If you were trying to predict a country’s default risk today, based on the market’s perception of its default risk two years ago as well as its S.&P. rating at that time, you would find that accounting for S.&P. ratings actually subtracted value from your model. That is, if the market had priced two countries as having a 20 percent default risk in 2009, but one of them had a AA rating from S.&P. and the other had a BB rating, the country with the worse S.&P. rating is likely to have proven to be the safer bet. The reason for this is that S.&P. ratings probably have some influence on market perceptions about default risk — even though they aren’t very good. If markets evaluate a country as having a 20 percent chance of default, but S.&P. rates it as being quite safe, that price represents a compromise between daft investors who take S.&P.’s ratings to be gospel, and savvier ones who have conducted their own analysis and have concluded that the country is at significant risk of default. By betting against S.&P.’s ratings, you’re taking the side of the smart investors — and getting a subsidy from the suckers who think S.&P.’s price is right.
we just reported your long term unfunded obligations are $211 trillion and you lack the political will or ability to do anything about it. And you want to have an argument over whether it's really $211 trillion or $209 trillion?
With more prisoners in the system than the rest of the world combined,
That's just NOT true. That's a lie, a calumny, a vile piece of propaganda.
We just have more prisoners (2.3 million) than China (No. 2, at 1.650 million) and Russia (No. 3, at 806,000) and India combined (No. 5, at 384753). source
If Trinidad's meteorological authorities have made a contract with CRU to supply certain otherwise proprietary datasets month after month, disclosure may abrogate the contract. CRU had to decide whether full disclosure outweighed the possibility of losing continued access.
It's not everyday that both authors are cited in a neuroscience paper.
In a predictive coding account of action perception, the android is not predictable--an agent with that appearance (human) would typically not move mechanically. When the nervous system is presented with ‘the thing that should not be’ [Lovecraft, 1984 (1936); Hetfield et al., 1986], a propagation of prediction error may occur in the APS. While we cannot state a conclusive or causal link between prediction error and the uncanny valley based on the present data, we suggest this framework may contribute to an explanation for the uncanny valley.
Lovecraft, H.P. (1984 (1936)). The Shadow Over Innsmouth. In: Joshi, S.T., editor. The Dunwich Horror and Others. Sauk City, WI: Arkham House. Hetfield, J., Ulrich, L. Hammett, K. (1986). The Thing That Should Not Be. Master of Puppets, Electra Records. 12 inch Vinyl.
The nuke is a slang term for the bomb, not power plant.
English, and in particular, English slang doesn't work that way. It's not like FORTRAN77, or ALGOL68 Here, for instance, is very recent news article: Nuke plant still on course
The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant will refuel as scheduled in October, despite its cloudy future. Officials from Entergy Corp. of Louisiana, which owns the plant, released a statement today announcing that the company’s board of directors has decided to move forward with a $60 million to $65 million fuel purchase for the reactor, as it prepares to do legal battle with state officials in September over whether the state has the right to deny the company a certificate of public good, which would prevent the plant from continuing to operate past the time when its original federal license is due to expire.
You know, maybe we should start a nuclear war. It would certainly help put those damn hippies in their place, and it might reinvigorate american Conservatism.
I did CTY one summer, at Franklin and Marshall. I studied informal logic-- what math majors would probably dismiss as mere rhetoric. I got in trouble for going off with a bunch of my friends and playing D&D during "Mandatory Fun."
Minors can buy violent video games, even though historically Minors haven't had full rights and parents are the ones who have had the authority to regulate their children.
In your dreams. To quote Antonin Scalia:
JUSTICE THOMAS ignores the holding of Erznoznik, and denies that persons under 18 have any constitutional right to speak or be spoken to without their parents’ consent. He cites no case, state or federal, supporting this view, and to our knowledge there is none. Most of his dissent is devoted to the proposition that parents have traditionally had the power to control what their children hear and say. This is true enough. And it perhaps follows from this that the state has the power to enforce parental prohibitions—to require, for example, that the promoters of a rock concert exclude those minors whose parents have advised the promoters that their children are forbidden to attend. But it does not follow that the state has the power to prevent children from hearing or saying anything without their parents’ prior consent. The latter would mean, for example, that it could be made criminal to admit persons under 18 to a political rally without their parents’ prior written consent—even a political rally in support of laws against corporal punishment of children, or laws in favor of greater rights for minors. And what is good for First Amendment rights of speech must be good for First Amendment rights of religion as well: It could be made crimi- nal to admit a person under 18 to church, or to give a person under 18 a religious tract, without his parents’ prior consent. Our point is not, as JUSTICE THOMAS believes, post, at 16, n. 2, merely that such laws are “undesirable.” They are obviously an infringement upon the religious freedom of young people and those who wish to proselytize young people. Such laws do not enforce parental authority over children’s speech and religion; they impose governmental authority, subject only to a parental veto. In the absence of any precedent for state control, uninvited by the parents, over a child’s speech and religion (JUSTICE THOMAS cites none), and in the absence of any justification for such control that would satisfy strict scrutiny, those laws must be unconstitutional. This argument is not, as JUSTICE THOMAS asserts, “circular,” ibid. It is the absence of any historical warrant or compelling justification for such restrictions, not our ipse dixit, that renders them invalid.
Whenever any of the Adobe products update themselves on my mac, I'm always a bit leery. Is it an official update? Is it a trojan? Both demand administrative privileges, yet there seems to be no easy way to distinguish the legitimate upgrade from the illegitimate intrusion.
Weber, Ritterfeld, & Mathiak, Does Playing Violent Video Games Induce Aggression? Empirical Evidence of a Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study, 8 Media Psychology 39, 51 (2006).
Slashdot Mirror
Nate Silver contends there's money to be made by betting against S&P's ratings.
If you were trying to predict a country’s default risk today, based on the market’s perception of its default risk two years ago as well as its S.&P. rating at that time, you would find that accounting for S.&P. ratings actually subtracted value from your model. That is, if the market had priced two countries as having a 20 percent default risk in 2009, but one of them had a AA rating from S.&P. and the other had a BB rating, the country with the worse S.&P. rating is likely to have proven to be the safer bet.
The reason for this is that S.&P. ratings probably have some influence on market perceptions about default risk — even though they aren’t very good. If markets evaluate a country as having a 20 percent chance of default, but S.&P. rates it as being quite safe, that price represents a compromise between daft investors who take S.&P.’s ratings to be gospel, and savvier ones who have conducted their own analysis and have concluded that the country is at significant risk of default. By betting against S.&P.’s ratings, you’re taking the side of the smart investors — and getting a subsidy from the suckers who think S.&P.’s price is right.
we just reported your long term unfunded obligations are $211 trillion and you lack the political will or ability to do anything about it. And you want to have an argument over whether it's really $211 trillion or $209 trillion?
S&P's original figures were closer to 14.7 trillion by 2015, and 22.1 trillion by 2021
Good financial analysis does not start with pulling figures out of your ass.
My My, you're just full of excuses today.
With more prisoners in the system than the rest of the world combined,
That's just NOT true. That's a lie, a calumny, a vile piece of propaganda.
We just have more prisoners (2.3 million) than China (No. 2, at 1.650 million) and Russia (No. 3, at 806,000) and India combined (No. 5, at 384753).
source
This contradicts the entire spirit of a suicide pact. What's the point if you can cheat death?
Ah, but the automakers have to sell those "shitty little cars", and in sufficient numbers to balance out the sales of the gas guzzlers.
If Trinidad's meteorological authorities have made a contract with CRU to supply certain otherwise proprietary datasets month after month, disclosure may abrogate the contract. CRU had to decide whether full disclosure outweighed the possibility of losing continued access.
Yes. It involves hot grits, nakedness and. of course, petrification.
It's not everyday that both authors are cited in a neuroscience paper.
In a predictive coding account of action perception, the android is not predictable--an agent with
that appearance (human) would typically not move mechanically. When the nervous system is presented with ‘the thing that should not be’ [Lovecraft, 1984 (1936); Hetfield et al., 1986], a propagation of prediction error may occur in the APS. While we cannot state a conclusive or causal link between prediction error and the uncanny valley based on the present data, we suggest this framework may contribute to an explanation for the uncanny valley.
Lovecraft, H.P. (1984 (1936)). The Shadow Over Innsmouth. In: Joshi, S.T., editor. The Dunwich Horror and Others. Sauk City, WI: Arkham House.
Hetfield, J., Ulrich, L. Hammett, K. (1986). The Thing That Should Not Be. Master of Puppets, Electra Records. 12 inch Vinyl.
Anyway, the full article is freely accessible
The nuke is a slang term for the bomb, not power plant.
English, and in particular, English slang doesn't work that way. It's not like FORTRAN77, or ALGOL68
Here, for instance, is very recent news article:
Nuke plant still on course
The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant will refuel as scheduled in October, despite its cloudy future.
Officials from Entergy Corp. of Louisiana, which owns the plant, released a statement today announcing that the company’s board of directors has decided to move forward with a $60 million to $65 million fuel purchase for the reactor, as it prepares to do legal battle with state officials in September over whether the state has the right to deny the company a certificate of public good, which would prevent the plant from continuing to operate past the time when its original federal license is due to expire.
At least according to a widely read survivalist author who had an axe to grind.
You know, maybe we should start a nuclear war. It would certainly help put those damn hippies in their place, and it might reinvigorate american Conservatism.
Note, though, that it was also apparently an unintended side-effect of an effort to promote anti-nuclear weapons fears in the West.
Which bit them in the ass when Chernobyl suffered a minor incident, and their puppets blew it up out of all proportion.
1 GB= 10^9 bytes (gigabyte)
1 GiB=2^30 bytes (gibibyte)
It changed in 1998
Yes, I took it in 1990, with Scott Schreiber. I'm afraid I'm terrible with names and faces, though.
I did CTY one summer, at Franklin and Marshall. I studied informal logic-- what math majors would probably dismiss as mere rhetoric. I got in trouble for going off with a bunch of my friends and playing D&D during "Mandatory Fun."
To a computer, you're not human, you're just data. You're either a perp, or a potential perp.
Subset of yours? Does your wife know that you have a girlfriend on the side? Why are you entitled to more sexual activity than she is?
Minors can buy violent video games, even though historically Minors haven't had full rights and parents are the ones who have had the authority to regulate their children.
In your dreams. To quote Antonin Scalia:
JUSTICE THOMAS ignores the holding of Erznoznik, and denies that persons under 18 have any constitutional right to speak or be spoken to without their parents’ consent. He cites no case, state or federal, supporting this view, and to our knowledge there is none. Most of his dissent is devoted to the proposition that parents have traditionally had the power to control what their children hear and say. This is true enough. And it perhaps follows from this that the state has the power to enforce parental prohibitions—to require, for example, that the promoters of a rock concert exclude those minors whose parents have advised the promoters that their children are forbidden to attend. But it does not follow that the state has the power to prevent children from hearing or saying anything without their parents’ prior consent. The latter would mean, for example, that it could be made criminal to admit persons under 18 to a political rally without their parents’ prior written consent—even a political rally in support of laws against corporal punishment of children, or laws in favor of greater rights for minors. And what is good for First Amendment rights of speech must be good for First Amendment rights of religion as well: It could be made crimi- nal to admit a person under 18 to church, or to give a person under 18 a religious tract, without his parents’ prior consent. Our point is not, as JUSTICE THOMAS believes, post, at 16, n. 2, merely that such laws are “undesirable.” They are obviously an infringement upon the religious freedom of young people and those who wish to proselytize young people. Such laws do not enforce parental authority over children’s speech and religion; they impose governmental authority, subject only to a parental veto. In the absence of any precedent for state control, uninvited by the parents, over a child’s speech and religion (JUSTICE THOMAS cites none), and in the absence of any justification for such control that would satisfy strict scrutiny, those laws must be unconstitutional. This argument is not, as JUSTICE THOMAS asserts, “circular,” ibid. It is the absence of any historical warrant or compelling justification for such restrictions, not our ipse dixit, that renders them invalid.
You could argue that the that the 3rd amendment, rather than the fourth is more applicable to unwarranted wiretapping. (This argument proved more entertaining than prescient.)
Imagine if the British had laws on the book criminalizing sedition and treason.
Whenever any of the Adobe products update themselves on my mac, I'm always a bit leery. Is it an official update? Is it a trojan? Both demand administrative privileges, yet there seems to be no easy way to distinguish the legitimate upgrade from the illegitimate intrusion.
A typical Breyer cite:
Weber, Ritterfeld, & Mathiak, Does Playing Violent Video Games Induce Aggression? Empirical Evidence of a Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study, 8 Media Psychology 39, 51 (2006).
A typical 0Thomas cite:
C. Mather, A Family Well-Ordered 38 (1699).
Truly, one can be wrong in a myriad of ways!
Clearly indicates that a full copy is not going to qualify, and every element must be met for fair use.
Wrong. Fair use is a minefield.
see "Fairest of them all and other fairy tales of fair use"
That's if the library subscribes to a paper copy of the journal. If they use SciFinder, you'll find it difficult.