I still believe that the boat could be made to go forward, but I don't want to argue about it.
Seems hard to believe, considering you immediately follow this sentence with several paragraphs of argument.
This is an aeorodynamics problem
No, it's not. It's a force problem. The fact that you have the air acting as an intermediary in your pushing on the boat is a red herring.
If the net effect is to direct a stream of air molecules backwards, the boat WILL move forward
It's no different than if you were, say, throwing baseballs against a board. The fact that the balls might bounce overboard afterward is irrelevant. The force of the balls striking the board is countered by the force you applied in throwing them.
no matter how much you may want this to not be true.
My desires have nothing to do with it. In fact, I think it would kinda cool if it worked. You'd probably be on your way to developing some sort of perpetual motion machine.
For example, a ducted fan can propel a boat in any direction, regardless of where the air input is.
I'm not concerned about the input. The fan propelling the air causes an "equal and opposite" reaction. That reaction will push the boat, unless the air is aimed at the boat. Just because you've put air in the mechanism it doesn't change the fact that you are pushing on the boat from inside of it. If the sail is angled in a way that it doesn't get the full force of the air, well then all you're really doing is not completely pushing on the boat. It would be better to completely remove the sail.
By and large arbitrage requires you getting a better deal than others
I meant they got a better deal than ANYBODY else. Their transaction costs were ridiculously small. With that kind of slippage you can take advantage of tiny inefficiencies that no one else can touch. It's simply free money, and you're the only player. Instead they believed their own hype and took on absurdly enormous and illiquid positions.
That's the line When Genius Failed took, but it's pretty clear (from other parts of the book) that the author did not fully understand his subject.
All they really did well was to talk the brokers into giving them a better deal than anyone else had. The rest was just their own judgment, the quality of which ranged from ordinary to poor to suicidal.
The success LTCM had came mainly from squeezing out a better deal than anyone else could get. They had an effective bid/ask spread that was smaller than anyone else's. ANYBODY could make money with that deal. Had they simply stuck to what they were doing initially they'd still be cleaning up today.
But hubris is a powerful force, and they took on crazy positions the logic of which seemed little more than "We're LTCM, so this trade will work out because it's us doing it."
I lost all my respect to Gosling after a clumsy attempt to add generics to Java.
So you had respect for him, he does something in what you consider to be a clumsy way, and now you have NO respect for him? So if Gosling showed up and offered to help you with some project you'd shoo him away out of disrespect?
Websters dictionary says that stealing means, amongst other things, "To take without right or permission," or "To move, carry, or place surreptitiously." Downloading games illegaly falls under boyh these qualifications.
Except you're glossing over the word "take" in that definition. Downloading involves copying, not taking. If I take it from you, you no longer have it.
How is downloding a game illegaly any different than walking in the store and stealing it.
When I physically take something from the store, then the store no longer has it. For your comparison to work I'd have to be able to walk into the store and make myself a perfect duplicate of something, then leave the original behind.
Let me ask you a question. Suppose you're sitting in a restaurant and the car of your dreams pulls into the parking lot. I hand you a magic wand and tell you that it can make a car of your own magically appear. Do you use the wand?
If your answer is yes, you're doing the same thing as downloading illegally.
Either way your taking something that isn't yours.
Assuming you mean copy, which is not exactly the same as take, I am not saying that it's ok to infringe on copyrights. I'm not stating a position at all. I am quarreling with the inappropriate use of the word theft. The reason people want to use that word is because it carries such a strong connotation of "wrong."
Oh, come off it. You're just using semantics to try to make pirating software sound less wrong than stealing.
It's you, not I, who wishes to pervert the meaning of the word. Precision in language matters.
You know, because stealing sounds really bad, not like some innocent "copyright infringement."
See, there you go. You want it to sound bad, so you borrow the connotation of a different and inapplicable word. You're playing games. Seems to me it's you who should "come off it."
the percentage of federal tax income dollars paid for by corporations went from about 50% to less than 7%.
Duyring economic downturns corporations make a lot less money, but people still get paid. So of course the percentages will shift. During boom times it goes the other way.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that everything is just fine, but rather simply pointing out that the huge difference should not be taken at face value.
Slashdot Mirror
See. that's the thing. If you'd have used perl you'd have finished in less than three.
Seems hard to believe, considering you immediately follow this sentence with several paragraphs of argument.
This is an aeorodynamics problem
No, it's not. It's a force problem. The fact that you have the air acting as an intermediary in your pushing on the boat is a red herring.
If the net effect is to direct a stream of air molecules backwards, the boat WILL move forward
It's no different than if you were, say, throwing baseballs against a board. The fact that the balls might bounce overboard afterward is irrelevant. The force of the balls striking the board is countered by the force you applied in throwing them.
no matter how much you may want this to not be true.
My desires have nothing to do with it. In fact, I think it would kinda cool if it worked. You'd probably be on your way to developing some sort of perpetual motion machine.
And age, you young whippersnapper.
I wish you'd posted under your account. I'd be your fan. (Sailboat not included, of course.)
Yeah, but when he picked there was nobody around. Who knew it would matter? (assuming it does, of course)
I'm not concerned about the input. The fan propelling the air causes an "equal and opposite" reaction. That reaction will push the boat, unless the air is aimed at the boat. Just because you've put air in the mechanism it doesn't change the fact that you are pushing on the boat from inside of it.
If the sail is angled in a way that it doesn't get the full force of the air, well then all you're really doing is not completely pushing on the boat. It would be better to completely remove the sail.
Yes. Exactly what I was stumbling around trying to say :-)
I meant they got a better deal than ANYBODY else. Their transaction costs were ridiculously small. With that kind of slippage you can take advantage of tiny inefficiencies that no one else can touch. It's simply free money, and you're the only player. Instead they believed their own hype and took on absurdly enormous and illiquid positions.
It would work just about as well as you sitting in the boat and pushing on the sail.
All they really did well was to talk the brokers into giving them a better deal than anyone else had. The rest was just their own judgment, the quality of which ranged from ordinary to poor to suicidal.
But hubris is a powerful force, and they took on crazy positions the logic of which seemed little more than "We're LTCM, so this trade will work out because it's us doing it."
Well, it's not exactly like we're dealing in actual facts here. And besides, there hasn't been enough research. ;-)
I thought body heat was enough. But then maybe the bad guys are room temperature...
assuming you mean common, not prolific, do you have some stats for that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just surprised.
A
A
A
M
A
A
A
A
A
A
So you had respect for him, he does something in what you consider to be a clumsy way, and now you have NO respect for him? So if Gosling showed up and offered to help you with some project you'd shoo him away out of disrespect?
Except you're glossing over the word "take" in that definition. Downloading involves copying, not taking. If I take it from you, you no longer have it.
When I physically take something from the store, then the store no longer has it. For your comparison to work I'd have to be able to walk into the store and make myself a perfect duplicate of something, then leave the original behind.
Let me ask you a question. Suppose you're sitting in a restaurant and the car of your dreams pulls into the parking lot. I hand you a magic wand and tell you that it can make a car of your own magically appear. Do you use the wand?
If your answer is yes, you're doing the same thing as downloading illegally.
Either way your taking something that isn't yours.
Assuming you mean copy, which is not exactly the same as take, I am not saying that it's ok to infringe on copyrights. I'm not stating a position at all. I am quarreling with the inappropriate use of the word theft. The reason people want to use that word is because it carries such a strong connotation of "wrong."
It's you, not I, who wishes to pervert the meaning of the word. Precision in language matters.
You know, because stealing sounds really bad, not like some innocent "copyright infringement."
See, there you go. You want it to sound bad, so you borrow the connotation of a different and inapplicable word. You're playing games. Seems to me it's you who should "come off it."
I think your trouble is with the word "take." If I take something from you, then you no longer have it. Words matter.
It may be wrong, it may be illegal, but It's not theft. Plain, simple, or otherwise. It's copyright infringement.
It's not the average shmoe that's the problem. It's government inventing the news. The better they can do it, the more they can control.
It's the educated twits that worry me.
If that's the case, then how did anyone ever learn how to do it?
Duyring economic downturns corporations make a lot less money, but people still get paid. So of course the percentages will shift. During boom times it goes the other way.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that everything is just fine, but rather simply pointing out that the huge difference should not be taken at face value.