Re:Not just about security - about everything
on
Schneier on Security
·
· Score: 1
Example: a brilliant scientist spends his entire life solving equations, coming up with theories, designing and building rockets. He/she is revered in his/her work and excels, and is well know...they will not generally become the head of NASA..
You mean like Dr. Werner Von Braun? He may not have been the head of NASA, but he certainly played a leadership role in the early american space efforts.
Executives don't know any better than to react - It's only the experts that really think proactively - because that's what they do. Furthermore, executives (like in the TSA) aren't really hired to "make us safe"
You can't ever be safe, that's the point. We're in an age where the offensive weapon is so far ahead of defenses that really no physical asset can actually be protected from a determined attacker. The best you can do is maybe guarantee that the attacker is killed and hope that it is a sufficient deterrent, but you aren't going to defend every aircraft, car, bridge, or pipe from every possible threat. You really can't.
To some extent, the illusion of security is all we will ever have until technology of defense catches up - either in better materials for passive defenses, better detection of smuggled weapons, and so forth.
Taxes ARE wealth redistribution. Distributing the wealth in a way that best benefits the country as a whole is the real debate
There's a huge difference between a government that exists to further commerce for its people versus a government that exists to punish the successful. It's not your wealth to distribute, that's the point. You don't have a right to walk up to someone else and say, "hey, I have better ideas for what you've earned than than you." I mean, if you were really that smart, why couldn't you get your own stack?
Give me a break. You sound like the liberals in '04 who said they'd move out of the country if Kerry didn't get elected.
liberal (urban) areas of the country and are the biggest beneficiaries of our socialistic tax
Oh now, here's a shock... the urban centers of America have been systematically putting polices in place to suppress rural areas of the country now for this century, you know, and the red states are supposed to be thankful?
If it wasn't for the blue states, the red states would be better off economically because they could curtail food production to raise prices, or, sell to more markets. Thanks to the blue states, the red states have traditionally been blocked from trade that would have benefited them, all to protect the interests of the blue. Why should a farmer in Kansas care about the copyrights of a song? Even now, Alaska is blocked by the blue states from developing its own oil resources...
Ah yes, the socialism boogieman. Perhaps you Republicrats should look up that word before sprinkling it so liberaly.
I think CO2 as a proxy to create a command economy qualifies one to be a socialist. You can paper over it as much as you want, but you can never say the breathtaking theft of economic freedom that he proposes in the name of fairness is anything but socialism. It just is.
You can try and persuade us otherwise, but even though we'll lose this election, we're still 30% of the country, and can make one hell of a civil war.
Obama's tax plans are pretty much a mirror image of Bill Clinton's.
Actually, not at all. If you would have read Obama's book, you'd find that he actually condemns Clinton's economics as Reaganonomics with a smattering of progressivism. Yeah, I'll give you, Clinton was the best Republican President we've had, economically, but Clinton with a Republican congress chopping his entire agenda is a lot different than Obama with filibuster proof Senate.
You Repugs are going to lose, and lose big. Butch up and deal with it, kid.
Am dealing with it. Thinking about 2010. Have a lot to do by then. This is but one part of a new global economic vision to deal with the Democrats reactionary socialism.
For the life of me, I can't understand why Microsoft continues to abandon its strength.
It feels like the.NET koolaid is coming even to the IE team. Microsoft's.NET push now borders on maniacal, standardizing on.NET and in places where it should not be standardized. Performance matters, particularly when processors aren't getting any faster, just more parallel. Microsoft's has left C++ to languish, has all but abandoned C, and as such has no real performance tool in their own arsenal.
At the same time, the OSS community is actually slogging through and solving some of the difficult problems of making large projects in C++ that perform - getting better experience with the STL, when to use and when not to use, changing compilers to respond, developing automated testing methodologies to overcome what the compilers can't detect, and so on.
There should be no reason for the Windows desktop to be stagnant for fast applications, but Microsoft has basically abandoned it and is pushing developers to do the same. All the new display stuff in Windows requires.NET.. one wonders, how long will it be before Linux has similar systems but are presented as a simple C library that any system can use, regardless of whether it is a managed platform or not.
With Democrats poised to silence the right wing by going after radio, it makes perfect political sense to respond with a radical reform of copyrights. If you look at the polls, you'd find that the lion's share of people in IP aren't ever going to support Republicans anyway, so the political fallout doesn't matter.
Republicans should be singing we shall overcome, protesting every DMCA takedown notice, repeatedly introducing legislation to allow personal file sharing as fair use, shortening the length of copyright and ultimately repealing the DMCA. While they are at it, it wouldn't be bad to make legal documents non-copyrightable, so that you can post them on your web site when people see them.
Obama has the youth of America behind him... let's see how long that lasts when he has to throw them in jail for copyright violations to serve his own backers in the IP industry. Make Obama defend Madonna, and let Republicans be the creators of a new kind of an economy that recognizes that information wants to be free.
If it happens to bankrupt the core communications mechanism of the Democratic Party, so much the better.
No matter how much DRM and copyright protection laws you support, Hollywood and the media will never like you. So you may as well go the opposite way, put your free market money where your mouth is, and pick up a few tech votes.
Oh the irony. Assuming this wasn't some deeply hidden sarcasm, did you notice that you just delivered a perfect example - having been conned into believing that climate change isn't a big deal and we can go on doing business as usual?
Going on the business that they want will starve a billion people to death. The irony is that leftists bash Bush over a few hundred thousand dead in Iraq (according to their own figures), but, the logical outcome of GW legislation, if it works, is globally decreased food production and that many people dying of hunger a week, if not a day..
Conservatives are so easy to con with simple ideas.
Oh, please... let's not talked con'd exclusively about conservatives when you've got liberals out there freezing themselves to death for lack of heat because they expect the earth could blow up at any minute due to the sins of man.
Don't forget the part where they take a few hundred thousand young men onto those ships and shove them into the ocean as well.
I think in the case of the USA, it wasn't a few hundred thousand, but more like millions. In World War II, the US Army alone had 89 divisions, during the Cold War it had around 30, and now it has 18.
But that's getting a but close to Keynesianism which is akin to communism in some folk's opinion.
Of all ironies, Reagan justified his enormous deficits in Keynesian terms. He used to say that he had to "prime the pump" of the economy with federal money. While he was at it, he also made foreign car importers agree to "voluntary" quotas to help Detroit gets back on its feet. So, there you have it... Reagan got us out of the late 1970s early 1980s recession by basically running a liberal government.
Nope, sorry. the chrysler crossfire uses the same power plant and base chassis as the mercedes CLK, assembled IN GERMAN
The chrysler crossfire is a discontinued niche car and it doesn't use a hemi engine or the traditional chrysler 6. So you are just totally wrong.
Yes, I am forced to do so. Compensation has been frozen for 10 years, while inflation has pushed the CPI up 30%. This results in domestic products being out of reach
No, you are not. It's not globalism, its you. First off, if your compensation has been frozen for 10 years, that's your dumb fault. You need to find a better job. Secondly, there's plenty of cars that GM makes that you can buy for the same price as a Hyundai. A Chevy Cobalt is about the same price as a Hyundai Elantra.
Once again, my position and purchasing habits are not hypocritical
Completely so. You whine about how powerless you are that you deserve your pharoah in chief obama.
It is the American attitude of how you are all in the "land of freedom, better than all other nations in every way" that makes your massive overreaction to one terrorist attack so ironic. It's like a kid vowing to never go back to school again because a bully once stole his lunch money.
No, the American response to 9/11 was not avoid school because of one bully, instead , we declared war on virtually every bully on the planet because one punched us in the nose. The schoolyard mentality is exactly why it made sense to so many people to invade iraq even though there was no direct link to 9/11. The idea was that Saddam was a bully, so we chould go and get him too while we were bringing the big old stick to the playground. Had the war in Iraq not turned into an occupation, there is no doubt that Bush would have invaded Iran and then Syria after that.
No, not even close. That's just laughably wrong. Chrysler's HEMI engines are made in Salinas Mexico but you'll find the 6's and 4's are both made in Detroit. But of course, Hyundai boy, all of this pro-america stuff you spew out is just so much hooey.
yes I can, because companies' actions, taken as aggregate, literally force me to do so
That's a self serving lie. You aren't forced to do anything. There's nothing that stops you from walking into a GM, being a real American, and buying an American car. But, you go right ahead and vote for Obama to feel good about yourself, so you can keep on screwing American workers like you do with your foreign bought filth.
If you want to help American workers, buy American products.... Obama's stupid socialism won't do a 1/10th of what good would be done if 1/2 of all Toyota buyers switched to GM. But that's a classic liberal for you... go give the gov't or some political group a couple of extra dollars in taxes or donations so you can keep right on doing the thing that's actually causing the problem.
If you can change the world with your vote, you can certainly change it with what you purchase. And until you are driving an American car, you aren't doing enough. What's the point of a pro-union candidate, when, you throw the union out of work, Mr. Hyundai!
No, it was assembled in the USA. The engines, transmissions and other labor intensive parts are made overseas and shipped to the USA. Plus, Hyundai is non-union. If you really want to do this "help the middle class stuff", maybe instead of, or in addition to, voting for Obama and signing a few angry petitions against globalization, throw some cash on the table and buy the car whose engines and transmissions are made in the USA.... you know, a Ford, a GM, or a Chrysler. Now, you can certainly go on about the quality or price / performance of American cars.. but, ya know, that's really just making the same kinds of decisions that everyone that would condemn are making. Until you adopt the attitude to buy American products, as a matter of culture, any ranting about globalization is just a fraud. You can't reserve for yourself the right to go global when your actions, when taken as an aggregate, practically force companies to do so.
Re:Wouldn't be so sure about the correlation thing
on
The Quietest Sun
·
· Score: 1
And Gore represents the entirety of the anti-pollution movement? I think you need to do better than that.
Gore carried the popular vote in 2000. You don't get much more a leadership of the anti-pollution movement than that.
What the hell are you talking about? If you're trying to prove that A causes B (in this case, sunspots cause GW), and you discover that there is no correlation between A and B, then A *cannot* be causing B. Period. End of story.
No, not at all. The problem with your statement is that for every function you come up with that shows correlation, I can come up with a case that shows that your correlation function would not detect. All you can credibly say is that based on the correlation detection functions you have used, there is no sunspot cause to global warming. Anything else is laughable.
Uhh, no, you can't. If two events aren't correlated, then one *can't* be causing the other. That's part of the very fucking definition of causation. In order for A to cause B, there must be a correlation between the change in A and the change in B. Otherwise, there is no relationship between A and B, and therefore A does not caus
You just missed the point of what I said and completely blew off my example. In my example, clearly A is "driving" the results of B, as it chooses C or D. Since you are not aware of or not even looking for C or D, then, you don't know what happens.
Let's take my system in the real world. Recall that A chooses C or D which drives B. All you have is instrumentation for A, a button, attached to a box, and B a measurement of a lightbulb connected to that box. You don't know what is in that box, or haven't thought to check. Unbeknownst to you, C and D inside the box are both radioactive decay detectors such that each time C or D gives off a particle, the light goes on. Inside the box, they are separated by a shielded door such that the emissions from only C or D are picked up by the detector driving the light. The door is controlled by A. So, if you push A, the door flips allowing C or D to drive the detector. Because C and D are completely random, whether you push A or not push A to you has absolutely no effect on the light as there is no correlation to it. But, inside the box, A is most certainly controlling the light.
And is not only environmental web site saying this. Most hard core enviros are in fact looking for policies that would impoverish humans to help bolster, gasp, the eco-system.
Umm... what? Correlation is a *necessary condition* to prove causation.
Correlation is only good if you think you have all the variables involved. If you are missing one, you could be completely screwed. Work with me on this thought experiment..
a -> b + 1 b -> when odd a then d b -> when even a then c c -> 4 or 5 randomly d -> 4 or 5 randomly
If you have a system where you know about a, don't know about c, and are looking to infer b's behavior from a, you could conclude that they aren't correlated at all.
The case I came up with here might actually be not good, but I should think that for any given correlation detection algorithm, a case can be constructed that allows a genuinely causal relationship to escape it. The same sort of information laws that say that there can't ever be a universal virus checker also means that there can't ever be a universal cause detector.
Additionally, the "dynamic market" you are referring to is large scale corprate fraud and malfeasance.
so what kind of car are you driving? Unless you are driving an American car, i would shut up about outsourcing. You know, I love how computer people, with all of this business process virtualization, had no problem throwing manufacturing jobs overseas, but, as soon as it came up to them, well, outsourcing was a huge problem.
Anyone driving a Toyota in the USA with an Obama sticker is a fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
Example: a brilliant scientist spends his entire life solving equations, coming up with theories, designing and building rockets. He/she is revered in his/her work and excels, and is well know...they will not generally become the head of NASA..
You mean like Dr. Werner Von Braun? He may not have been the head of NASA, but he certainly played a leadership role in the early american space efforts.
Executives don't know any better than to react - It's only the experts that really think proactively - because that's what they do. Furthermore, executives (like in the TSA) aren't really hired to "make us safe"
You can't ever be safe, that's the point. We're in an age where the offensive weapon is so far ahead of defenses that really no physical asset can actually be protected from a determined attacker. The best you can do is maybe guarantee that the attacker is killed and hope that it is a sufficient deterrent, but you aren't going to defend every aircraft, car, bridge, or pipe from every possible threat. You really can't.
To some extent, the illusion of security is all we will ever have until technology of defense catches up - either in better materials for passive defenses, better detection of smuggled weapons, and so forth.
How on earth can the middle east feel powerless when it is sucking a trillion dollars of oil money a year out of the western world?
Every year the middle east gets ten times more money than Europe got with the Marshall Plan for the whole thing and what do they do with it?
Time for people in the middle east to quit whining and stop pissing their money away.
Taxes ARE wealth redistribution. Distributing the wealth in a way that best benefits the country as a whole is the real debate
There's a huge difference between a government that exists to further commerce for its people versus a government that exists to punish the successful. It's not your wealth to distribute, that's the point. You don't have a right to walk up to someone else and say, "hey, I have better ideas for what you've earned than than you." I mean, if you were really that smart, why couldn't you get your own stack?
Give me a break. You sound like the liberals in '04 who said they'd move out of the country if Kerry didn't get elected.
I guess we shall see.
liberal (urban) areas of the country and are the biggest beneficiaries of our socialistic tax
Oh now, here's a shock... the urban centers of America have been systematically putting polices in place to suppress rural areas of the country now for this century, you know, and the red states are supposed to be thankful?
If it wasn't for the blue states, the red states would be better off economically because they could curtail food production to raise prices, or, sell to more markets. Thanks to the blue states, the red states have traditionally been blocked from trade that would have benefited them, all to protect the interests of the blue. Why should a farmer in Kansas care about the copyrights of a song? Even now, Alaska is blocked by the blue states from developing its own oil resources...
Ah yes, the socialism boogieman. Perhaps you Republicrats should look up that word before sprinkling it so liberaly.
I think CO2 as a proxy to create a command economy qualifies one to be a socialist. You can paper over it as much as you want, but you can never say the breathtaking theft of economic freedom that he proposes in the name of fairness is anything but socialism. It just is.
You can try and persuade us otherwise, but even though we'll lose this election, we're still 30% of the country, and can make one hell of a civil war.
Obama's tax plans are pretty much a mirror image of Bill Clinton's.
Actually, not at all. If you would have read Obama's book, you'd find that he actually condemns Clinton's economics as Reaganonomics with a smattering of progressivism. Yeah, I'll give you, Clinton was the best Republican President we've had, economically, but Clinton with a Republican congress chopping his entire agenda is a lot different than Obama with filibuster proof Senate.
The free market is actually coming up with solutions?
Hmmm... I think I'd rather have the USA's free market, even with its fiscal problems, then what's going on in North Korea....
A free market with a few bumps in the road is better than a non-free system and the attendant starvation.
You Repugs are going to lose, and lose big. Butch up and deal with it, kid.
Am dealing with it. Thinking about 2010. Have a lot to do by then. This is but one part of a new global economic vision to deal with the Democrats reactionary socialism.
For the life of me, I can't understand why Microsoft continues to abandon its strength.
It feels like the .NET koolaid is coming even to the IE team. Microsoft's .NET push now borders on maniacal, standardizing on .NET and in places where it should not be standardized. Performance matters, particularly when processors aren't getting any faster, just more parallel. Microsoft's has left C++ to languish, has all but abandoned C, and as such has no real performance tool in their own arsenal.
At the same time, the OSS community is actually slogging through and solving some of the difficult problems of making large projects in C++ that perform - getting better experience with the STL, when to use and when not to use, changing compilers to respond, developing automated testing methodologies to overcome what the compilers can't detect, and so on.
There should be no reason for the Windows desktop to be stagnant for fast applications, but Microsoft has basically abandoned it and is pushing developers to do the same. All the new display stuff in Windows requires .NET.. one wonders, how long will it be before Linux has similar systems but are presented as a simple C library that any system can use, regardless of whether it is a managed platform or not.
With Democrats poised to silence the right wing by going after radio, it makes perfect political sense to respond with a radical reform of copyrights. If you look at the polls, you'd find that the lion's share of people in IP aren't ever going to support Republicans anyway, so the political fallout doesn't matter.
Republicans should be singing we shall overcome, protesting every DMCA takedown notice, repeatedly introducing legislation to allow personal file sharing as fair use, shortening the length of copyright and ultimately repealing the DMCA. While they are at it, it wouldn't be bad to make legal documents non-copyrightable, so that you can post them on your web site when people see them.
Obama has the youth of America behind him... let's see how long that lasts when he has to throw them in jail for copyright violations to serve his own backers in the IP industry. Make Obama defend Madonna, and let Republicans be the creators of a new kind of an economy that recognizes that information wants to be free.
If it happens to bankrupt the core communications mechanism of the Democratic Party, so much the better.
No matter how much DRM and copyright protection laws you support, Hollywood and the media will never like you. So you may as well go the opposite way, put your free market money where your mouth is, and pick up a few tech votes.
Oh the irony. Assuming this wasn't some deeply hidden sarcasm, did you notice that you just delivered a perfect example - having been conned into believing that climate change isn't a big deal and we can go on doing business as usual?
Going on the business that they want will starve a billion people to death. The irony is that leftists bash Bush over a few hundred thousand dead in Iraq (according to their own figures), but, the logical outcome of GW legislation, if it works, is globally decreased food production and that many people dying of hunger a week, if not a day..
Conservatives are so easy to con with simple ideas.
Oh, please... let's not talked con'd exclusively about conservatives when you've got liberals out there freezing themselves to death for lack of heat because they expect the earth could blow up at any minute due to the sins of man.
I have a big old z in my basement that I've been itching to upgrade!
Don't forget the part where they take a few hundred thousand young men onto those ships and shove them into the ocean as well.
I think in the case of the USA, it wasn't a few hundred thousand, but more like millions. In World War II, the US Army alone had 89 divisions, during the Cold War it had around 30, and now it has 18.
But that's getting a but close to Keynesianism which is akin to communism in some folk's opinion.
Of all ironies, Reagan justified his enormous deficits in Keynesian terms. He used to say that he had to "prime the pump" of the economy with federal money. While he was at it, he also made foreign car importers agree to "voluntary" quotas to help Detroit gets back on its feet. So, there you have it... Reagan got us out of the late 1970s early 1980s recession by basically running a liberal government.
Nope, sorry. the chrysler crossfire uses the same power plant and base chassis as the mercedes CLK, assembled IN GERMAN
The chrysler crossfire is a discontinued niche car and it doesn't use a hemi engine or the traditional chrysler 6. So you are just totally wrong.
Yes, I am forced to do so. Compensation has been frozen for 10 years, while inflation has pushed the CPI up 30%. This results in domestic products being out of reach
No, you are not. It's not globalism, its you. First off, if your compensation has been frozen for 10 years, that's your dumb fault. You need to find a better job. Secondly, there's plenty of cars that GM makes that you can buy for the same price as a Hyundai. A Chevy Cobalt is about the same price as a Hyundai Elantra.
Once again, my position and purchasing habits are not hypocritical
Completely so. You whine about how powerless you are that you deserve your pharoah in chief obama.
It is the American attitude of how you are all in the "land of freedom, better than all other nations in every way" that makes your massive overreaction to one terrorist attack so ironic. It's like a kid vowing to never go back to school again because a bully once stole his lunch money.
No, the American response to 9/11 was not avoid school because of one bully, instead , we declared war on virtually every bully on the planet because one punched us in the nose. The schoolyard mentality is exactly why it made sense to so many people to invade iraq even though there was no direct link to 9/11. The idea was that Saddam was a bully, so we chould go and get him too while we were bringing the big old stick to the playground. Had the war in Iraq not turned into an occupation, there is no doubt that Bush would have invaded Iran and then Syria after that.
a big, mean old ancient black hole for my bitter republican heart and a gigantic void of doom for my angry republican soul!
Chrysler's engines are assembled in germany.
No, not even close. That's just laughably wrong. Chrysler's HEMI engines are made in Salinas Mexico but you'll find the 6's and 4's are both made in Detroit. But of course, Hyundai boy, all of this pro-america stuff you spew out is just so much hooey.
yes I can, because companies' actions, taken as aggregate, literally force me to do so
That's a self serving lie. You aren't forced to do anything. There's nothing that stops you from walking into a GM, being a real American, and buying an American car. But, you go right ahead and vote for Obama to feel good about yourself, so you can keep on screwing American workers like you do with your foreign bought filth.
If you want to help American workers, buy American products.... Obama's stupid socialism won't do a 1/10th of what good would be done if 1/2 of all Toyota buyers switched to GM. But that's a classic liberal for you... go give the gov't or some political group a couple of extra dollars in taxes or donations so you can keep right on doing the thing that's actually causing the problem.
If you can change the world with your vote, you can certainly change it with what you purchase. And until you are driving an American car, you aren't doing enough. What's the point of a pro-union candidate, when, you throw the union out of work, Mr. Hyundai!
No, it was assembled in the USA. The engines, transmissions and other labor intensive parts are made overseas and shipped to the USA. Plus, Hyundai is non-union. If you really want to do this "help the middle class stuff", maybe instead of, or in addition to, voting for Obama and signing a few angry petitions against globalization, throw some cash on the table and buy the car whose engines and transmissions are made in the USA.... you know, a Ford, a GM, or a Chrysler. Now, you can certainly go on about the quality or price / performance of American cars.. but, ya know, that's really just making the same kinds of decisions that everyone that would condemn are making. Until you adopt the attitude to buy American products, as a matter of culture, any ranting about globalization is just a fraud. You can't reserve for yourself the right to go global when your actions, when taken as an aggregate, practically force companies to do so.
And Gore represents the entirety of the anti-pollution movement? I think you need to do better than that.
Gore carried the popular vote in 2000. You don't get much more a leadership of the anti-pollution movement than that.
What the hell are you talking about? If you're trying to prove that A causes B (in this case, sunspots cause GW), and you discover that there is no correlation between A and B, then A *cannot* be causing B. Period. End of story.
No, not at all. The problem with your statement is that for every function you come up with that shows correlation, I can come up with a case that shows that your correlation function would not detect. All you can credibly say is that based on the correlation detection functions you have used, there is no sunspot cause to global warming. Anything else is laughable.
Uhh, no, you can't. If two events aren't correlated, then one *can't* be causing the other. That's part of the very fucking definition of causation. In order for A to cause B, there must be a correlation between the change in A and the change in B. Otherwise, there is no relationship between A and B, and therefore A does not caus
You just missed the point of what I said and completely blew off my example. In my example, clearly A is "driving" the results of B, as it chooses C or D. Since you are not aware of or not even looking for C or D, then, you don't know what happens.
Let's take my system in the real world. Recall that A chooses C or D which drives B. All you have is instrumentation for A, a button, attached to a box, and B a measurement of a lightbulb connected to that box. You don't know what is in that box, or haven't thought to check. Unbeknownst to you, C and D inside the box are both radioactive decay detectors such that each time C or D gives off a particle, the light goes on. Inside the box, they are separated by a shielded door such that the emissions from only C or D are picked up by the detector driving the light. The door is controlled by A. So, if you push A, the door flips allowing C or D to drive the detector. Because C and D are completely random, whether you push A or not push A to you has absolutely no effect on the light as there is no correlation to it. But, inside the box, A is most certainly controlling the light.
Haa! My Uber TI-99 4A with Extended Basic Cartridge would kick the Atari in the teeth.
At least into you threw it through the wall with those god aweful TI fonts! I mean, you don't get better than the original Atari "g"!! :-)
They do? Citation please
Daily Green : Gore calls for 90% CO2 Reduction
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/3083
Oooh, I see, so the government is out to impoverish everyone.
http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=33
And is not only environmental web site saying this. Most hard core enviros are in fact looking for policies that would impoverish humans to help bolster, gasp, the eco-system.
Umm... what? Correlation is a *necessary condition* to prove causation.
Correlation is only good if you think you have all the variables involved. If you are missing one, you could be completely screwed. Work with me on this thought experiment..
a -> b + 1
b -> when odd a then d
b -> when even a then c
c -> 4 or 5 randomly
d -> 4 or 5 randomly
If you have a system where you know about a, don't know about c, and are looking to infer b's behavior from a, you could conclude that they aren't correlated at all.
The case I came up with here might actually be not good, but I should think that for any given correlation detection algorithm, a case can be constructed that allows a genuinely causal relationship to escape it. The same sort of information laws that say that there can't ever be a universal virus checker also means that there can't ever be a universal cause detector.
Your are both wrong. The Atari 1200XL is the one to beat, with a RANA disk drive with its motor covered in aluminum foil!
Additionally, the "dynamic market" you are referring to is large scale corprate fraud and malfeasance.
so what kind of car are you driving? Unless you are driving an American car, i would shut up about outsourcing. You know, I love how computer people, with all of this business process virtualization, had no problem throwing manufacturing jobs overseas, but, as soon as it came up to them, well, outsourcing was a huge problem.
Anyone driving a Toyota in the USA with an Obama sticker is a fraud.