...find some way to offer these people insurance without outrageous prices
some people may just face higher risk and nobody will offer them insurance "without outrageous prices." "Outrageous" is of course a very subjective term - if I am 10 times as likely as you to get sick, the break-even ("actuarially fair") price that I should be charged is 10 times higher than your price. So, the idea of the bill seems to be providing insurance to people subject to higher risk at discounted prices. One possible outcome of it is driving up the prices and hence pricing out people with low risk - standard implication of adverse selection problem (people with high risk will be more likely to buy). There is certainly going to be inefficiency as a result
Before dismissing the whole idea, note one thing: having bad genes is a risk that people would like to insure against and having such an insurance would be economically efficient. However once information about genes is revealed, we are in the realm of inefficiencies - consumers will act on this information and so will insurance companies, either insurance will be underprovided or prices will have to reflect this information. So, how to deal with it is an interesting and important (and hard) problem, though I doubt that straight banning of pricing based on genetic tests is the right choice
an interesting caveat is that the gov't reuses old SSNs eventually after the owner dies
care to provide a reference to it? Is it just that we'll eventually run out of numbers so they have to be reused or have the numbers been actually re-used already?
It is not about this particular key. They are threatening so that the next time people think twice about spreading information about hacks. The real purpose is prevention not prosecution of what has already happened for the sake of prosecution. Now, whether it is going to work is a different story, but there is a logic to what they are doing.
I don't think you understood what he said - by all means, the Economist is "liberal" in the traditional (or European) meaning of that word, it is hardly the same thing as what "liberal" means in the U.S.
Backwards compatibility leads to backwards thinking.
It depends on the stage of development. Knowing that you'll have to maintain backward compatibility leads to forward thinking - you have to design in a way that makes it feasible
about your sig: There are 11 types of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.
and you are the missing third type: people who suggest that they can count in binary but really can't
this is not "insightful" but actually quite silly - that a company makes billions tells me nothing about the direction of its stock price changes. The price should be high but it may be declining or increasing depending on changes in expectations of profits
Your argument is flawed. Most people don't set up their own spam filters, telemarketers want to get around the ISP spam filters and if they do that they will reach who they want to reach (a side-effect is that they also reach you but that does not really bother them)
it's not that hefty - it adds up to about 130K per person. Salaries will easily account for half of that. A lot of their employees have PhDs.
I'm an academic and I relied on a number of CRS papers in the past - they are usually excellently written, non-partisan, just the kind of source you want to look at if you need an objective reference on the topic you are interested in. In each case had to go to the library/send RAs to make copiess off microfilms because they were not (or were hard to find) online, so a central repository like opencrs is very welcom
It is just one country that imposes the embargo (eg. European countries trade with Cuba), but it sure is convenient have a scapegoat for the problems of the system. You also seem to be ignoring how much Soviet Union helped Cuba in the past.
Don't put the words in my mouth. Believing that something is unambiguously wrong does not necessarily mean that I believe there is an absolute truth (whether I do believe it or not is off topic)
Yes, and I do believe that you can become an absolute power with a flawed economic system and a flawed system of government. The problem is you cannot stay an absolute power. Here is how it worked: heavy industry was the way to go in the 20s and 30s. Let's invest all we have in coal, steel and whatever else we can think of. That does work, the system is not efficient but we put so much resources into it that it's going to show results. The problem is though that world changes, technology changes and without capitalist incentives you will not be able to make the right decisions. It's actually quite simple: in capitalism everyone has an influence on where the system is going through their pockets. In communism, it is only the "elite" that does and the elite does not have full information and will not be able to make all the right decisions.
The only flaw in Communism is that it can be corrupted and the greedy. But the same can be said about capitalism and democracy.
I have never understood how people who have never seen communism in action feel free to make these kinds of statements. Taking away freedom and destroying hope for a better tomorrow is not a flaw for you? I am sure you have never waited in line for 10 hours to get a piece of meat, right? Have you seen how towns designed by communist planners look like? Did you know that pollution magically fell after collapse of communism? What about the fact that the average lifespan in countries like Hungary, Czech Republic and Poland increased by more than 5 years since 1989? None of these was because of corruption or greediness, they were due to some (often highly educated) nitwits in the government thinking that they make the right decisions
We destroyed their way of life and now they are stealing from our grandparents
How is that "interesting" and not "-1 clueless?"
Communism did not work. Period. That's why it failed. It was our "way of life" because the alternative way of life was taken away. It was destroyed because it failed miserably. Actually, it destroyed itself. Yes, US probably helped (though proving it is hard), but the core reason why communism failed were its own inadequacies: if you destroy economic incentives, you are going downhill and there is no way around it. It does not necessarily mean the collapse of the system - you can vegetate for years on the substistence level (Cuba) or below it (North Korea). If you really helped us destroying our old way of life - big thank you, I am deeply grateful that you did so.
you need to split everything in pieces <10MB (gmail imposes limits on the size of incoming mail) and now that would be a sophisticated script;-) (split -b could help)
Slashdot Mirror
According to a Polish newspaper (http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80273,4829593.html) he was on the tram and indeed switched it in the middle
(ok so you have to log out to finally delete them but hey...)
what about Ctrl-X to delete everything?
some people may just face higher risk and nobody will offer them insurance "without outrageous prices." "Outrageous" is of course a very subjective term - if I am 10 times as likely as you to get sick, the break-even ("actuarially fair") price that I should be charged is 10 times higher than your price. So, the idea of the bill seems to be providing insurance to people subject to higher risk at discounted prices. One possible outcome of it is driving up the prices and hence pricing out people with low risk - standard implication of adverse selection problem (people with high risk will be more likely to buy). There is certainly going to be inefficiency as a result
Before dismissing the whole idea, note one thing: having bad genes is a risk that people would like to insure against and having such an insurance would be economically efficient. However once information about genes is revealed, we are in the realm of inefficiencies - consumers will act on this information and so will insurance companies, either insurance will be underprovided or prices will have to reflect this information. So, how to deal with it is an interesting and important (and hard) problem, though I doubt that straight banning of pricing based on genetic tests is the right choice
an interesting caveat is that the gov't reuses old SSNs eventually after the owner dies
care to provide a reference to it? Is it just that we'll eventually run out of numbers so they have to be reused or have the numbers been actually re-used already?
It is not about this particular key. They are threatening so that the next time people think twice about spreading information about hacks. The real purpose is prevention not prosecution of what has already happened for the sake of prosecution. Now, whether it is going to work is a different story, but there is a logic to what they are doing.
I don't think you understood what he said - by all means, the Economist is "liberal" in the traditional (or European) meaning of that word, it is hardly the same thing as what "liberal" means in the U.S.
you seem woken up to me...
No. Another job can be created here instead.
They mentioned EMC. EMC owns vmware.
It depends on the stage of development. Knowing that you'll have to maintain backward compatibility leads to forward thinking - you have to design in a way that makes it feasible
It is an economic issue so it actually does matter what the expectations about future production are not just how much is actually pumped.
And why do you think that the price that maximizes profits should be the same everywhere?
about your sig:
There are 11 types of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.
and you are the missing third type: people who suggest that they can count in binary but really can't
yes:
apt-get program_I_want
this is not "insightful" but actually quite silly - that a company makes billions tells me nothing about the direction of its stock price changes. The price should be high but it may be declining or increasing depending on changes in expectations of profits
Your argument is flawed. Most people don't set up their own spam filters, telemarketers want to get around the ISP spam filters and if they do that they will reach who they want to reach (a side-effect is that they also reach you but that does not really bother them)
"publish or perish" is what you were looking for
140K it should be
I'm an academic and I relied on a number of CRS papers in the past - they are usually excellently written, non-partisan, just the kind of source you want to look at if you need an objective reference on the topic you are interested in. In each case had to go to the library/send RAs to make copiess off microfilms because they were not (or were hard to find) online, so a central repository like opencrs is very welcom
It is just one country that imposes the embargo (eg. European countries trade with Cuba), but it sure is convenient have a scapegoat for the problems of the system. You also seem to be ignoring how much Soviet Union helped Cuba in the past.
Yes, and I do believe that you can become an absolute power with a flawed economic system and a flawed system of government. The problem is you cannot stay an absolute power. Here is how it worked: heavy industry was the way to go in the 20s and 30s. Let's invest all we have in coal, steel and whatever else we can think of. That does work, the system is not efficient but we put so much resources into it that it's going to show results. The problem is though that world changes, technology changes and without capitalist incentives you will not be able to make the right decisions. It's actually quite simple: in capitalism everyone has an influence on where the system is going through their pockets. In communism, it is only the "elite" that does and the elite does not have full information and will not be able to make all the right decisions.
The only flaw in Communism is that it can be corrupted and the greedy. But the same can be said about capitalism and democracy.
I have never understood how people who have never seen communism in action feel free to make these kinds of statements. Taking away freedom and destroying hope for a better tomorrow is not a flaw for you? I am sure you have never waited in line for 10 hours to get a piece of meat, right? Have you seen how towns designed by communist planners look like? Did you know that pollution magically fell after collapse of communism? What about the fact that the average lifespan in countries like Hungary, Czech Republic and Poland increased by more than 5 years since 1989? None of these was because of corruption or greediness, they were due to some (often highly educated) nitwits in the government thinking that they make the right decisions
How is that "interesting" and not "-1 clueless?"
Communism did not work. Period. That's why it failed. It was our "way of life" because the alternative way of life was taken away. It was destroyed because it failed miserably. Actually, it destroyed itself. Yes, US probably helped (though proving it is hard), but the core reason why communism failed were its own inadequacies: if you destroy economic incentives, you are going downhill and there is no way around it. It does not necessarily mean the collapse of the system - you can vegetate for years on the substistence level (Cuba) or below it (North Korea). If you really helped us destroying our old way of life - big thank you, I am deeply grateful that you did so.
so he was testing the program he wrote on artificial data. What's your point?
Sure you don't. I ran your query and here is what I got
1032423
323234
323321
34422
32425
23443
23323
23421
10008
8777
not very interesting, isn't it?
you need to split everything in pieces <10MB (gmail imposes limits on the size of incoming mail) and now that would be a sophisticated script ;-) (split -b could help)