Hint: there isn't one. It's just some speculation, likely thrown out to trigger discussion i.e. more speculation. The paper follows the forms of scientific inquiry without the rigor.
What Newton complained about is a hypothesis that is backed up by bupkis. Like this one. Hypothesis Non Fingo.
This paper is a great example of scientism. A term Karl Popper used on occasion.
The difference between shadow banking and regular banking, in most economies anyway is simply a matter of regulation.
For example in the US the crisis caused a significant reduction of the size of the US shadow banking sector. How? Some of the largest investment banks became bank holding companies. Example: Goldman Sachs.
Take these companies out of the regulated sector an put them back in the shadow sector and I wouldn't be surprised if the conclusions change considerably.
So simple changes in regulatory structure can have a real effect in the shape of these curves. Especially at the top, where there are not that many companies.
That's not a very robust methodology.
Another aspect of this is that financial companies have a quite different structure than the rest of the economy. It's well known that book value doesn't have the same meaning as it does for say an industrial company. So why should we believe anything about translating a Pareto structure from the rest of the economy to financial corporations. Seems like a big weakness in this picture to me.
In other words they are making this shit up for some unknown reason.
In his Principia, 2nd ed (published 300 years ago in 1713) Isaac Newton made some pithy comments about this sort of baloney.
"I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction."
So really there is nothing to see here. Just move along now.
OPRA is not really an independent company. Yes, it is a company separate from the NASDAQ, however is is controlled by the exchanges that are members of it's plan. NASDAQ is one of these.
The reason we have such crap patents right now is the bumbling fumbling stumbling Congress.
In 1982, in order to address various problems with the patent rulings being inconsistent they established the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
This court is a Frankenstein's monster. It has created a whole new body of law by allowing such insanity as business process patents. This law has created an atmosphere so favorable to applicants and their assigns that every life-form that can croak out an 'idea' in front of a patent attorney has a chance to become an inventor.
Of course the result of this is the patent office is deluged with applications. THE HAVE NO CHANCE to process all these applications in a moderate fashion. So they are forced to take the attitude 'approve the application and let the Courts sort it out'.
That only encourages the greedy to make more garbage applications.
The Patent Office fee system was a clumsy and ineffective attempt to apply brakes to this runaway train by increasing the cost of applying and maintaining patents. You might as well try to piss upwind into a hurricane.
Right now the US Patent System is a great hindrance to innovation and economic growth in America. Will it get fixed? There is a good chance it will, because stuff like patent trolling is hurting even the big companies.
USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005: A Legal Analysis Congresional Research Service's report for Congress, Brian T. Yeh, Charles Doyle, December 21, 2006.
The last time I heard of doing an assassination using a Navy Seal we lost an expensive formerly secret stealth helicopter plus put an elite team of highly trained special forces at great risk.
0. For something to cause something it must exist before the other thing. Therefore the universe cannot have been caused because there is no time until the universe exists.
1. The principle of causality doesn't hold true. There are uncaused events all the time. See: Bell inequality.
AND
2. The postulates the argument is based on set up an inconsistent system that could be in principle be used to prove anything.
3. Even if the postulates were fine there is a gap in the logic - there is no justification for saying that God is the original uncaused thing. It could be anything, like body odor or flying [insert food name here] monster.
Not acting would be pretty inconsistent with the idea of not allowing their use.
Whether Obama looks good or bad is irrelevant bullshit. In the end trying a diplomatic approach first is a win for Obama, Putin, and the human race as a whole.
That is what the father of chemical warfare, Fritz Haber, thought as well.
After the effects of chemical warfare became apparent during WWI, his wife and son committed suicide over the shame of their husband and father's work on poison gasses.
One thing is certain, that poison gas is much harder to deliver in a controlled fashion than are bombs. Perhaps just on that basis it should be banned.
Slashdot Mirror
This sort of stuff happens all the time.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/knight-capital-says-trading-mishap-cost-it-440-million/
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100980489
So he's lobbying for it in public.
The House of Representatives has passed it twice. Twice Obama threatened to veto it. Twice it died in the Senate.
It's not dead yet.
I liked having the large collection up to date packages.
After 12.04 (with classic gnome) the privacy issues became a show stopper for me.
Now it's Mint on the desktop.
I wouldn't use it on a server though. That is Centos.
Is to put these people in your hosts file...
127.0.0.1 facebook.com
127.0.0.1 login.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 blog.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 apps.facebook.com
Nah. All that would do is get you a bunch of equally daft replacements.
And vaccinate Congress with it.
Yes, and I live in NJ. I pay $45 per month for cable internet. The throughput? 130 Mbps / 30 mbps with no caps.
It seems pretty decent to me.
So where is the test in this report?
Hint: there isn't one. It's just some speculation, likely thrown out to trigger discussion i.e. more speculation. The paper follows the forms of scientific inquiry without the rigor.
What Newton complained about is a hypothesis that is backed up by bupkis. Like this one. Hypothesis Non Fingo.
This paper is a great example of scientism. A term Karl Popper used on occasion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
I paid a visit to Northern Va a few weeks ago. The place was crawling with construction projects and high end malls.
That I am paying for.
Using Vupen actually sounds like a fairly efficient use of taxpayer money.
The difference between shadow banking and regular banking, in most economies anyway is simply a matter of regulation.
For example in the US the crisis caused a significant reduction of the size of the US shadow banking sector. How? Some of the largest investment banks became bank holding companies. Example: Goldman Sachs.
Take these companies out of the regulated sector an put them back in the shadow sector and I wouldn't be surprised if the conclusions change considerably.
So simple changes in regulatory structure can have a real effect in the shape of these curves. Especially at the top, where there are not that many companies.
That's not a very robust methodology.
Another aspect of this is that financial companies have a quite different structure than the rest of the economy. It's well known that book value doesn't have the same meaning as it does for say an industrial company. So why should we believe anything about translating a Pareto structure from the rest of the economy to financial corporations. Seems like a big weakness in this picture to me.
And they hypothesize
In other words they are making this shit up for some unknown reason.
In his Principia, 2nd ed (published 300 years ago in 1713) Isaac Newton made some pithy comments about this sort of baloney.
"I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction."
So really there is nothing to see here. Just move along now.
OPRA is not really an independent company. Yes, it is a company separate from the NASDAQ, however is is controlled by the exchanges that are members of it's plan. NASDAQ is one of these.
http://www.opradata.com/overview/opra_over.jsp
The NASDAQ today had it's 3rd significant pricing problem in the past few weeks.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/options-exchanges-halt-trading-20130916-00868
These guys seriously need to improve their reliability.
Since drug cartels run multiple governments in Latin America, why not?
Israel, Russia and China certainly have a pretty high level of skill in this arena as well.
They must be laughing up their sleeves at the NSA. They would have taken Snowden out LONG ago.
The reason we have such crap patents right now is the bumbling fumbling stumbling Congress.
In 1982, in order to address various problems with the patent rulings being inconsistent they established the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
This court is a Frankenstein's monster. It has created a whole new body of law by allowing such insanity as business process patents. This law has created an atmosphere so favorable to applicants and their assigns that every life-form that can croak out an 'idea' in front of a patent attorney has a chance to become an inventor.
Of course the result of this is the patent office is deluged with applications. THE HAVE NO CHANCE to process all these applications in a moderate fashion. So they are forced to take the attitude 'approve the application and let the Courts sort it out'.
That only encourages the greedy to make more garbage applications.
The Patent Office fee system was a clumsy and ineffective attempt to apply brakes to this runaway train by increasing the cost of applying and maintaining patents. You might as well try to piss upwind into a hurricane.
Right now the US Patent System is a great hindrance to innovation and economic growth in America. Will it get fixed? There is a good chance it will, because stuff like patent trolling is hurting even the big companies.
All your soul are belong to us.
Here's the citation:
USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005: A Legal Analysis Congresional Research Service's report for Congress, Brian T. Yeh, Charles Doyle, December 21, 2006.
> There was once no time in our universe.
Time is part and parcel of the universe. For the universe to exist there must be time, and visa-versa.
> Isn't this spooky action at a distance a violation of General Relativity rather than causality?
We aren't talking about spooky action at a distance. It's more about stuff like radioactive decay.
> the first cause has to be eternal and powerfully instrumental
Eternal implies infinite time. For that to exist it means everything would have already happened. It's an impossible concept.
The idea of the principle of causality is in itself contradictory to the existence of a first cause.
The whole thing is a self-contradictory and incoherent mess.
The last time I heard of doing an assassination using a Navy Seal we lost an expensive formerly secret stealth helicopter plus put an elite team of highly trained special forces at great risk.
Drones are damn cheap in comparison.
That argument is useless because:
0. For something to cause something it must exist before the other thing. Therefore the universe cannot have been caused because there is no time until the universe exists.
1. The principle of causality doesn't hold true. There are uncaused events all the time. See: Bell inequality.
AND
2. The postulates the argument is based on set up an inconsistent system that could be in principle be used to prove anything.
3. Even if the postulates were fine there is a gap in the logic - there is no justification for saying that God is the original uncaused thing. It could be anything, like body odor or flying [insert food name here] monster.
Actually TV watching is increasing in all demographic groups.
Not acting would be pretty inconsistent with the idea of not allowing their use.
Whether Obama looks good or bad is irrelevant bullshit. In the end trying a diplomatic approach first is a win for Obama, Putin, and the human race as a whole.
That's what really counts.
Sorry, but drone/bomb comes in integer values only. You can't launch 0.35 drone/bomb.
Bombs left over from WWII are still killing people.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1283273/WW2-bomb-kills-G-ttingen-experts-attempt-defuse-it.html
That is what the father of chemical warfare, Fritz Haber, thought as well.
After the effects of chemical warfare became apparent during WWI, his wife and son committed suicide over the shame of their husband and father's work on poison gasses.
One thing is certain, that poison gas is much harder to deliver in a controlled fashion than are bombs. Perhaps just on that basis it should be banned.