A field in which particular events do occur in peoples lifetime, like a stock market crash, which are deemed to be so astonishingly unlikely by the dominant theory that it could only occur once in every 10 million lifetimes of the universe should not get the benefit of the doubt.
Economy should get rid of the Gaussian assumption very quickly and start doing some empirics before going for theoretical result.
I could roll a die 99 times, and get 6, the probability of getting 100 6's when I've already got 99 6's is still 1 out of 6, not 6^100.
And here is where mathematics and the real world depart. If I roll a die 99 times, and it comes up '6' all 99 times, I would no longer assume that the die is fair and would expect the die to come up with '6' almost surely the next time.
Likewise women tend to quit early, but when you compared a 60 year old man to a 60 year old woman in IT, you'll find they make the same salaries.
No. Really. No. This is not true. Compensate for whatever you want and you find that women actually make less than men in practically any profession, IT included.
This "truly groundbreaking" part of this "world changing piece of tech" from Microsoft was simply the fact that it was supported by IE. As a technology, it was a terrible hack then, and it is a terrible hack now. The only reason it became popular was that, finally, web-developers didn't need to wait for Microsoft, and could use this hack without needing to use Microsoft only technology and dev tools.
It's no wonder nobody at Microsoft noticed the possibilities of XmlHTTPRequest. As it allows using the non-Microsoft web in myriad ways, they sure as hell would have pulled the plug on that one, fast!
Why would Christian theology be relevant to this debate, and not Muslim theology, or Hindu technology, or Voodoo, or whatever forest god theology is worshipped? Why would you need to be versed in the theory of a particular religion if you debate the use of forming a religion in the first place?
I'm not 100% sure that every religion has promoted the growth of said religion. I am however sure that those that didn't have died out due to lack of followers. Natural selection in action.
Here in the Netherlands we have a religious political group (with 2 seats in in a 150 seat parliament) that do not allow women to be candidates for political office. God obviously intended that man and woman have different roles to play in life and government is a man's job. These are very law-abiding fundamentalists, as they will generally allow their daughters to get educated until the age of 16 (which is mandatory), after which the women will not go to any continued education, but start preparing for their role in life: getting many babies. They generally don't have TV (not allowed to make pictures of God and man) and refuse to let their children be vaccinated.
Look for 'Dutch reformed', and 'Staatskundig gereformeerde partij (SGP)'. Although technically they allow their women to be educated, this is only because the law of the land says so. These fundamentalists do not think women have any role to play outside of their household and would have no problem whatsoever with women not being educated. And this is a community that has absolute majority in many municipalities in the Netherlands.
I thought the States executed people for 'being black near a crime scene'. If you look at the number of innocents that are or were on death row, the discrepancy in sentencing between black, Hispanic and white, you cannot seriously claim that people are executed just for horrific crimes, can you?
Yes, we should keep on poking at the Muslims with pictures of Mohammed in various interesting poses until they realize that their right not to be offended is trumped by our right to express our opinion. Until that day is reached, they can go fuck themselves.
Not to mention, any time that a death penalty is suggested for anything less than homicide, there's something terribly wrong with the picture.
In my book this statement puts you in the same league as the Pakistani Lawyer: you are both barbarians. You two agree that the government killing people for punishment is morally acceptable. You disagree only on some details.
We're talking about a http cache here. When you've got enough RAM to cache the entire internet, please come back to us with this tired argument. BTW, the guy used this in a somewhat real-world setting where he replaced 10 squid servers with 3 using his algorithm.
If you buy stock in a company, you are not investing in the company directly. Unless you are buying in the IPO, all you do for the company is pump up its stock price in the hope that they can use that money to take over some other company, or to give out more shares (and thereby dilluting your interest). All in all, I don't see much value created here. At the very least, the 20 minute traders are creating liquidity. Without liquidity, there is no market, and everything will lose massive amounts of value (witness 2008 and 1998).
Macroevolution is not a technical term. Please describe this in a technical way with particular emphasis to the actual genetic mechanisms that have been found that show that an accumulation of arbitrary amounts of micro-changes stays within certain well-defined boundaries.
Nope, it still would give creationism way too much credit. Creation 'theory' is not theory. It's a pre-scientific belief. There is also not a single creationism that you can pinpoint: every culture has their own creation myths, and religious people usually pick and choose from the set of beliefs to form their own creation theory. Yes, God created the earth and all in it, but since then evolution took over. No, God created the universe, and let physics and evolution do the hard work. No, God created earth and all in it, and all species have been 'largely' unchanged since then. No God created earth last thursday, including our belief in evolution, and there's not time for actual evolution since last thursday. No it was Vishnu, Jaweh, A big turtle, an elephant, two rinos, the sun, the moon,...,...,...
Thousands upon thousands of different and mutually exclusive creation 'theories'. What method would you propose to construct a single creation 'theory' that you could pit against neo-Darwinism?
How old are jeans? How old is the strapless black skirt? How old are bras and the iterative innovation wonderbras?
For every TCP/IP stack, there's a couple of thousand iFart apps.That doesn't mean that iFart needs lifetime + 70 years copyright protection, right? (and btw, where the TCP/IP stack copyrighted/patented, we would not be using it now, but something else.)
Maybe not mainstream (), but you actually describe the observation of Marx that led him to invent communism. In a true free market, wages will inevitably drop to slightly below the subsistence threshold, meaning that your population will be near starving. Minimum wage and other social(ist) constructs are in place to make sure that this does not happen. This for two reasons. One, because, as Marx also noted, when 99% of the population is starving, at some point they will chop off the heads of the 1% that are not. (And it will go downhill from there). Second, as Henry Ford noticed, when nobody earns a penny, no one will make a dime. A truly Free Market suffers from the tragedy of the commons and other problems related to the common good. Although Ford was big enough to pull it off single handedly, it turned out that you need a government to get all on board. Without a minimum wage a race to the bottom ensues. Free markets just tend to be suicidal, going into a spiral of lower wages and lower revenue, while making profit all the way down.
Why do you consider this a flaw? The stock market doesn't really overvalue or undervalue single companies, it usually just overvalues entire economies. Until the bubble bursts. As everybody is hit equally, I don't consider this a problem.
The problem I see with the fast trading business is not that the value of the company is not correctly assessed (as this is not important at all), but that the ownership structure of companies is killed. What we are dealing with these days is companies that are controlled by the hired help (CEO's), and where mergers & acquisitions are performed by bribing this hired help. 100% corrupt. Because there are no shareholders that actually care about the companies, nobody lifts a finger. That's the real problem: the inmates run the asylum.
Well, I think there are several approaches to the problem of banks risking peoples savings in the stock and derivatives market. First and foremost, this problem has been recognized and controlled in the 1930's with Glass–Steagall. After controlling the financial industry effectively for half a century, it took a decade after the act was dismantled for the financial industry to blow itself up. Again. After it done this every 15 years from 1850 until 1930.
Next to this you have leverage and liquidity laws. That was the European (Basel II) attempt.This didn't work at all. Why? Simple: economic theory is wrong. Economist should hide in shame, go back to the drawing board, and only reassert themselves when they have a theory that fits empirics. Their intellectual masturbation on Gaussian random walks are a large part of the problem. Start with worst-case economics: if you lend out or invest $100, it is possible that you will lose $100. It is irrelevant that you have a 99.9% chance that you will not lose more than $1 dollar (because when the 0.01% event happens, you might lose the full amount). Demand the use of puts to cover long bets. Demand the use of calls to cover short positions. Worst-case analysis.
In all this, there is not a role for a change in the stock market. Let it roll, let it fly. As long as banks cannot put their life on the line (see point 1 and 2), and as long as pension funds are capped by solid worst-case theory (see point 2), individual traders as well as investment banks can kill themselves on the stock market without needing a bailout or without having any effect on the real economy.
The real sad thing is that all this is known, and has been for a long time. It is just that we are apparently living in dogmatic times where conservatives are believing in the capacity of random individuals to do the right thing as well as ignoring the lessons from history, and where progressives are, as usual, trying out something shiny and new.
Slashdot Mirror
This then should be the contest for you!
Economy should get rid of the Gaussian assumption very quickly and start doing some empirics before going for theoretical result.
And here is where mathematics and the real world depart. If I roll a die 99 times, and it comes up '6' all 99 times, I would no longer assume that the die is fair and would expect the die to come up with '6' almost surely the next time.
No. Really. No. This is not true. Compensate for whatever you want and you find that women actually make less than men in practically any profession, IT included.
It's no wonder nobody at Microsoft noticed the possibilities of XmlHTTPRequest. As it allows using the non-Microsoft web in myriad ways, they sure as hell would have pulled the plug on that one, fast!
Interesting, so the top 20% has 99% of the wealth, while the bottom 40% have less than 1% of the wealth, leaving how much wealth for the 'middle' 40%?
Why would Christian theology be relevant to this debate, and not Muslim theology, or Hindu technology, or Voodoo, or whatever forest god theology is worshipped? Why would you need to be versed in the theory of a particular religion if you debate the use of forming a religion in the first place?
I'm not 100% sure that every religion has promoted the growth of said religion. I am however sure that those that didn't have died out due to lack of followers. Natural selection in action.
Not really, their corporate slogan is "Don't be evil", that at least gives them some wiggle room.
Look for 'Dutch reformed', and 'Staatskundig gereformeerde partij (SGP)'. Although technically they allow their women to be educated, this is only because the law of the land says so. These fundamentalists do not think women have any role to play outside of their household and would have no problem whatsoever with women not being educated. And this is a community that has absolute majority in many municipalities in the Netherlands.
I thought the States executed people for 'being black near a crime scene'. If you look at the number of innocents that are or were on death row, the discrepancy in sentencing between black, Hispanic and white, you cannot seriously claim that people are executed just for horrific crimes, can you?
Yes, we should keep on poking at the Muslims with pictures of Mohammed in various interesting poses until they realize that their right not to be offended is trumped by our right to express our opinion. Until that day is reached, they can go fuck themselves.
"We're a backwards shithole, filled with intolerant Bible-thumping hicks. But hey, we love money more than Jesus, wanna do business?
And this is the difference between Christianity and Islam. Christian's faith in money.
In my book this statement puts you in the same league as the Pakistani Lawyer: you are both barbarians. You two agree that the government killing people for punishment is morally acceptable. You disagree only on some details.
The only thing that will moderate the behavior of a sociopath is the credible threat of real personal harm.
[citation needed]
We're talking about a http cache here. When you've got enough RAM to cache the entire internet, please come back to us with this tired argument. BTW, the guy used this in a somewhat real-world setting where he replaced 10 squid servers with 3 using his algorithm.
If you buy stock in a company, you are not investing in the company directly. Unless you are buying in the IPO, all you do for the company is pump up its stock price in the hope that they can use that money to take over some other company, or to give out more shares (and thereby dilluting your interest). All in all, I don't see much value created here. At the very least, the 20 minute traders are creating liquidity. Without liquidity, there is no market, and everything will lose massive amounts of value (witness 2008 and 1998).
Macroevolution is not a technical term. Please describe this in a technical way with particular emphasis to the actual genetic mechanisms that have been found that show that an accumulation of arbitrary amounts of micro-changes stays within certain well-defined boundaries.
Thousands upon thousands of different and mutually exclusive creation 'theories'. What method would you propose to construct a single creation 'theory' that you could pit against neo-Darwinism?
No, it is rounded on the back, so it's not stable enough. So we're back at square one: what use is an iPad really?
For every TCP/IP stack, there's a couple of thousand iFart apps.That doesn't mean that iFart needs lifetime + 70 years copyright protection, right? (and btw, where the TCP/IP stack copyrighted/patented, we would not be using it now, but something else.)
Maybe not mainstream (), but you actually describe the observation of Marx that led him to invent communism. In a true free market, wages will inevitably drop to slightly below the subsistence threshold, meaning that your population will be near starving. Minimum wage and other social(ist) constructs are in place to make sure that this does not happen. This for two reasons. One, because, as Marx also noted, when 99% of the population is starving, at some point they will chop off the heads of the 1% that are not. (And it will go downhill from there). Second, as Henry Ford noticed, when nobody earns a penny, no one will make a dime. A truly Free Market suffers from the tragedy of the commons and other problems related to the common good. Although Ford was big enough to pull it off single handedly, it turned out that you need a government to get all on board. Without a minimum wage a race to the bottom ensues. Free markets just tend to be suicidal, going into a spiral of lower wages and lower revenue, while making profit all the way down.
The problem I see with the fast trading business is not that the value of the company is not correctly assessed (as this is not important at all), but that the ownership structure of companies is killed. What we are dealing with these days is companies that are controlled by the hired help (CEO's), and where mergers & acquisitions are performed by bribing this hired help. 100% corrupt. Because there are no shareholders that actually care about the companies, nobody lifts a finger. That's the real problem: the inmates run the asylum.
Next to this you have leverage and liquidity laws. That was the European (Basel II) attempt.This didn't work at all. Why? Simple: economic theory is wrong. Economist should hide in shame, go back to the drawing board, and only reassert themselves when they have a theory that fits empirics. Their intellectual masturbation on Gaussian random walks are a large part of the problem. Start with worst-case economics: if you lend out or invest $100, it is possible that you will lose $100. It is irrelevant that you have a 99.9% chance that you will not lose more than $1 dollar (because when the 0.01% event happens, you might lose the full amount). Demand the use of puts to cover long bets. Demand the use of calls to cover short positions. Worst-case analysis.
In all this, there is not a role for a change in the stock market. Let it roll, let it fly. As long as banks cannot put their life on the line (see point 1 and 2), and as long as pension funds are capped by solid worst-case theory (see point 2), individual traders as well as investment banks can kill themselves on the stock market without needing a bailout or without having any effect on the real economy.
The real sad thing is that all this is known, and has been for a long time. It is just that we are apparently living in dogmatic times where conservatives are believing in the capacity of random individuals to do the right thing as well as ignoring the lessons from history, and where progressives are, as usual, trying out something shiny and new.
This is like a Toyota.