a high chance of people going crazy just because someone says "creationism" in the context of "classroom".
;).
So his concerns are demonstrably valid.
His opinion is it should be dealt with rather than dismissed outright. I do not think he should have to lose his position just because of that.
Pity the fervent atheists declared fatwas on him, and kept saying he called for the teaching of creationism in the classroom, despite evidence to the contrary. Talk about faith vs evidence based
Usually saying "Your religious beliefs are bullshit" is counterproductive to teaching.
It boils down to if students mention creationism, science teachers should still figure out how to teach them the scientific way (e.g. evolution etc). People can hold two (or more) ideas in their head. Forcing them to decide between their religious beliefs and science in 50 minutes is not a good approach.
Also attacking students for their beliefs, is not very productive and a waste. People who think that students won't be attacked for their beliefs can take the example of Professor Reiss himself.
Professor Reiss himself has proven there is a problem with fervent anti-creationists.
They deal out fatwas without even examining the evidence.
What a waste - Reiss obviously understands how to teach people. In contrast the Dawkins bunch might win more arguments but win less people.
"but I found it objectionable on couple of points: Don't make creationism a special case"
From the reaction of everybody (fanatics from both religious and atheist camps) it seems that creationism is a hot topic.
And so it is a good topic for him to address and talk about specifically.
I don't think he really was saying it should be dumped on the curriculum. I think it's more like ensuring that students with creationist beliefs can still learn the scientific way of thinking, without being shouted down/out.
But it seems that even noncreationists Professors with religious beliefs aren't allowed in the classroom either.
It's ironic he has proven there really is a problem out there. Imagine the people who got him kicked out were in charge of teaching students.
"Here in Canada our Health system is stretched to the limit due to an aging population why allow something that further impacts health and strains that system?"
:)
Ah, you should switch to storing stuff in Thallium then, that should deal with the aging population problem.
And while you're at it, encourage people to smoke more (while taxing it heavily).
Bad reporting? Is it just bad reporting?
Don't you think it's strange that the Financial Times, Daily Telegraph, Times Online, Guardian, New Scientist, Dawkins, two Nobel laureates and various bloggers are all reading his remarks differently from how you and I read it.
For example: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4734767.ece "Leading scientist urges teaching of creationism in schools"
And it quotes him as: Professor Reiss, a Church of England clergyman, said: "Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson."
Anyway I hope the Royal Society keeps him in his current role (professor of science education), in my opinion he does know how to educate people, whereas all these journalists clearly don't.
In my opinion, either they can't read or they are up to no good.
You have found out what the person is good at and there's a existing need for that person in that role, so now you have to let them go because HR has some weird policy... Tsk tsk.
Imagine if the IT department said: we can't retain that person because our IT system doesn't allow
us to change the "trainee programmer" field to "senior web developer" within one year.
Bosses with a clue threaten to sack people for saying stupid stuff like that (and sack people who say it too often).