So in say 2008 in Zimbabwe you seriously think US dollars were less valuable than Zimbabwe dollars just because the government said Zimbabwe dollars were the national currency?
If every retailer on the planet took Bitcoin then all your local retailers would. So how would they be less valuable than the national currency?
Sure it's an illiquid market and you'd be silly to mark to market a large number of them at whatever the most recent trade was priced at and declare that that is what they are worth. But that's not the same as being worthless.
I have a 1 ounce silver round on my desk - I couldn't use it at the grocery store, I couldn't pay my taxes with it, it's completely useless to me aside from being the paper weight it's acting as. But that doesn't make it worthless - it's worth whatever I can find someone else to pay for it - most likely about $25 these days (it's not exactly pristine given it serves as a card protector in poker games when it isn't a paper weight and isn't in plastic or anything).
Whereas insurance companies would never deny treatment. And people who just pay for their own medical treatment would never not be able to afford something and have to deny treatment.
To those who don't see a problem with unregulated gaming, read up on the history of organized crime and gambling. The Nevada Gaming Commission exists for a goddamned reason.
Which is why it makes so much sense to refuse to regulate them.
He said "go" to an act of war against a sovereign ally.
If Osama wasn't there or they'd gotten into a firefight with Pakistani military forces I'm sure you'd agree that'd be his fault for authorising the action.
Because of course you know this but the researchers doing the work didn't hink of that because they are idiots?
So which part of their methodology specifically do you have a problem with, given you must have checked it before spouting off, right?
Here you go, here's some of the methodology paragraphs from the linked article, though of course you also read the supplementary material to I hope (slashdot doesn't like some of the fancy characters like +/-):
Using a query into the EHR, we selected all 224â757 primary care patients â¥18 years of age with outpatient visits between 1 January 2002 and 30 September 2006. A further query of this subset identified 12â465 unique patients who had at least one order for a hypnotic medication and were followed-up and survived â¥3 months subsequent to that order. For each hypnotic user, we attempted to identify two controls with no record of a hypnotic prescription in the EHR at any time from among the 212â292 remaining non-users. Non-user controls were matched to the user cohort by: sex, age ±5 years, smoking status and start of period of observation either by calendar date ±1 year (preferred) or by length of observation. A control likewise could not have <3 months of observation in the EHR. We identified 24â793 controls, there being fewer than 200 hypnotic users for whom only one control could be matched. We extracted demographic data, height and weight measurements, diagnoses recorded in outpatient visit records, problem lists and the cancer registry, and orders for all medications, including the indication associated with that order. Only hypnotics frequently prescribed in the EHR and FDA-indicated by the US Food and Drug Administration for insomnia were included in these analyses and then only if it appeared that bedtime dosage was intended (see supplemental files). Roughly three of four (76.3%) of prescribed hypnotics had an explicitly sleep-related indication since physicians often use another diagnosis when they believe that insomnia is secondary to other conditions.9 Medication orders were further reviewed by a physician (DFK) to exclude initially identified patients who did not fully meet criteria for users and matched non-users of hypnotics. Two per cent of patients were excluded for these reasons. Patients diagnosed with major cancer (apart from non-melanoma skin cancers) before the period of observation or within the first 0.05 years of follow-up were also excluded, reducing the numbers to 10â531 users and 23â674 matched non-user controls.
As prospectively planned, we examined the associations of hypnotic prescriptions with deaths, using Cox proportional hazards models in SPSS V.12.0.0 (SPSS, Inc.). Backwards stepwise models were calculated, with likelihood ratio criteria of p<0.10 to retain a variable and p<0.05 to re-enter. To control for potential confounders, model covariates included age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, body mass index (BMI) and self-reported alcohol use and smoking status. To minimise confounding by indication (eg, a physician might have prescribed a hypnotic to treat a non-sleep condition associated with disturbed sleep), comorbid diagnoses were entered as strata in the primary models as described in the following paragraph, and other models were constructed limited to users and controls with specific categories of comorbidity. To address the possibility that hypnotics were prescribed for an emerging condition that was not yet recorded as a diagnosis, comorbid conditions were controlled whether first diagnosed before or during the period of observation.
To control for different classes of comorbidity and each patient's overall burden of comorbidities, the primary proportional hazards models were constructed incorporating stratification on up to 116 comorbidity combinations. The 116 strata compared almost all hypnotic users with non-users having exactly the same combinations of 12 classes of comorbidity. Two sets of additiona
What exactly does gravity have to do with it at all? And what is this fundamental part of recoil that produces an upward force.
My brain can really only see newton's second applying a force opposite that of the one making the bullet travel out of the gun. So essentially straight backwards.
Except of course the guns center of gravity is unlikely to be exactly in line with that force and so you get torque. Also you are holding the gun below where that force is being applied providing a pivot for the same conversion into torque.
This doesn't cause the gun to be driven upward, it causes it to rotate. If you were to holsd the gun sideways that same pivot would now cause the gun to rotate sideways.
Except that as I tried to say, the farmers take one unit of wheat and produce more units of wheat. Hence if the price of wheat is high they are willing to pay more for the seed to plant, since they'll be able to sell it for more and cover those costs (and the interest on what they needed to borrow).
And a market economy is never going to be optimal - it's essentially a voting system on what we will wo with our capital. With the people who have a better history of choosing well getting more votes. This obviously breaks down - just because one of my parents was good at doing that doesn't mean I'm good at it when I inherit their votes. Just because my parents weren't good at it doesn't mean I'm not but I don't get the votes to begin with.
Those things can be reduced by allowing people to move up and down the wealth scalre easily. People who make bad choices lose their money (votes), people who make good choices get more money (votes). Currently the US does very poorly at both of those things, but that's a whole other story:)
How much they have in their bank accounts is irrelevant, it's how much they're willing to spend on getting a unit of wheat.
And of the farmers are the producers of the wheat so if crazy guy really does want to spend $39.50 on a unit of wheat a farmer can profitably pay even more (and covering the interest if he needs to borrow to do so) - since he'll take the unit and turn it into multiple units one of which he can sell to the craxy guy...
But yes, your point is correct - market economics to assign resources really only works once you reach a big enough scale. At small sizes the communist/feudalist method of the guy in charge telling everyone what they will do works better (especially for the guy in charge) - at least until you get a cray buy at the top...
The point here is that fairness requires that all individuals are served equal amounts over their lifetimes, which can't happen in a market as the OP showed.
That's seems a remarkably stupid way to allocate limited resources.
We have 15 units of wheat seeds. In order to not starve to death (and replinish seed stocks) we need to plant at least five. There are 6 farmers who could each plant a unit. There 5 bakers who would rather just use the wheat as is to make food. There are 5 artists who would like to make some wheat seed art. There are 15 storers who would like to store the seeds for future planting. There's one crazy guy who wants to burn them. We should randomly allocate them? We should use a round-robin so this year we'll make some art, and next year we'll grow some food?
And in this fair world of yours how do we decide what to produce in the first place? It finally got to be my turn to use the factory for the year. How do I determine if I should use it to make hard drives, or RAM, or CPUs, or chess pieces (lets pretend factories can swap and choose...)? I have no price information telling me I'll make more money making hard drive due to a shortage after all.
If they instead said "not without a warrant" to every request.
I guess currently any law enforcement officer (or anyone willing to break the law and impersonate one) can get that information for any facebook account they feel like.
It's only civil contempt that has the "spend forever in jail even though it hasn't been proved you did anything wrong" feature. Criminal contempt doesn't allow that - they have to prove the contempt first and there's a sentence rather than an indefinite time period of "until you tell us".
In a child pornography case it's going to criminal not civil.
Slashdot Mirror
So in say 2008 in Zimbabwe you seriously think US dollars were less valuable than Zimbabwe dollars just because the government said Zimbabwe dollars were the national currency?
If every retailer on the planet took Bitcoin then all your local retailers would. So how would they be less valuable than the national currency?
Sure it's an illiquid market and you'd be silly to mark to market a large number of them at whatever the most recent trade was priced at and declare that that is what they are worth. But that's not the same as being worthless.
I have a 1 ounce silver round on my desk - I couldn't use it at the grocery store, I couldn't pay my taxes with it, it's completely useless to me aside from being the paper weight it's acting as. But that doesn't make it worthless - it's worth whatever I can find someone else to pay for it - most likely about $25 these days (it's not exactly pristine given it serves as a card protector in poker games when it isn't a paper weight and isn't in plastic or anything).
Whereas insurance companies would never deny treatment. And people who just pay for their own medical treatment would never not be able to afford something and have to deny treatment.
Which is why it makes so much sense to refuse to regulate them.
Steel isn't unheard of.
No there's an extra working day.
We get an extra Monday this year - if it wasn't a leap year then Dec 31 would be Sunday and that Monday would be part of next year.
He said "go" to an act of war against a sovereign ally.
If Osama wasn't there or they'd gotten into a firefight with Pakistani military forces I'm sure you'd agree that'd be his fault for authorising the action.
Beause Britain has slightly more civilized prisons, and because Office Space was a popular movie in the slashdot demographic.
So are you suggesting they deny a random group what is the current medication for a condition before this type of data analysis study?
I suspect you'll have trouble getting ethics approval if you don't do the data study and have it show what this one does first.
Because of course you know this but the researchers doing the work didn't hink of that because they are idiots?
So which part of their methodology specifically do you have a problem with, given you must have checked it before spouting off, right?
Here you go, here's some of the methodology paragraphs from the linked article, though of course you also read the supplementary material to I hope (slashdot doesn't like some of the fancy characters like +/-):
That would depend on how many tons they produce per employee.
third law, dammit!
What exactly does gravity have to do with it at all? And what is this fundamental part of recoil that produces an upward force.
My brain can really only see newton's second applying a force opposite that of the one making the bullet travel out of the gun. So essentially straight backwards.
Except of course the guns center of gravity is unlikely to be exactly in line with that force and so you get torque. Also you are holding the gun below where that force is being applied providing a pivot for the same conversion into torque.
This doesn't cause the gun to be driven upward, it causes it to rotate. If you were to holsd the gun sideways that same pivot would now cause the gun to rotate sideways.
Except that as I tried to say, the farmers take one unit of wheat and produce more units of wheat. Hence if the price of wheat is high they are willing to pay more for the seed to plant, since they'll be able to sell it for more and cover those costs (and the interest on what they needed to borrow).
And a market economy is never going to be optimal - it's essentially a voting system on what we will wo with our capital. With the people who have a better history of choosing well getting more votes. This obviously breaks down - just because one of my parents was good at doing that doesn't mean I'm good at it when I inherit their votes. Just because my parents weren't good at it doesn't mean I'm not but I don't get the votes to begin with.
Those things can be reduced by allowing people to move up and down the wealth scalre easily. People who make bad choices lose their money (votes), people who make good choices get more money (votes). Currently the US does very poorly at both of those things, but that's a whole other story :)
How much they have in their bank accounts is irrelevant, it's how much they're willing to spend on getting a unit of wheat.
And of the farmers are the producers of the wheat so if crazy guy really does want to spend $39.50 on a unit of wheat a farmer can profitably pay even more (and covering the interest if he needs to borrow to do so) - since he'll take the unit and turn it into multiple units one of which he can sell to the craxy guy...
But yes, your point is correct - market economics to assign resources really only works once you reach a big enough scale. At small sizes the communist/feudalist method of the guy in charge telling everyone what they will do works better (especially for the guy in charge) - at least until you get a cray buy at the top...
That's seems a remarkably stupid way to allocate limited resources.
We have 15 units of wheat seeds. In order to not starve to death (and replinish seed stocks) we need to plant at least five. There are 6 farmers who could each plant a unit. There 5 bakers who would rather just use the wheat as is to make food. There are 5 artists who would like to make some wheat seed art. There are 15 storers who would like to store the seeds for future planting. There's one crazy guy who wants to burn them. We should randomly allocate them? We should use a round-robin so this year we'll make some art, and next year we'll grow some food?
And in this fair world of yours how do we decide what to produce in the first place? It finally got to be my turn to use the factory for the year. How do I determine if I should use it to make hard drives, or RAM, or CPUs, or chess pieces (lets pretend factories can swap and choose...)? I have no price information telling me I'll make more money making hard drive due to a shortage after all.
If they instead said "not without a warrant" to every request.
I guess currently any law enforcement officer (or anyone willing to break the law and impersonate one) can get that information for any facebook account they feel like.
Only someone ignorant of how the currency system works in the US.
Which of course is fine, most people don't care, but they're also smart enough to maybe find out before they start commenting on it.
Obviously it says no such thing, since P!=NP isn't proven.
The -Hard part just says at least as hard as the hardest problem in NP. If P==NP then that would include determinstic polynomial time problems.
But they're marketing it to the US, so the potential customers are used to all of that already.
The Federal Reserve doesn't produce bills so that seems rather unlikely.
No you wouldn't.
It's only civil contempt that has the "spend forever in jail even though it hasn't been proved you did anything wrong" feature. Criminal contempt doesn't allow that - they have to prove the contempt first and there's a sentence rather than an indefinite time period of "until you tell us".
In a child pornography case it's going to criminal not civil.
That has nothing at all similar to Xwing vs TieFighter style combat.
Not a chance, they aren't being rational to start with so evidence and facts are irrelevant.
I don't touch my food with my asshole.
Nor do I touch door handles and other things that other people will touch with my asshole.
Nor do I "shake assholes" with people.
http://travel.state.gov/passport/faq/faq_1741.html first item in the "Passport - Minors" section.