That's what I ended up doing. It's more than stupid, it's infuriating because it a) wastes paper and resources to deliver and b) distorts the apparent demand for both an obsolete product (whose demand appears inflated) and the actual product the consumer wants (by diminishing apparent demand foe electronic subs).
I assume it's the influence of the entrenched print division, maybe the unions involved in paper production and distribution.
The reason businesses / "Enterprises" continue to go with the less-popular RIM phones is because none of the others have management software tied so closely with the device OS, such control remotely over the device - or such *finely-grained* control.
RIM, as a company to deal with, sucks. The BES Manager software is horrifying. Paying customers have to jump through hoops to actually talk to a support person, and even then they almost always (in my experience it's "always" but I'm sure there's an exception I haven't met) are completely clueless. Users don't want the devices.
>> The paper your link references can't remotely be considered a "conservative estimate", and to suggest that the few degrees change over the next century >> predicted with "unmitigated climate change" will cost "20% of the world's output" is ridiculous.
> Because you have done the economic modelling which describes the impacts of climate change on the world economy - and you will now reference that model > and show us your methodology in detail, as well as giving specific detail of where Stern went wrong.
The very article you linked to includes a section devoted to specifc criticisms of the report.
>>Also, a 2-seat "Smart Car" (which BTW does not meet mandated US fuel economy standards for 2017) is not "better than [cars] were before".
>I'm using an objective measure, and not a strawman - possibly because, unlike you, I recognise that employing a strawman argument and not providing credible >evidence for my assertions about economic models would make me seem out of my depth and without credibility.
"light bulbs and cars are better" is "objective"? I'd agree if you'd said they were "more efficient". And again, you already provided criticisms of the paper you reference, in the linked article you apparently haven't read.
No. That a discovery has human ramifications does not change its likelihood of being correct. But it certainly will increase interest in and attention paid to it, and also generate more debate and questioning about it.
Presumably the frequency and time restrictions the previous poster suggest wouldn't just apply to the major exchanges, which firms trade outside of all the time (in part because of those opening and closing times).
Also, the opening and closing time wasn't imposed by (though it's probably codified in) regulation but was set willingly by the exchange. Presumably NYSE et al would oppose the poster's suggestion.
The paper your link references can't remotely be considered a "conservative estimate", and to suggest that the few degrees change over the next century predicted with "unmitigated climate change" will cost "20% of the world's output" is ridiculous.
Also, a 2-seat "Smart Car" (which BTW does not meet mandated US fuel economy standards for 2017) is not "better than [cars] were before".
No, I cannot see that it is "totally insane" (speaking of idiotic language) to continue using 100W light bulbs. And that position doesn't mean that I oppose "saving the planet" (more idiotic language).
What exactly am I supposed to "look around" and see? I of course undertstand that man has increased atmospheric CO2. And I'll concede that can have an effect on temperature - predictions vary as to how much. Will banning light bulbs and, yes, dictating that cars be lighter and less safe stop or reverse it? I don't know but I doubt it. Since China and other rapidly developing countries aren't in the least interested in stopping their CO2 generating behavior, their increases in output will likely dwarf any slowing or decrease in output from the rest of the world.
In a very broad sense, maybe. But certainly to some people, it's an annoyance - and the point was that the authors' discovery of the diamond star didn't result in policies that annoyed (or interested) anybody. So it's silly to wonder why one issue attracts more attention, and controversy, and zealotry on both sides than the other.
Of course not. But ramifications like that will certainly cause more people to have an opinion, and question, and create controversy. Regardless whether those opinons are solidly based, nobody gives a crap about a star made of diamond, so of course people aren't upset about it.
Nobody's demanding trillions of dollars in infrastructure changes because of the diamond star. Nobody's using the coercive force of law to dictate what mileage automobiles get becaus of the diamond star. Nobody's outlawing 100W incandescent light bulbs because of the diamond star.
No, the FCOJ/hailstorm example doesn't apply to microseconds. But any number of other strategies do. If you can't envision dozens of them - say, currency / precious metal commodities - where a trade based on a change in a price won't benefit from a few milliseconds' faster notification of a change in price that a strategy depends upon, and another few ms faster subsequent trade, then you don't know what you're talking about.
Certainly that's part of HFT. But a faster version of my example is as well. The statement I said was stupid didn't mention high frequency trading, it said (yes, ignorantly) that the fact that a faster trade is better is "proof" that the system is corrupt.
"Proof that the system is corrupt"? That's stupid. The fastest doesn't "take all", but a trade based on an event, or circumstances, or that's a hedge on another position, or *anything*, that takes longer to execute will take less efficient advantage of those circumstances. If you get word about hailstorms in Florida, and you mail in your sell order on OJ futures, you'll lose more than if you call your broker. Is that also "proof" of a "corrupt system"? Please.
Those most outraged and indignant about an issue are often the least informed.
The free version works well, can be hosted virtually (or buy their appliance). If you want more bells and whistles (like being able to restore accounts to any arbitrary second, or BES) they're available for $.
Whoa there. I gave you arithmetic (and no, big numbers don't scare me) and you reply with name-calling and bust out the caps telling us that "fixing it is EASY". Oh, and you ignore one of those important arithmetic points with a brainy "WTF is that?"
Here, I'll type it slower:
Next year's deficit: $1,600 billion.
If those Bush tax cuts on those bad "rich" people were expired (that's what you said was the EASY part, remember) it would lower the deficit to..... $1,560 billion. Barely a fucking dent.
If the rich were taxed at 100% (defining the rich as those making $250K - I said $114K above but I find better numbers with the $250K and it makes my point just fine) - that is, if every penny of their income were taken, we'd still have a deficit.
I see you throw in the obligatory racist bullshit too, topping of a post devoid of reason or fact and full of angry young man indignace at whatever (s)he was fed by her newspaper or television.
"That's fine, but could you please try not to fuck things up for the majority of the country while you're at it?"
Give me a fucking break. Next year's spending will be about $200B lower, making a small dent in a *deficit* of $1600B. 2021's projected budget will now be $5.3 trillion instead of $5.5 trillion, lowering by about $200B the projected *increase* from today of $2 trillion.
Nothing's getting "fucked up". These are not even "cuts" in spending - they're minor reductions in the rate of growth of spending - and frankly, not enough to fix our economic problems. Before your mouth starts watering thinking about punishing the "rich", confiscating *all* taxable income of everyone making $114,000 and above (which isn't "rich") still wouldn't eliminate the defict.
Spending is the problem. Pointing out and fighting to fix it isn't "fuck[ing] things up for the majority". Spending more and more, year in and year out, in good economic times and bad, is what's fucking things up.
I wouldn't have thought to compare a new Mustang vs an old one, and you're certainly right about crash standards. But CAFE regulations result today in lighter cars that are more dangerous in accidents than we'd have without them. And trying to arbitrarily double the mileage in 13 years is going to have a similar, more pronounced result.
Some cars today are sold without spare tires to meet unrealistic mileage numbers. And they're being made lighter and out of weaker materials - leading certainly to some number of deaths from accidents that otherwise would have been survivable.
*No* car today (last I checked) meets what they're insisting that the *average* MPG be in thirteen years. Not the two-seat Smart car, not the Prius. To think that an order of magnitude of efficiency can be squeezed out of the sky is plain old stupid.
Want to discourage fuel use? Triple the gas tax. That's far less onerous than current proposals (this one, or GPS-tracking everyone's miles).
They are! There are libertarians, tax protest parties, the green party, socialist, liberal, etc. They're all technically "represented", but the two "main" parties control the ballot. This will be another unfairly dismissed voice.
And a quick skim of the above ("Arrow's Impossibility Theorem") leads me to say that he might have a point in a 3-candidate election. But no so much in a 5- or 6-way election.
I liked having the unavailability of Flash on more and more common platforms as a reason to suggest to web sites not to use it. Guess I'll focus on lack of usability on mobile devices.
You want a certificate of competency in a skill. That's not what a college degree is. I thought some of the classes I took for my B.S. were a waste of time, but a degree demonstrates (or, considering some of the people I studied around, is *supposed* to demonstrate) proficiency in more than one area of thinking. Some will apply directly to your job, some will apply indirectly. But all can be useful somehow in one of the innumerable thought processes involved in day-to-day work. Abstracting problems, dealing with and understanding people, politics, etc., etc., etc.
Probably the non-directly-vocational things you'll learn are more valuable the farther up the ladder you get. So if you want to remain a replaceable cog in a machine, keep thinking exactly the way you are.
You're really claiming that the only distinction between heroin and nicotine is that one's legal and one's not? Come on.
If both were readily available, it wouldn't change the fact that fewer people do heroin. It diminishes motor control, induces unconsciousness, and can *kill* you if the dosage is wrong. Though both drugs are similarly addictive, withdrawal from heroin is far more unpleasant than that from nicotine.
Anyone who wants heroin can easily obtain it. The "War On Drug[User]s" has not made drugs less accessible or even less expensive. It's probably been the most expensive failure of our government in monetary terms, and *certainly* in terms of individual freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Weekend sub is cheaper. You should be extra careful when making snarky comments about arithmetic.
That's what I ended up doing. It's more than stupid, it's infuriating because it a) wastes paper and resources to deliver and b) distorts the apparent demand for both an obsolete product (whose demand appears inflated) and the actual product the consumer wants (by diminishing apparent demand foe electronic subs).
I assume it's the influence of the entrenched print division, maybe the unions involved in paper production and distribution.
The reason businesses / "Enterprises" continue to go with the less-popular RIM phones is because none of the others have management software tied so closely with the device OS, such control remotely over the device - or such *finely-grained* control.
RIM, as a company to deal with, sucks. The BES Manager software is horrifying. Paying customers have to jump through hoops to actually talk to a support person, and even then they almost always (in my experience it's "always" but I'm sure there's an exception I haven't met) are completely clueless. Users don't want the devices.
>> The paper your link references can't remotely be considered a "conservative estimate", and to suggest that the few degrees change over the next century
>> predicted with "unmitigated climate change" will cost "20% of the world's output" is ridiculous.
> Because you have done the economic modelling which describes the impacts of climate change on the world economy - and you will now reference that model
> and show us your methodology in detail, as well as giving specific detail of where Stern went wrong.
The very article you linked to includes a section devoted to specifc criticisms of the report.
>>Also, a 2-seat "Smart Car" (which BTW does not meet mandated US fuel economy standards for 2017) is not "better than [cars] were before".
>I'm using an objective measure, and not a strawman - possibly because, unlike you, I recognise that employing a strawman argument and not providing credible
>evidence for my assertions about economic models would make me seem out of my depth and without credibility.
"light bulbs and cars are better" is "objective"? I'd agree if you'd said they were "more efficient". And again, you already provided criticisms of the paper you reference, in the linked article you apparently haven't read.
No. That a discovery has human ramifications does not change its likelihood of being correct. But it certainly will increase interest in and attention paid to it, and also generate more debate and questioning about it.
Presumably the frequency and time restrictions the previous poster suggest wouldn't just apply to the major exchanges, which firms trade outside of all the time (in part because of those opening and closing times).
Also, the opening and closing time wasn't imposed by (though it's probably codified in) regulation but was set willingly by the exchange. Presumably NYSE et al would oppose the poster's suggestion.
The paper your link references can't remotely be considered a "conservative estimate", and to suggest that the few degrees change over the next century predicted with "unmitigated climate change" will cost "20% of the world's output" is ridiculous.
Also, a 2-seat "Smart Car" (which BTW does not meet mandated US fuel economy standards for 2017) is not "better than [cars] were before".
No, I cannot see that it is "totally insane" (speaking of idiotic language) to continue using 100W light bulbs. And that position doesn't mean that I oppose "saving the planet" (more idiotic language).
What exactly am I supposed to "look around" and see? I of course undertstand that man has increased atmospheric CO2. And I'll concede that can have an effect on temperature - predictions vary as to how much. Will banning light bulbs and, yes, dictating that cars be lighter and less safe stop or reverse it? I don't know but I doubt it. Since China and other rapidly developing countries aren't in the least interested in stopping their CO2 generating behavior, their increases in output will likely dwarf any slowing or decrease in output from the rest of the world.
In a very broad sense, maybe. But certainly to some people, it's an annoyance - and the point was that the authors' discovery of the diamond star didn't result in policies that annoyed (or interested) anybody. So it's silly to wonder why one issue attracts more attention, and controversy, and zealotry on both sides than the other.
Of course not. But ramifications like that will certainly cause more people to have an opinion, and question, and create controversy. Regardless whether those opinons are solidly based, nobody gives a crap about a star made of diamond, so of course people aren't upset about it.
Nobody's demanding trillions of dollars in infrastructure changes because of the diamond star. Nobody's using the coercive force of law to dictate what mileage automobiles get becaus of the diamond star. Nobody's outlawing 100W incandescent light bulbs because of the diamond star.
Well, it's great that you'd be happy declaring when and how often you'd allow private parties to make mutually agreed-upon financial transactions.
No, the FCOJ/hailstorm example doesn't apply to microseconds. But any number of other strategies do. If you can't envision dozens of them - say, currency / precious metal commodities - where a trade based on a change in a price won't benefit from a few milliseconds' faster notification of a change in price that a strategy depends upon, and another few ms faster subsequent trade, then you don't know what you're talking about.
Certainly that's part of HFT. But a faster version of my example is as well. The statement I said was stupid didn't mention high frequency trading, it said (yes, ignorantly) that the fact that a faster trade is better is "proof" that the system is corrupt.
"Proof that the system is corrupt"? That's stupid. The fastest doesn't "take all", but a trade based on an event, or circumstances, or that's a hedge on another position, or *anything*, that takes longer to execute will take less efficient advantage of those circumstances. If you get word about hailstorms in Florida, and you mail in your sell order on OJ futures, you'll lose more than if you call your broker. Is that also "proof" of a "corrupt system"? Please.
Those most outraged and indignant about an issue are often the least informed.
The free version works well, can be hosted virtually (or buy their appliance). If you want more bells and whistles (like being able to restore accounts to any arbitrary second, or BES) they're available for $.
Whoa there. I gave you arithmetic (and no, big numbers don't scare me) and you reply with name-calling and bust out the caps telling us that "fixing it is EASY". Oh, and you ignore one of those important arithmetic points with a brainy "WTF is that?"
Here, I'll type it slower:
Next year's deficit: $1,600 billion.
If those Bush tax cuts on those bad "rich" people were expired (that's what you said was the EASY part, remember) it would lower the deficit to ..... $1,560 billion. Barely a fucking dent.
If the rich were taxed at 100% (defining the rich as those making $250K - I said $114K above but I find better numbers with the $250K and it makes my point just fine) - that is, if every penny of their income were taken, we'd still have a deficit.
I see you throw in the obligatory racist bullshit too, topping of a post devoid of reason or fact and full of angry young man indignace at whatever (s)he was fed by her newspaper or television.
Grow up.
"That's fine, but could you please try not to fuck things up for the majority of the country while you're at it?"
Give me a fucking break. Next year's spending will be about $200B lower, making a small dent in a *deficit* of $1600B. 2021's projected budget will now be $5.3 trillion instead of $5.5 trillion, lowering by about $200B the projected *increase* from today of $2 trillion.
Nothing's getting "fucked up". These are not even "cuts" in spending - they're minor reductions in the rate of growth of spending - and frankly, not enough to fix our economic problems. Before your mouth starts watering thinking about punishing the "rich", confiscating *all* taxable income of everyone making $114,000 and above (which isn't "rich") still wouldn't eliminate the defict.
Spending is the problem. Pointing out and fighting to fix it isn't "fuck[ing] things up for the majority". Spending more and more, year in and year out, in good economic times and bad, is what's fucking things up.
I wouldn't have thought to compare a new Mustang vs an old one, and you're certainly right about crash standards. But CAFE regulations result today in lighter cars that are more dangerous in accidents than we'd have without them. And trying to arbitrarily double the mileage in 13 years is going to have a similar, more pronounced result.
Some cars today are sold without spare tires to meet unrealistic mileage numbers. And they're being made lighter and out of weaker materials - leading certainly to some number of deaths from accidents that otherwise would have been survivable.
*No* car today (last I checked) meets what they're insisting that the *average* MPG be in thirteen years. Not the two-seat Smart car, not the Prius. To think that an order of magnitude of efficiency can be squeezed out of the sky is plain old stupid.
Want to discourage fuel use? Triple the gas tax. That's far less onerous than current proposals (this one, or GPS-tracking everyone's miles).
They are! There are libertarians, tax protest parties, the green party, socialist, liberal, etc. They're all technically "represented", but the two "main" parties control the ballot. This will be another unfairly dismissed voice.
And a quick skim of the above ("Arrow's Impossibility Theorem") leads me to say that he might have a point in a 3-candidate election. But no so much in a 5- or 6-way election.
I liked having the unavailability of Flash on more and more common platforms as a reason to suggest to web sites not to use it. Guess I'll focus on lack of usability on mobile devices.
You want a certificate of competency in a skill. That's not what a college degree is. I thought some of the classes I took for my B.S. were a waste of time, but a degree demonstrates (or, considering some of the people I studied around, is *supposed* to demonstrate) proficiency in more than one area of thinking. Some will apply directly to your job, some will apply indirectly. But all can be useful somehow in one of the innumerable thought processes involved in day-to-day work. Abstracting problems, dealing with and understanding people, politics, etc., etc., etc.
Probably the non-directly-vocational things you'll learn are more valuable the farther up the ladder you get. So if you want to remain a replaceable cog in a machine, keep thinking exactly the way you are.
You're really claiming that the only distinction between heroin and nicotine is that one's legal and one's not? Come on.
If both were readily available, it wouldn't change the fact that fewer people do heroin. It diminishes motor control, induces unconsciousness, and can *kill* you if the dosage is wrong. Though both drugs are similarly addictive, withdrawal from heroin is far more unpleasant than that from nicotine.
Anyone who wants heroin can easily obtain it. The "War On Drug[User]s" has not made drugs less accessible or even less expensive. It's probably been the most expensive failure of our government in monetary terms, and *certainly* in terms of individual freedom.
Oops. I should have read the article before asking. If anyone else misunderstood the values, the explanation is on page six of the article.