That makes Microsoft a blue-chip stock, like GM or IBM. They are not a bubble rally pump and dump stock. The ultimate value of a company is not what a wall street casino game of money chicken assigns to it, and listening to the gamblers is hardly the course that will find improvement.
A stock is supposed to deliver value to its shareholders by either paying dividends or appreciating in price. If a company doesn't pay a dividend and doesn't appreciate in price (through growth in projected earnings), then they're essentially just dicking around with shareholder money.
Looking back at the past ten years, I would have to say that Microsoft has largely been dicking around with shareholder money. They've expanded into some new markets and failed to break into a number of others. They could have been paying a steady dividend instead. They've started paying a modest dividend now which may mean that they're starting to own up to the fact that they don't have any more huge growth prospects and admit that they might as well pay out some of the cash their earning.
The issue I have with the flat tax that I've never seen answered is that it would make tax evasion much easier. There's a history of business owners falsifying sales to avoid sales tax and it can be very difficult to properly audit for this sort of thing.
I'm of the opinion that if you've so thoroughly codified your beliefs that you preemptively have an answer to any question, then you're not really living any more. All of the decisions he will ever make are in the past now. Isn't that a sort of living death?
When has logic ever resolved a political dispute? Logic isn't applicable to politics because there is no logical way to choose premises and definitions, and if you cherrypick the right ones, you can rationalize away whatever silly political notions you have.
Is there a neutral way to handle this? Won't showing either purported boundary result in advancing one side's cause?
There's no concept of consensus in this issue. My understanding is that neighboring geographical regions are expected to sort out political boundaries among themselves and if they can't the only fact in the matter is that the border is disputed.
You need to be careful with your rhetoric because, at times, he's an idiot and he assumes that you're specifically attacking him even if you aren't. He's generally amenable to middle of the road suggestions but retreats to the right when the left get militant. What we ultimately want is something that reasonable people can agree on rather than something dictated by either extreme, and to do that you have to be mindful of the fact that some people on both sides read too much into the other side's rhetoric.
I have a job, and I'm successful at it, but it's clear that a number of things we're doing right now aren't working and I'm frustrated that no one is proposing anything other than things that will advance their party platform. So here's MY proposal:
We push for a constitutional amendment to require a national confidence vote every 50 years, starting now. The ballot will consist of a list of American institutions (e.g. congress, the executive branch, the judicial branch, the RNC and DNC, and any other institution you want to hear the voice of the American people on) and those institutions which fail to meet a certain vote threshold will have their headquarters bulldozed. Following this, a Constitutional Convention will be held, without any delegates from the failed institutions, to attempt to establish what we're going to do to move forward. Their goal is to establish new compromises and to make a new direction that hopefully will hopefully put us back on the right track. If their new proposal is not ratified, they will be subject to charges of treason, which is the fate the founding father's would have met if they had proposed a new government which was not ratified.
I'd join the protest if I wasn't taking care of my Mother after my Father died. I think it's a crock how things are but I also feel the top 1% aren't fully to blame. The 99% needs to learn to not be asleep at the wheel half the time and learn to say no together in order to get things done like boycotting things and not just go for "I got mine, too bad about yours" deals.
I blame the politicians who claim that 1% are sacred cows. Something rather sick about the way they keep protecting them and demanding they get tax cuts (which have proven not to help the economy or encourage investment.)
Here's the deal: the top 1% includes some people who amassed a multimillion net worth through decades of hard work. My father is one of them. He spent decades reinvesting his share of his small business in the business and cashed out a multimillionaire. When he tried to retire they begged him to stay because they needed to hire three new people to cover the work he did.
1% isn't really a great threshold because it includes a lot of Main Street employers, many of whom might side with the 99% against the.01% (which are the truly scary wealth holders) if people were more careful with their rhetoric.
Web of trust is a fairly good model (and there probably aren't any models that are better than fairly good). I have an account with the phone company, a checking account, and half a dozen other accounts all with the same name and address. If (and only if) I want to prove who I am online, I ought to be able to have the companies I associate with vouch for me.
When unions demand that their members' financial security not be tied to job performance, they're rightly criticized.
I have trouble believing that the only corporate leaders we can find in this country ate people who will only take the job if they can be guaranteed that there will never be any personal financial implications to their job performance.
On second thought, I guess it is consistent with the chickenshit cowardice that pervades today's leadership, both public and private. Almost no one is willing to step away from textbook and party line solutions to try to achieve something better.
There was no historical Adam and Eve, no serpent, no apple, no fall that toppled man from a state of innocence."
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there's any meaning in this story it's allegorical. It's just a framework which was contrived to carry an idea.
The story goes that man is created in a perfectly ordered universe, but has no active role except to assign labels to things. Adam and Eve decide to seize the means to take on decisions of greater consequence. As a result, they're cast out into the place where shit gets real and things have real consequences. If you want to make real decisions then those decisions have to have real consequences. Having free will means living in a world where you at times when you have to deal with suffering. That's the whole point of the story.
A 250 MW unit weighing about 500 lbs. (227 kg) would be small and light enough to drop under the hood of a car, he says.
250 megawatts? Somebody is just making up numbers. Takeoff power for a 747 is about 100MW.
Haven't you ever heard of a muscle car?
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
The deal is that the government can borrow more cheaply than anyone else(by virtue of being traditionally regarded as the entity least likely to default). This means that if a project can result in economic returns greater than the rate the government borrows at, then borrowing to fund the project is a net win.
With that said, public debt still needs to be managed. The growth of the debt should not be allowed to exceed the growth of the economy. Also, even though the government's low rate for borrowing sets a low hurdle for determining if a project is worthwhile, many projects may not meet that hurdle and should be up for cutting.
Entitlements are a separate issue and should be regarded as a separate deficit. They're supposed to be managed out of their own funds with their own revenue stream independent of income taxes. The entitlements need to have their benefits balanced against their FICA income streams. A relatively painless fix, would be to invest a modest portion of the entitlements money in the stock market like Canada does, but this approach is controversial (largely due to ignorance of the measures that can be taken to make this approach safe).
I've seen a commercial for this and the way they presented it was as a means of letting a teenager to use the car, but requiring them to request permission to unlock and start it.
I think that the implicit assumption is that anyone who needs to have the abbreviations explained to them isn't going to be interested in the story anyway.
Development is heavily driven by experience. For example, if you cut off a sense during development, that brain real estate gets annexed by adjacent functions. By the same token, I would expect that if you contrived an elaborate experiment in which an infant never saw an object a second time until well after the usual development timeline for understanding the persistence of objects and then raised them normally, they wouldn't have developed the abilities of a typical child their age.
I don't doubt the value of citizen investigation, I just think it's quite apparent that it's better to apply it more deliberately rather than scattershot. It's silly to think you'll find something in a information dump like this that you haven't already caught a whiff of elsewhere.
They also have no expectation of privacy for what they put in the dumpster behind their office, but people generally don't sift through public figures' trash. There's little reason to expect to find anything of interest and this is the FOIA equivalent of a fishing expedition.
Of course FOIA fishing expeditions aren't illegal and you're welcome to sift through her trash. However, I can also exercise my right to tell you that you're sifting through trash.
I can't stand the woman but this whole thing is petty.
I find that explicit reasoning (premises, arguments, conclusions, etc.) constitutes very little of my actual thought process. Much more of it is behavioral conditioned response (mammoths fall of cliff->man that was good eaten') and pattern recognition based inference, both of which are tied into our emotional thinking.
I find that I tend to react to things at a gut level and that reason is what I use to support (or rationalize) these gut decisions and communicate them to others.
I'm one of the few people here who's been hoping for a system like this. I absolutely hate using personal information (name, DOB, SSN, mother's maiden name) as a means of authenticating one's identity. As it stands right now, if you know those, you may as well be the person. It's awful.
That said, this proposal isn't perfect and I believe that it is absolutely vital that instead of trying to stop it because it's not perfect, that instead we try to make it better and make an effort to see that new policy reflects our needs. The main issue with the current proposal is that it still has a single point of failure where if someone gets my phone/smart card/login (and associated PIN/password/etc.), I have my identity stolen. This proposed system is better than the current system in that I should be able to revoke a stolen identity easily under this proposal. However, there are other measures that could be taken to make this framework more secure.
I'd prefer to see a web of trust system based on multiple providers. I pay a phone bill with a given address, phone number, and personal information. I have a bank account with that same information on file. I pay rent with that same information on file. We need to have a way for all of these relationships to be used to say: we all have this guy on file at this address and phone number, and if there's someone else out there who doesn't answer this phone number and mail at this address, then he probably isn't the same guy.
Certain things are by their nature difficult and I don't think it's reasonable to expect these things to be solvable.
a) My expectation is that if there were any really good ways of gathering and storing energy, then lower life-forms would be able to exploit these without having to go through the trouble of evolving into higher lifeforms and then figuring it out. You also have the inherent issue that forms of energy which store well are the most difficult to collect.
b) Weak AI is hard because maintaining large collections of information, without them gathering weeds of misinformation, is hard. Strong AI is harder because of the first problem, and I suspect that by the time you put together a system complex enough to match human intelligence, it'll be every bit as unreliable as a human being.
c) I don't really understand this one. If you think of all the things you need to make and distribute any one thing, you always run out of something before you can scale it up to distributing it to everyone.
What we really need is sustainable infrastructure, everywhere in the world. I don't think that's a problem we're just going to crack open all at once. It's going to be something that we'll struggle towards for a long time, and maybe, just maybe, eventually break that barrier.
Real simple. If I own a house that I rent out and have no intention of living in, that would be a commercial residential home.
That's still absolutely nothing like taking numbers of such properties, dividing them up into shares, and selling them as securities. Dig?
No, what would happen is the lender would sell off that loan into a CMBS ( Commerical Mortgage Back Security). That CMBS would still be tranched out based on the risks of the asset pool ( it's not divided into shares ). And those tranches would be bought by any number of clients.
You seem to think the concept of Asset Backed Securities lead to the housing collapse. What lead to the housing collapse was simply banks giving loans they shouldn't have. Requiring 40% cash down on housing loans would have been another easy way to avoid all the problems.
That's true. But there's more to it than that. The reason they made these risky loans was that they didn't have any incentive to properly vet the applications and in fact they had an incentive to make as many loans as possible. For each loan they made, they could sell it into a MBS and also receive a piece of the monthly payments to administer the mortgage.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't blame the lenders (or some of the borrowers), but in general, I think you should expect that if someone can make money by doing X, they'll do X. People generally don't leave money lying on the table.
What created these bad dynamics, was that there was a demand for mortgages due to the misvaluation of these MBSs. The top tranches were rated as AAA, which made them very appealing to various fund managers who were required to invest a percentage of their funds in AAA rated securities (which have lower return than other investments).
The reason these things got rated as AAA was the model used to value them was stupid. It essentially boils down to, there hasn't been a very high correlation of defaults in the past, therefore there will not be a high correlation of defaults in the future. That model then of course failed when it couldn't predict something that had not been observed, that there can be a failure mode where the correlation of defaults increases overnight.
So the main two issues are that the people who could have prevented this had no incentive to and current financial theory thinks that it can value a bunch of securities using a combination of the central limit theorem and rainbows. I can suggest a solution for the former problem: structure MBS contracts so that the initial lender has some liability for the difference between the initial loan price and the price at foreclosure auction and institute some sort of reserve requirements to cover this. However, I have no idea what to do about the latter problem. I think that right now, the financial world is trying to put hard numbers on too many things that are by their nature gooey and squishy.
To be fair, the Banach-Tarski paradox you're referring to uses 3D Euclidean space instead of the curved Minkowski spacetime of General Relativity. I'm certain the Lebesque measure (the key ingredient to Banach-Tarski, along with the Axiom of Choice) can be extended to that spacetime, and I'm pretty sure it can be used to generate the same type of paradox. That might actually have interesting physical consequences for the theory, which, incidentally, would be entirely avoided by quantizing it. Considering how much most mathematicians like the Axiom of Choice, this could be a great (mathematician's) argument against GR and for Quantum.
Objects that can only be specified using the Axiom of Choice involve an infinite number of arbitrary choices. This means they have infinite Kolmogorov complexity (i.e. it's impossible to write a finite computer program that outputs a representation of the object).
That doesn't really square well with my (limited) understanding of physics where infinities are always tucked away behind event horizons and every interesting quantity is strictly bounded.
Of course, throwing out the Axiom of Choice also throws out Lebesgue integrals which you need for modern physics. My answer to that is that maybe the integrals work because they're just an approximation for very fine grained sums. (Discrete math major here. Analysis can suck it!)
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaqqV--rnGY
If I'm going to have a pangolin related song from a cartoon i watched 25 years ago stuck in my head, then I'm taking all of you down with me.
That makes Microsoft a blue-chip stock, like GM or IBM. They are not a bubble rally pump and dump stock. The ultimate value of a company is not what a wall street casino game of money chicken assigns to it, and listening to the gamblers is hardly the course that will find improvement.
A stock is supposed to deliver value to its shareholders by either paying dividends or appreciating in price. If a company doesn't pay a dividend and doesn't appreciate in price (through growth in projected earnings), then they're essentially just dicking around with shareholder money.
Looking back at the past ten years, I would have to say that Microsoft has largely been dicking around with shareholder money. They've expanded into some new markets and failed to break into a number of others. They could have been paying a steady dividend instead. They've started paying a modest dividend now which may mean that they're starting to own up to the fact that they don't have any more huge growth prospects and admit that they might as well pay out some of the cash their earning.
The issue I have with the flat tax that I've never seen answered is that it would make tax evasion much easier. There's a history of business owners falsifying sales to avoid sales tax and it can be very difficult to properly audit for this sort of thing.
I'm of the opinion that if you've so thoroughly codified your beliefs that you preemptively have an answer to any question, then you're not really living any more. All of the decisions he will ever make are in the past now. Isn't that a sort of living death?
When has logic ever resolved a political dispute? Logic isn't applicable to politics because there is no logical way to choose premises and definitions, and if you cherrypick the right ones, you can rationalize away whatever silly political notions you have.
Is there a neutral way to handle this? Won't showing either purported boundary result in advancing one side's cause?
There's no concept of consensus in this issue. My understanding is that neighboring geographical regions are expected to sort out political boundaries among themselves and if they can't the only fact in the matter is that the border is disputed.
You need to be careful with your rhetoric because, at times, he's an idiot and he assumes that you're specifically attacking him even if you aren't. He's generally amenable to middle of the road suggestions but retreats to the right when the left get militant. What we ultimately want is something that reasonable people can agree on rather than something dictated by either extreme, and to do that you have to be mindful of the fact that some people on both sides read too much into the other side's rhetoric.
I have a job, and I'm successful at it, but it's clear that a number of things we're doing right now aren't working and I'm frustrated that no one is proposing anything other than things that will advance their party platform. So here's MY proposal:
We push for a constitutional amendment to require a national confidence vote every 50 years, starting now. The ballot will consist of a list of American institutions (e.g. congress, the executive branch, the judicial branch, the RNC and DNC, and any other institution you want to hear the voice of the American people on) and those institutions which fail to meet a certain vote threshold will have their headquarters bulldozed. Following this, a Constitutional Convention will be held, without any delegates from the failed institutions, to attempt to establish what we're going to do to move forward. Their goal is to establish new compromises and to make a new direction that hopefully will hopefully put us back on the right track. If their new proposal is not ratified, they will be subject to charges of treason, which is the fate the founding father's would have met if they had proposed a new government which was not ratified.
I'd join the protest if I wasn't taking care of my Mother after my Father died. I think it's a crock how things are but I also feel the top 1% aren't fully to blame. The 99% needs to learn to not be asleep at the wheel half the time and learn to say no together in order to get things done like boycotting things and not just go for "I got mine, too bad about yours" deals.
I blame the politicians who claim that 1% are sacred cows. Something rather sick about the way they keep protecting them and demanding they get tax cuts (which have proven not to help the economy or encourage investment.)
Here's the deal: the top 1% includes some people who amassed a multimillion net worth through decades of hard work. My father is one of them. He spent decades reinvesting his share of his small business in the business and cashed out a multimillionaire. When he tried to retire they begged him to stay because they needed to hire three new people to cover the work he did.
1% isn't really a great threshold because it includes a lot of Main Street employers, many of whom might side with the 99% against the .01% (which are the truly scary wealth holders) if people were more careful with their rhetoric.
Web of trust is a fairly good model (and there probably aren't any models that are better than fairly good). I have an account with the phone company, a checking account, and half a dozen other accounts all with the same name and address. If (and only if) I want to prove who I am online, I ought to be able to have the companies I associate with vouch for me.
When unions demand that their members' financial security not be tied to job performance, they're rightly criticized.
I have trouble believing that the only corporate leaders we can find in this country ate people who will only take the job if they can be guaranteed that there will never be any personal financial implications to their job performance.
On second thought, I guess it is consistent with the chickenshit cowardice that pervades today's leadership, both public and private. Almost no one is willing to step away from textbook and party line solutions to try to achieve something better.
There was no historical Adam and Eve, no serpent, no apple, no fall that toppled man from a state of innocence."
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there's any meaning in this story it's allegorical. It's just a framework which was contrived to carry an idea.
The story goes that man is created in a perfectly ordered universe, but has no active role except to assign labels to things. Adam and Eve decide to seize the means to take on decisions of greater consequence. As a result, they're cast out into the place where shit gets real and things have real consequences. If you want to make real decisions then those decisions have to have real consequences. Having free will means living in a world where you at times when you have to deal with suffering. That's the whole point of the story.
From the article:
A 250 MW unit weighing about 500 lbs. (227 kg) would be small and light enough to drop under the hood of a car, he says.
250 megawatts?
Somebody is just making up numbers. Takeoff power for a 747 is about 100MW.
Haven't you ever heard of a muscle car?
The deal is that the government can borrow more cheaply than anyone else(by virtue of being traditionally regarded as the entity least likely to default). This means that if a project can result in economic returns greater than the rate the government borrows at, then borrowing to fund the project is a net win.
With that said, public debt still needs to be managed. The growth of the debt should not be allowed to exceed the growth of the economy. Also, even though the government's low rate for borrowing sets a low hurdle for determining if a project is worthwhile, many projects may not meet that hurdle and should be up for cutting.
Entitlements are a separate issue and should be regarded as a separate deficit. They're supposed to be managed out of their own funds with their own revenue stream independent of income taxes. The entitlements need to have their benefits balanced against their FICA income streams. A relatively painless fix, would be to invest a modest portion of the entitlements money in the stock market like Canada does, but this approach is controversial (largely due to ignorance of the measures that can be taken to make this approach safe).
I've seen a commercial for this and the way they presented it was as a means of letting a teenager to use the car, but requiring them to request permission to unlock and start it.
I think that the implicit assumption is that anyone who needs to have the abbreviations explained to them isn't going to be interested in the story anyway.
Development is heavily driven by experience. For example, if you cut off a sense during development, that brain real estate gets annexed by adjacent functions. By the same token, I would expect that if you contrived an elaborate experiment in which an infant never saw an object a second time until well after the usual development timeline for understanding the persistence of objects and then raised them normally, they wouldn't have developed the abilities of a typical child their age.
A baby does not have the same ability to reason as an adult. I take it you have never spent time with a kid.
Given their experiences at that time, that's a reasonable inference.
I don't doubt the value of citizen investigation, I just think it's quite apparent that it's better to apply it more deliberately rather than scattershot. It's silly to think you'll find something in a information dump like this that you haven't already caught a whiff of elsewhere.
They also have no expectation of privacy for what they put in the dumpster behind their office, but people generally don't sift through public figures' trash. There's little reason to expect to find anything of interest and this is the FOIA equivalent of a fishing expedition.
Of course FOIA fishing expeditions aren't illegal and you're welcome to sift through her trash. However, I can also exercise my right to tell you that you're sifting through trash.
I can't stand the woman but this whole thing is petty.
I find that explicit reasoning (premises, arguments, conclusions, etc.) constitutes very little of my actual thought process. Much more of it is behavioral conditioned response (mammoths fall of cliff->man that was good eaten') and pattern recognition based inference, both of which are tied into our emotional thinking.
I find that I tend to react to things at a gut level and that reason is what I use to support (or rationalize) these gut decisions and communicate them to others.
I'm one of the few people here who's been hoping for a system like this. I absolutely hate using personal information (name, DOB, SSN, mother's maiden name) as a means of authenticating one's identity. As it stands right now, if you know those, you may as well be the person. It's awful.
That said, this proposal isn't perfect and I believe that it is absolutely vital that instead of trying to stop it because it's not perfect, that instead we try to make it better and make an effort to see that new policy reflects our needs. The main issue with the current proposal is that it still has a single point of failure where if someone gets my phone/smart card/login (and associated PIN/password/etc.), I have my identity stolen. This proposed system is better than the current system in that I should be able to revoke a stolen identity easily under this proposal. However, there are other measures that could be taken to make this framework more secure.
I'd prefer to see a web of trust system based on multiple providers. I pay a phone bill with a given address, phone number, and personal information. I have a bank account with that same information on file. I pay rent with that same information on file. We need to have a way for all of these relationships to be used to say: we all have this guy on file at this address and phone number, and if there's someone else out there who doesn't answer this phone number and mail at this address, then he probably isn't the same guy.
Certain things are by their nature difficult and I don't think it's reasonable to expect these things to be solvable.
a) My expectation is that if there were any really good ways of gathering and storing energy, then lower life-forms would be able to exploit these without having to go through the trouble of evolving into higher lifeforms and then figuring it out. You also have the inherent issue that forms of energy which store well are the most difficult to collect.
b) Weak AI is hard because maintaining large collections of information, without them gathering weeds of misinformation, is hard. Strong AI is harder because of the first problem, and I suspect that by the time you put together a system complex enough to match human intelligence, it'll be every bit as unreliable as a human being.
c) I don't really understand this one. If you think of all the things you need to make and distribute any one thing, you always run out of something before you can scale it up to distributing it to everyone.
What we really need is sustainable infrastructure, everywhere in the world. I don't think that's a problem we're just going to crack open all at once. It's going to be something that we'll struggle towards for a long time, and maybe, just maybe, eventually break that barrier.
No, what would happen is the lender would sell off that loan into a CMBS ( Commerical Mortgage Back Security). That CMBS would still be tranched out based on the risks of the asset pool ( it's not divided into shares ). And those tranches would be bought by any number of clients.
You seem to think the concept of Asset Backed Securities lead to the housing collapse. What lead to the housing collapse was simply banks giving loans they shouldn't have. Requiring 40% cash down on housing loans would have been another easy way to avoid all the problems.
That's true. But there's more to it than that. The reason they made these risky loans was that they didn't have any incentive to properly vet the applications and in fact they had an incentive to make as many loans as possible. For each loan they made, they could sell it into a MBS and also receive a piece of the monthly payments to administer the mortgage.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't blame the lenders (or some of the borrowers), but in general, I think you should expect that if someone can make money by doing X, they'll do X. People generally don't leave money lying on the table.
What created these bad dynamics, was that there was a demand for mortgages due to the misvaluation of these MBSs. The top tranches were rated as AAA, which made them very appealing to various fund managers who were required to invest a percentage of their funds in AAA rated securities (which have lower return than other investments).
The reason these things got rated as AAA was the model used to value them was stupid. It essentially boils down to, there hasn't been a very high correlation of defaults in the past, therefore there will not be a high correlation of defaults in the future. That model then of course failed when it couldn't predict something that had not been observed, that there can be a failure mode where the correlation of defaults increases overnight.
So the main two issues are that the people who could have prevented this had no incentive to and current financial theory thinks that it can value a bunch of securities using a combination of the central limit theorem and rainbows. I can suggest a solution for the former problem: structure MBS contracts so that the initial lender has some liability for the difference between the initial loan price and the price at foreclosure auction and institute some sort of reserve requirements to cover this. However, I have no idea what to do about the latter problem. I think that right now, the financial world is trying to put hard numbers on too many things that are by their nature gooey and squishy.
To be fair, the Banach-Tarski paradox you're referring to uses 3D Euclidean space instead of the curved Minkowski spacetime of General Relativity. I'm certain the Lebesque measure (the key ingredient to Banach-Tarski, along with the Axiom of Choice) can be extended to that spacetime, and I'm pretty sure it can be used to generate the same type of paradox. That might actually have interesting physical consequences for the theory, which, incidentally, would be entirely avoided by quantizing it. Considering how much most mathematicians like the Axiom of Choice, this could be a great (mathematician's) argument against GR and for Quantum.
Objects that can only be specified using the Axiom of Choice involve an infinite number of arbitrary choices. This means they have infinite Kolmogorov complexity (i.e. it's impossible to write a finite computer program that outputs a representation of the object).
That doesn't really square well with my (limited) understanding of physics where infinities are always tucked away behind event horizons and every interesting quantity is strictly bounded.
Of course, throwing out the Axiom of Choice also throws out Lebesgue integrals which you need for modern physics. My answer to that is that maybe the integrals work because they're just an approximation for very fine grained sums. (Discrete math major here. Analysis can suck it!)