The question is whether having a bunch of anti-ship missiles that would reach ships within 60 seconds of launch and be launched from inside the usual detection shield might do will result in some major damage/sinking of any US warships.
The fact that the ships are there indicates the US military doesn't think it will a problem, or that they are willing to take the losses. The inspiration it would give other US enemies makes me suspect the former.
That's what we'll find out if we see them in action.
The sunburn is specifically an anti-Aegis missile, it's a matter of how many does Iran have and can they launch enough at once to overwhelm the defenses.
The geography means they would be launched from very close range - way inside the normal detection range, making shooting them down harder
We did so well at taking out those Skud launchers in the first Gulf war I wouldn't be counting on that option.
And of course in that war the Stark got hit by two exocets, which are junk compared with a sunburn (though we know Iran has a bunch of exocets), which doesn't exactly say ding the praises of US anti-ship missile defenses.
The problem with that is that the counter-party risk. The main reason the government is pouring money into AIG is that it took such bets and can't afford to pay them out.
So there was the chance of losing that bet even when things turned out the way they had to with respect to housing prices.
You also have to know about such things and think of it which is entirely separate from seeing an obvious bubble that had to pop.
I made 400% on my CFC puts, but given the money I put down that doesn't add up to millions of dollars and is balanced by my loses from expecting the US dollar to fall - though the gains are realized and the losses aren't so there's still hope i guess:)
I'm happy with my opportunity gains (which obviously is a non-existent term, but there you go) from not buying a house when the wife's nesting instincts started going wild. I don't have enough starting capital to make millions even at 500% gain levels.
If "most people feel that the candidate they wanted won" then it wasn't rigged, since that candidate obviously got "most" of the votes.
Of course that ignores people who don't vote, but they shouldn't be being counted in the first place since their feelings and views with respect to elections are irrelevant.
1. If the same person votes twice they notice, sure it's after the fact. There are simpler ways of getting multiple votes counted than picking registered voters and hoping they don't vote.
2. Secret ballots are secret for good reason, verifying your receipt against some online database destroys that.
Just tick/write a number in a damn box with a pencil, how hard can it be...
Short selling wasn't the way to make millions for two simple reasons:
1. The situation was obviously unsustainable, but as always lasts longer than it "should" - hence the holding costs of those shorts are significant. It could have blown up in 2004 or 2040 - though the rate of increase was such that the longer timeframe got more and more unlikely. You also need a fair amount of capital to start with.
2. It wasn't certain that stock prices would actually fall in nominal terms. The other way it could have burst was via the price of everything rising, but stocks (and houses) rising less. In that case being short would lose you everything.
I considered option 2 more likely, I was wrong obviously.
The US economy was clearly destined to implode, but inflation and deflation were two reasonable (and opposite from a "how do I bet on this") ways to do that.
I would have also thought that betting against the US dollar would have been a safer way, but that ended up being the exact opposite of where you wanted your money to be - for the moment anyway, I still think the probability is greater than 0.5 that that will change.
Markets are not rational, expecting them market to "correct itself" in a reasonable time frame (which would have been say 2001/2) is crazy. Especially given the government was pumping as hard as it could.
Finally even if I had made millions, why would I loan you $30k???
Except that the current economic woes don't fit into Taleb's "Black Swan" category. It was obvious that his was going to happen to anyone with one brain cell 5 years ago, and to anyone with two brain cells a decade ago.
I'm pretty sure I heard an interview with Taleb in which he mentioned this. Of course his strategy of investing to break even in the expected conditions and make out like a bandit when a black swan appears would have done very well as risk was repriced.
And New Jersey, New York, and New Hampshire all call themselves "new" even though they are three of the founding states of the union, and hence better called "old".
mm, no. It's not. Two of three is "most". Two is NOT "many". See how that works? They are not necessarily a subset of the other.
Two of three is "a few", but it's also "most".
Two hundred of five hundred is "many", but not "most".
Note that something can be "most" without being "many", and can be "many" without being "most".
We weren't talking about any of those cases.
The only reason "many" is not "most" in your example of three things is that the word "many" doesn't apply. I was talking about an actual concrete case, not in general. Clearly if the word many doesn't apply at all to some set then any claims using that word don't make sense.
I didn't claim that something which is "many" must be "most" - I claimed that something which is "most" is also "many". I was trying to speak English, not mathematics - I wasn't referring to generic subsets but to a given subset "bushfires in australia" of the set "bushfires". Though even if you do try and pretend I was being more formal than I was:
""" If "most" of something has property X, then any idiot can see that "many" of that thing will have property X. """
in other words,
If there is a subset A of the set S, such that MOST(A) is true, then MANY(A) is also true.
That doesn't make any claims about the existence of other subsets which also satisfy MANY(), so your "can be "many" without being "most"." statement is irrelevant.
Your "something can be "most" without being "many"" is irrelevant also because we are talking about and actual list on wikipedia, that the term "many" does apply to.
So what is your point?
The Op claimed "many bushfires are in Australia", I gave a reason why "most bushfires are in Australia". I still fail to see how that reason could no apply to the "many" case. I strengthened my claim, but the original claim is completely encompassed by it.
Seriously, you never do that? You always show only the exact thing at hand? When you kid asks "why are the leaves on that tree green?" you only ever answer about that exact tree, without mentioning that most trees have green leaves for that reason?
Let me repeat myself, just for fun:
The OP made a comment as if there was some strange reason why many of the bushfires in a list were in Australia. I pointed out that that's because it's an Australian specific term so most of them will be. I could have used the word many, it would be a weaker claim - but why I stated many because I had a quick glance and obviously many of them were.
I should have said "all", which is what I originally though, but I didn't want check the list for some odd case (I just did now, and yes all of them are from Australia). Luckily I didn't, I'd hate to imagine what that would have triggered in your nitpicking.
By the way I nitpick, but this is a stupid one. I wasn't expanding his claim. I was making a larger one which would include the smaller one. I wasn't expansing his claim in order to disprove the larger case, because I wasn't disproving. I was agreeing! He said "many" were in Australia. I said "most" where, obviously agreeing. In fact "all" where.
If I was disagreeing you would have point. If I has said "you fool, most are in New Zealand" then I would be making a fallacious argument. But I didn't. I made the stronger claim because it was obviously true, and I didn't want to say "all" and then see I didn't see one item in the list.
I also happen to agree with the OP, bushfires are not new in Australia, and neither is drought.
I see no such assertion. So where is that assertion of many=most that you claim I made?
Most is a larger claim than many. It's perfectly normal to show the larger claim in order to show the smaller.
I wasn't saying the poster claimed "most" were in Australia, I was claiming that "most" are in Australia due to naming (they would be called wildfires elsewhere and hence not be in that list) and hence it's not surprising at all that many of them have been in Australia.
If "most" of something has property X, then any idiot can see that "many" of that thing will have property X. So what exactly are you trying to point out to those of us without a strong grasp of the language?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfire#Significant_bushfires [wikipedia.org] Notice where many of these fires occur...Australia. And the documented dates go back to 1851. Climate change has nothing to do with anything, a bushfire is longstanding and naturally occurring event, and has been observed that way for 150 years on record.
No way. A term that isn't used outside of Australia (OK in a few little islands too) occurs mostly in Australia!
That wouldn't be because the exact same thing is called a wildfire everywhere else would it?
The problem is the newpapers need to make money, and making money from a web site is something they may fail at.
And if they do, then the whole news media goes belly up. The vast majority of blog style news gets their articles from web versions of newspaper articles.
Most TV "news" shows get their source material from local newspapers - it's someone's job to read through news sources and find things they can do a story on.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the ISS doesn't flare.
Oh wait, it does.
The US will crush Iran, but that isn't the issue.
The question is whether having a bunch of anti-ship missiles that would reach ships within 60 seconds of launch and be launched from inside the usual detection shield might do will result in some major damage/sinking of any US warships.
The fact that the ships are there indicates the US military doesn't think it will a problem, or that they are willing to take the losses. The inspiration it would give other US enemies makes me suspect the former.
That's what we'll find out if we see them in action.
The sunburn is specifically an anti-Aegis missile, it's a matter of how many does Iran have and can they launch enough at once to overwhelm the defenses.
The geography means they would be launched from very close range - way inside the normal detection range, making shooting them down harder
We did so well at taking out those Skud launchers in the first Gulf war I wouldn't be counting on that option.
And of course in that war the Stark got hit by two exocets, which are junk compared with a sunburn (though we know Iran has a bunch of exocets), which doesn't exactly say ding the praises of US anti-ship missile defenses.
If the US keeps going the way it is we'll get to see them in action soon enough. It's believed that Iran got Sunburns via China a few years ago.
The fifth fleet is sitting off their coast in a what is basically a bay, otherwise known as being sitting ducks.
Yes, I want to have to plug an external PCIe device into my cell phone in order to see the caller ID number on the screen as it rings.
Yes, because what I want to do is slot a PCIe card into my damn cell phone.
http://www.focusresearch.com/gregor/sw/psh/
The problem with that is that the counter-party risk. The main reason the government is pouring money into AIG is that it took such bets and can't afford to pay them out.
So there was the chance of losing that bet even when things turned out the way they had to with respect to housing prices.
You also have to know about such things and think of it which is entirely separate from seeing an obvious bubble that had to pop.
I made 400% on my CFC puts, but given the money I put down that doesn't add up to millions of dollars and is balanced by my loses from expecting the US dollar to fall - though the gains are realized and the losses aren't so there's still hope i guess :)
I'm happy with my opportunity gains (which obviously is a non-existent term, but there you go) from not buying a house when the wife's nesting instincts started going wild. I don't have enough starting capital to make millions even at 500% gain levels.
If "most people feel that the candidate they wanted won" then it wasn't rigged, since that candidate obviously got "most" of the votes.
Of course that ignores people who don't vote, but they shouldn't be being counted in the first place since their feelings and views with respect to elections are irrelevant.
1. If the same person votes twice they notice, sure it's after the fact. There are simpler ways of getting multiple votes counted than picking registered voters and hoping they don't vote.
2. Secret ballots are secret for good reason, verifying your receipt against some online database destroys that.
Just tick/write a number in a damn box with a pencil, how hard can it be...
Short selling wasn't the way to make millions for two simple reasons:
1. The situation was obviously unsustainable, but as always lasts longer than it "should" - hence the holding costs of those shorts are significant. It could have blown up in 2004 or 2040 - though the rate of increase was such that the longer timeframe got more and more unlikely. You also need a fair amount of capital to start with.
2. It wasn't certain that stock prices would actually fall in nominal terms. The other way it could have burst was via the price of everything rising, but stocks (and houses) rising less. In that case being short would lose you everything.
I considered option 2 more likely, I was wrong obviously.
The US economy was clearly destined to implode, but inflation and deflation were two reasonable (and opposite from a "how do I bet on this") ways to do that.
I would have also thought that betting against the US dollar would have been a safer way, but that ended up being the exact opposite of where you wanted your money to be - for the moment anyway, I still think the probability is greater than 0.5 that that will change.
Markets are not rational, expecting them market to "correct itself" in a reasonable time frame (which would have been say 2001/2) is crazy. Especially given the government was pumping as hard as it could.
Finally even if I had made millions, why would I loan you $30k???
You mean other than in the first fucking paragraph.
You know the paragraph that is about nothing except the addition of LGPL to the licenses.
Except that the current economic woes don't fit into Taleb's "Black Swan" category. It was obvious that his was going to happen to anyone with one brain cell 5 years ago, and to anyone with two brain cells a decade ago.
I'm pretty sure I heard an interview with Taleb in which he mentioned this. Of course his strategy of investing to break even in the expected conditions and make out like a bandit when a black swan appears would have done very well as risk was repriced.
The username didn't indicate the same thing, with far less effort???
The Island of Jersey off the coast of Normandy, the King gave the land to the governor of the Island of Jersey who of course named it New Jersey.
They were very creative in the old days!
And New Jersey, New York, and New Hampshire all call themselves "new" even though they are three of the founding states of the union, and hence better called "old".
We weren't talking about any of those cases.
The only reason "many" is not "most" in your example of three things is that the word "many" doesn't apply. I was talking about an actual concrete case, not in general. Clearly if the word many doesn't apply at all to some set then any claims using that word don't make sense.
I didn't claim that something which is "many" must be "most" - I claimed that something which is "most" is also "many". I was trying to speak English, not mathematics - I wasn't referring to generic subsets but to a given subset "bushfires in australia" of the set "bushfires". Though even if you do try and pretend I was being more formal than I was:
"""
If "most" of something has property X, then any idiot can see that "many" of that thing will have property X.
"""
in other words,
If there is a subset A of the set S, such that MOST(A) is true, then MANY(A) is also true.
That doesn't make any claims about the existence of other subsets which also satisfy MANY(), so your "can be "many" without being "most"." statement is irrelevant.
Your "something can be "most" without being "many"" is irrelevant also because we are talking about and actual list on wikipedia, that the term "many" does apply to.
So what is your point?
The Op claimed "many bushfires are in Australia", I gave a reason why "most bushfires are in Australia". I still fail to see how that reason could no apply to the "many" case. I strengthened my claim, but the original claim is completely encompassed by it.
Seriously, you never do that? You always show only the exact thing at hand? When you kid asks "why are the leaves on that tree green?" you only ever answer about that exact tree, without mentioning that most trees have green leaves for that reason?
Let me repeat myself, just for fun:
The OP made a comment as if there was some strange reason why many of the bushfires in a list were in Australia. I pointed out that that's because it's an Australian specific term so most of them will be. I could have used the word many, it would be a weaker claim - but why I stated many because I had a quick glance and obviously many of them were.
I should have said "all", which is what I originally though, but I didn't want check the list for some odd case (I just did now, and yes all of them are from Australia). Luckily I didn't, I'd hate to imagine what that would have triggered in your nitpicking.
By the way I nitpick, but this is a stupid one. I wasn't expanding his claim. I was making a larger one which would include the smaller one. I wasn't expansing his claim in order to disprove the larger case, because I wasn't disproving. I was agreeing! He said "many" were in Australia. I said "most" where, obviously agreeing. In fact "all" where.
If I was disagreeing you would have point. If I has said "you fool, most are in New Zealand" then I would be making a fallacious argument. But I didn't. I made the stronger claim because it was obviously true, and I didn't want to say "all" and then see I didn't see one item in the list.
I also happen to agree with the OP, bushfires are not new in Australia, and neither is drought.
I'd formed an opinion on this particular case, and now I discover I'm agreeing with Bruce Perens.
Which means I likely overlooked something and got it wrong, better take another look.
I see no such assertion. So where is that assertion of many=most that you claim I made?
Most is a larger claim than many. It's perfectly normal to show the larger claim in order to show the smaller.
I wasn't saying the poster claimed "most" were in Australia, I was claiming that "most" are in Australia due to naming (they would be called wildfires elsewhere and hence not be in that list) and hence it's not surprising at all that many of them have been in Australia.
If "most" of something has property X, then any idiot can see that "many" of that thing will have property X. So what exactly are you trying to point out to those of us without a strong grasp of the language?
Or you could try noticing that it isn't a reply to your comment...
I'm going to guess that Iceland isn't going to be in that list anymore...
No way. A term that isn't used outside of Australia (OK in a few little islands too) occurs mostly in Australia!
That wouldn't be because the exact same thing is called a wildfire everywhere else would it?
If CO2 levels increase/stay the same and the global temperature drops then there would seem to be a problem with the hypothesis.
The problem is the newpapers need to make money, and making money from a web site is something they may fail at.
And if they do, then the whole news media goes belly up. The vast majority of blog style news gets their articles from web versions of newspaper articles.
Most TV "news" shows get their source material from local newspapers - it's someone's job to read through news sources and find things they can do a story on.
Because you want vendors to just use the reference code, without screwing it up by implementing their own C version from the ADA reference code.