I'm pretty sure the constitution has no regulations around the internet, traffic analysis, blogs, search engines and the like. I'm also pretty sure that the US government is using this gap in consitutional law to build a surveillance society. You know... for terrorists.You think Google is doing this voluntarily? You think Google can even talk about this?
At this point the only constitutional expectation of privacy you have in the US is when sending a message through regular US mail.
Of course a life's worth can be expressed in €. Take an person whose life can be saved by bankrupting the US. Will we let him die? Of course we will, no single life is worth putting hundreds of millions in abject poverty. So, there is a maximum we are willing to spend to save someone's life. That maximum is the worth of a life.
Illegal to scan the available WiFi networks? So Windows/Linux and Mac-OSx are outlawed in these places for doing illegal stuff by default? Are you sure?
If this is true, I am happy I don't work for Apple because I would have to resign with this guy if such a unlucky mishap would be deemed more important than whatever the guy contributes to the company. Luckily for Apple you guys here don't work for Apple. If this is a firing offense in your book, I congratulate you with your self-created helll in whereever you do work.
How sure are you that this is the real story: he got plastered and lost the device. What if he got rolled and the thief sold the device for $5K? Should he be fired then? How sure are you about this?
Why should relevance have any bearing on the length of copyright. The most important works in human history have near infinite relevance, should they have infinite copyright terms? Come to think of it, you can make a good case that relevance should be inversely proportional to length of copyright.
Remember, copyright is not there to make profit, it is there to encourage progress.
I would have modded you down, but felt it was better to respond in full. Other mods, please mod parent down.
Hey you, 'has mod points and not afraid to use them', care to explain why the parent should be modded down? Is he a 'troll', is his post 'redundant', 'flamebait', or is it 'overrated'? As you give the moderators advice, please state the exact moderation that you think the GP deserves, as I can't seem to find a good option. You do realize there's no moderation 'wrong', or 'disagree with', do you? You, 'insightful' person, should not be let near mod points until you learn that the GP's post is not subject to downmodding for stating their opinion, how wrong it may be.
Interesting. So you're claiming here that belittling others faiths, actively and aggressively recruiting, suggesting that ones views are the only one worth having is what makes a religion?
Where's belief in a higher being, belief in the power of ritual, belief in a higher state of being, necessity to come together in a place of worship, tithing, creation stories, an infallible book of wisdom... all that stuff that traditionally defined a religion? Why do you define religion by the actions of the most annoying members instead of by its content? And what's the atheist equivalent of all this?
I think "rabid atheists" can by definition never be religious fundamentalists. They can be pricks, obstinate assholes, completely devoid of any form of understanding, they can even be considered 'fundamentalists' in some way, but surely, they cannot be considered religious. If you think they can, I've got a pink invisible unicorn for sale.
I think the reason that medicare doesn't have overhead is that they simply don't check anything, but pay whatever comes their way. No overhead, yet very very expensive.
And I think we've all pretty well seen for ourselves that government isn't the answer, it's the problem. To truly screw things up requires a law and a bureaucracy.
Uhm, where have you been living past couple of years? What I have seen in the world is that for a truly epic fail, you need deregulation and the assumption that the market will not destroy itself. I know: in your version of reality the failure of the market is proof that there was too much interference, but the fact of the matter is that (a) there is only one thing worse than a government monopoly, and that's a corporate one, and (b) a laissez-faire market breeds corporate monopolies.
Is climate science a multi-billion dollar industry? I'm pretty sure there's quite some faculty devoted to climate science, but an actual industry, where hundreds of climate scientists are producing product for the benefit of climate investors and a climate CEO? The closest thing I can think of is the alternative energy industry, but even though these do ride the climate hype, that industry is primarily focussed on getting rich out of the dissappearing reserves of fossil fuels.
Must be an economist speaking here. Two sentences, three errors.
Interesting, but not fundamental.
It is pretty fundamental that the nature of returns are emperically non-Gaussian. In a real science this observation should have killed all theory depending on assumptions of normality. Not so in economics. In economics Nobel prizes are awarded to guys that introduce models that critically depend on normality assumptions (Markowitz, Morton-Scholes, the GARCH guy).
The discovery of the nature of distributions in many financial transactions was insightful, but of limited practical application,...
And introducing completely wrong models is practical? The problem with the assumption of normality is that it assumes that in the long run, the average (the return of an investment) depends on the most likely events. What Mandelbrot showed is that the return is dominated by the low probability events, the drops or rises in stock prices that are (according to Gaussian economists) too improbable to happen in the lifetime of the universe.
It is not that these Gaussian models are "wrong" in the usual sense, in that they are approximations. They are wrong because they make flawed assumptions. They give false security by giving the events that determine the outcome a zero probability of happening.
... as many quantities of importance in financial mathematics are normally distributed by the central limit theorem.
No, they're not. Really. That's what Mandelbrot showed. That is the fundamental bit. That economical theorists put fingers in their ears and have screamed "lalalala" for four decades does not make the Central Limit Theorem applicable to the economy.
Technically: the central limit theorem only applies when variance can be stably measured (is finite). When this is not the case, taking the limit (averaging) produces an stable-alpha-symmetric distribution (for which the Gaussian is just a special case). That is what's important. In financial math, you cannot simply assume that the Central Limit Theorem holds, you have to show that your data has finite variance first. If it has not, you will have to forego the power of Gaussian math (means, squared deviations and the like), and go with stable math (medians, sum of absolute deviations) instead. That's much harder.
Mandelbrot has emperically shown that the Central Limit Theorem is not applicable to cotton prices. After him many, many other scientists have shown that many financial instruments are non-Gaussian. This includes stock prices, futures, options, portfolios of these, etc, etc, etc. All this is ignored by Economical Theory that still is founded on the flawed assumptions of normality. It is like doing physics by building up on the four basic elements of Water, Fire, Earth and Wind. We know it's bogus, but it's a comforting story, so we keep it.
When citizens of the same government attack it's a civil uprising. When they you use terror as their form of coercion, they are terrorists. There is not a lot of consensus about a politically neutral definition of terrorism, but up to this day, I have never found anyone seriously considering nationality to be one of the defining characteristics of terrorism. Terrorism is about using terror, not about being a citizen of some country. What dictionary did you pull this from?
IRA, ETA, Rote Armee Faktion, Red Brigade, Grey Wolves, PKK, Lightning Path, ANC, American Independence fighters, etc. etc. are all examples of civil uprisings that use or have used terror to achieve their goals. They are labelled terrorist organizations while they employ terror as a strategy. Like Al-Quada, they are called freedom fighters by some.
In response to another poster with the same point. Tim Mc Veigh being a terrorist can be argued about. The Unabomber, by virtue of having terrorized a large number of people for an extensive period of time, should surely be labelled a terrorist. The guy in question here is probably a deranged lunatic that lost some of the more valuable inhibitions a man should possess. It is truly silly to argue that the type of passport determines what effect your actions have on those around you.
Soon, thru inflation, 1500 EUR in Greece will barely buy a cup of coffee.
That's kind of unlikely as the EUR will not devalue to help out Greece. This would be like the US going into hyper-inflation because Long Island isn't balancing the budget.
Well, if my religion involves drinking wine on a Sunday then yes, this law impinges on my freedom to worship, even if technically according to religious dogma this wine has been transsubstantiated into the blood of Christ.
Huh? JITing effects start-up time not execution time.
Huh? JIT means 'Just In Time'. Compilation does not just happen at startup time, but during execution as well. Advanced JITs (like Sun's hotspot compiler) continuously perform a statistical analysis of where compiled code might make a difference.
Given that the costs of war in Iraq are carried by the American people, and the profits by the American rich, I'm sure oil was not the primary reason for the war.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and with HTML5 embraced, there's ample opportunity to extend it to MS-HTML5.
At this point the only constitutional expectation of privacy you have in the US is when sending a message through regular US mail.
Of course a life's worth can be expressed in €. Take an person whose life can be saved by bankrupting the US. Will we let him die? Of course we will, no single life is worth putting hundreds of millions in abject poverty. So, there is a maximum we are willing to spend to save someone's life. That maximum is the worth of a life.
Illegal to scan the available WiFi networks? So Windows/Linux and Mac-OSx are outlawed in these places for doing illegal stuff by default? Are you sure?
If this is true, I am happy I don't work for Apple because I would have to resign with this guy if such a unlucky mishap would be deemed more important than whatever the guy contributes to the company. Luckily for Apple you guys here don't work for Apple. If this is a firing offense in your book, I congratulate you with your self-created helll in whereever you do work.
How sure are you that this is the real story: he got plastered and lost the device. What if he got rolled and the thief sold the device for $5K? Should he be fired then? How sure are you about this?
Quite a few kids do. You might not have met them.
So twenty years ago Linux had zero percent of the server market, still has zero percent, and will always have zero percent?
Assuming that no single business has been created in the last twenty years and no new business ever will, your conclusion is correct.
I get a right to your work the moment I pay a sum to obtain said work. Who are you to continue to claim ownership on something you sold?
Remember, copyright is not there to make profit, it is there to encourage progress.
Hey you, 'has mod points and not afraid to use them', care to explain why the parent should be modded down? Is he a 'troll', is his post 'redundant', 'flamebait', or is it 'overrated'? As you give the moderators advice, please state the exact moderation that you think the GP deserves, as I can't seem to find a good option. You do realize there's no moderation 'wrong', or 'disagree with', do you? You, 'insightful' person, should not be let near mod points until you learn that the GP's post is not subject to downmodding for stating their opinion, how wrong it may be.
How so? I would love to have a phone, PDA and content delivery platform. For computing with wireless, I'd use my laptop.
Where's belief in a higher being, belief in the power of ritual, belief in a higher state of being, necessity to come together in a place of worship, tithing, creation stories, an infallible book of wisdom... all that stuff that traditionally defined a religion? Why do you define religion by the actions of the most annoying members instead of by its content? And what's the atheist equivalent of all this?
I think "rabid atheists" can by definition never be religious fundamentalists. They can be pricks, obstinate assholes, completely devoid of any form of understanding, they can even be considered 'fundamentalists' in some way, but surely, they cannot be considered religious. If you think they can, I've got a pink invisible unicorn for sale.
Sure, and I would like to be an architect, but can't be bothered with learning the trade. I want to plug together buildings dammit!
I think the reason that medicare doesn't have overhead is that they simply don't check anything, but pay whatever comes their way. No overhead, yet very very expensive.
Uhm, where have you been living past couple of years? What I have seen in the world is that for a truly epic fail, you need deregulation and the assumption that the market will not destroy itself. I know: in your version of reality the failure of the market is proof that there was too much interference, but the fact of the matter is that (a) there is only one thing worse than a government monopoly, and that's a corporate one, and (b) a laissez-faire market breeds corporate monopolies.
Is climate science a multi-billion dollar industry? I'm pretty sure there's quite some faculty devoted to climate science, but an actual industry, where hundreds of climate scientists are producing product for the benefit of climate investors and a climate CEO? The closest thing I can think of is the alternative energy industry, but even though these do ride the climate hype, that industry is primarily focussed on getting rich out of the dissappearing reserves of fossil fuels.
It is pretty fundamental that the nature of returns are emperically non-Gaussian. In a real science this observation should have killed all theory depending on assumptions of normality. Not so in economics. In economics Nobel prizes are awarded to guys that introduce models that critically depend on normality assumptions (Markowitz, Morton-Scholes, the GARCH guy).
And introducing completely wrong models is practical? The problem with the assumption of normality is that it assumes that in the long run, the average (the return of an investment) depends on the most likely events. What Mandelbrot showed is that the return is dominated by the low probability events, the drops or rises in stock prices that are (according to Gaussian economists) too improbable to happen in the lifetime of the universe.
It is not that these Gaussian models are "wrong" in the usual sense, in that they are approximations. They are wrong because they make flawed assumptions. They give false security by giving the events that determine the outcome a zero probability of happening.
No, they're not. Really. That's what Mandelbrot showed. That is the fundamental bit. That economical theorists put fingers in their ears and have screamed "lalalala" for four decades does not make the Central Limit Theorem applicable to the economy.
Technically: the central limit theorem only applies when variance can be stably measured (is finite). When this is not the case, taking the limit (averaging) produces an stable-alpha-symmetric distribution (for which the Gaussian is just a special case). That is what's important. In financial math, you cannot simply assume that the Central Limit Theorem holds, you have to show that your data has finite variance first. If it has not, you will have to forego the power of Gaussian math (means, squared deviations and the like), and go with stable math (medians, sum of absolute deviations) instead. That's much harder.
Mandelbrot has emperically shown that the Central Limit Theorem is not applicable to cotton prices. After him many, many other scientists have shown that many financial instruments are non-Gaussian. This includes stock prices, futures, options, portfolios of these, etc, etc, etc. All this is ignored by Economical Theory that still is founded on the flawed assumptions of normality. It is like doing physics by building up on the four basic elements of Water, Fire, Earth and Wind. We know it's bogus, but it's a comforting story, so we keep it.
But, if he takes your argument and dilutes it until there is not a trace of it left, he will counter your argument and therefore win.
IRA, ETA, Rote Armee Faktion, Red Brigade, Grey Wolves, PKK, Lightning Path, ANC, American Independence fighters, etc. etc. are all examples of civil uprisings that use or have used terror to achieve their goals. They are labelled terrorist organizations while they employ terror as a strategy. Like Al-Quada, they are called freedom fighters by some.
In response to another poster with the same point. Tim Mc Veigh being a terrorist can be argued about. The Unabomber, by virtue of having terrorized a large number of people for an extensive period of time, should surely be labelled a terrorist. The guy in question here is probably a deranged lunatic that lost some of the more valuable inhibitions a man should possess. It is truly silly to argue that the type of passport determines what effect your actions have on those around you.
That's kind of unlikely as the EUR will not devalue to help out Greece. This would be like the US going into hyper-inflation because Long Island isn't balancing the budget.
Well, if my religion involves drinking wine on a Sunday then yes, this law impinges on my freedom to worship, even if technically according to religious dogma this wine has been transsubstantiated into the blood of Christ.
Huh? JIT means 'Just In Time'. Compilation does not just happen at startup time, but during execution as well. Advanced JITs (like Sun's hotspot compiler) continuously perform a statistical analysis of where compiled code might make a difference.
Given that the costs of war in Iraq are carried by the American people, and the profits by the American rich, I'm sure oil was not the primary reason for the war.