Tablets will replace PCs, but only for people who only use their PCs for web surfing, email, and entertainment. If you actually have to do work on it, you'll need something with more reasonable input devices, larger display, and that can hook to a variety of accessories. So no worries. There will still be a market for real computers.
In recent years (10-15) the warming is far below any noise level.
In any 10 to 15 year period the warming is below the noise level, because we're talking about a global average of about 0.15C per decade, and changes in heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere from year to year cause variations that are larger than that. But, even with the annual variations over the last decade, the warming trend is still apparent. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm
But even though the global trend is 0.15C per decade that doesn't mean that changes in specific places haven't been much larger.
Can you really measure both of these as the same time? Doesn't one of these have to be a dependent variable?
There isn't anything that has a stable value, so it's hard to immediately tell whether the increases in corn prices are reduced supply and increased demand, or whether, since the demand is international, there's a substantial weak dollar component. Then again, it could just be speculators manipulating the futures market again.
I wish I could mod you up for that. What currently passes for a "free market" solution would be: 1) The government sells Nasty Corp. the mineral right for $1. 2) Nasty Corp. destroys an area the size of Connecticut while digging it up and dumps large quantities of arsenic, lead, mercury, and cyanide compounds into the nearest river. 3) Nasty Corp. pays its executives exorbitant amounts, but doesn't pay dividends to the shareholders. 4) When the mine closes, Nasty Corp. declares bankruptcy and leaves the mess for the "free market" to clean up.
They are? You can hardly find cinnamon in the US. They use the much cheaper cassia bark, which they sell as cinnamon.
They probably are talking about cassia bark rather than true cinnamon in that graph. Most Americans probably wouldn't recognize true cinnamon as cinnamon by flavor, and would probably prefer cassia.
The chart represents reality as well as it can be known from the records we have, and are not typically month to month or worst case. The wild swings were due to multiple factors, but it's generally standard econ 101. Supply and demand. Even if the gold supply were fixed (which it isn't), the supply of goods is not. Prices will always change due to these factors, and one year of shortage ripples through the whole economy. So you'd get a year or two of general shortages due to weather, bad roads, disease, etc. that would cause double digit inflation. Then you'd get a few years of stagnation while prices slid back to where they were before the shortages. The economy to a stand still because nobody could afford to buy things, and merchants didn't want to reduce prices because the merchants couldn't afford to buy things either, and they paid more for everything on the shelf than it's worth now. Psychology still works under the gold standard.
It might be that modern transportation would allow a smoother economy and fewer shortages to drive inflation. Then again, maybe not. We might get immediately back into an inflationary spiral. Or into a deflationary spiral. Any deflation is economically disastrous, as recent experience should show. Gold has never been a fixed value item. It's subject to same supply and demand as everything else.
Perhaps they are trying expand their audience. Maybe one of the authors read a newspaper and noticed that in the USA fewer than half of the young men are white these days. Is targeting your product to one half of one half of one eighth of the populations a good strategy? Or are you seriously suggesting that there's something intrinsic to being Hispanic that requires that a young Hispanic man wouldn't want an escapist fantasy?
If I understand it correctly, List Price is another term for MSRP (suggested retail price), and is not changed by Amazon when they choose to retail for $0.00.
Except, as TFA makes clear enough, the publisher agreed to reduce the MSRP to $0.00 for a day in order to participate in the free app of the day promotion. Unfortunately, Amazon's software for app publishers is not as clear. In essence Amazon told them they would get $0.00. They asked if that was correct, and Amazon told them "Yes, you will get nothing". AFAICT, on they day their app was FAD, Amazon's app publishing site told them they would get $54,800. Rather than believe what they were told, they chose to believe the software. And then they got upset that what they were told initially was right.
I don't use the Amazon app store, but the fact that these people published this tirade makes me want to start getting my apps there.
Yes, it is, in fact, scaremongering. Someone doesn't understand that a trojan pretends to be something it isn't. This appears to be what it's advertised to be.
We need a name for apps that do things that the OS maker doesn't want apps to do. Since it's Android, I think the appropriate term is "renegade." How's this for a title "Renegade app allows Android users to do something Google doesn't want them to do."
Before fiat currency, in the American colonies and later America, the purchasing power of a dollar was nearly flat for 300 years, except for a few little blips around wartime. And the economy was a hell of a lot healthier than it is now.
People repeat this lie often in hopes that it will somehow become true. Sorry, it never will. Periods of high (double digit) inflation and deflation were common before we left the gold standard, and the economy could not be described as "healthy" according to any modern definition of healthy. It's essentially an accident that the value of the dollar at the beginning and the end of that period. But don't let reality get in the way of a good story. http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/faculty-research/sahr/sumprice.pdf
If you look at a graph of the money supply in the US over the past few decades, you will observe that the vast majority of it was created by private sources such as banks.
We have a debt based currency. The way money is created is that you borrow money from a bank against the value of an asset. In a very contorted way, the money you borrow is created by the federal reserve out of nothing. So to first order the money supply is equal to the value of all of the assets that have been borrowed against. The only way to really "create" money is to increase the value of those assets (or create more of them).
So what happens if the federal reserve makes money out of nothing (as proposed)? Well, the rule still holds. Suppose the money supply is (pulling numbers out of nowhere) $20T and the fed makes $5T more. Now the value of all those assets is $25T. But the assets haven't changed in value, so the dollar is really worth 20% less. That means (over some unspecified time) everything else has to get 20% more expensive.
That also explains why the money supply collapsed so badly in the mortgage crisis. Both the cost and value of the assets collapsed. The mortgages that backed them and the dollars they represented disappeared. The money supply (M3 is the one to look at, and that's why the government doesn't produce it any more) hasn't recovered yet. That's why the stimulus and quantitative easing aren't causing inflation yet. They're much smaller than the money supply collapse. That's also why they aren't very effective. Way too small to do much good.
Now it's left for the reader to ponder why default, which in theory destroys assets that can be borrowed against, has the opposite effect on inflation that a collapse in housing market does.
It's never been an issue of what could be done to avert default. It's about what is politically possible. Sure massive seigniorage would make it clear that we're willing to devalue their bonds by some fraction significant to avoid default. Default says were willing to devalue their bonds to near zero on Wednesday. Default will cause inflation higher than massive seigniorage would. Of course massive seigniorage isn't going to happen.
Of course, the less damaging means is to bypass a congress that doesn't seem to comprehend or care what they are doing. The President would have reasonable legal and political cover for either claiming that when appropriations are in conflict with an earlier debt ceiling, the later legislation takes precedence. The Supreme Court has already opined that a President must spend an appropriation and has no authority to cease, divert, or limit spending that has been passed by Congress and signed by the President. (Which, for those of you who think default can be avoided by shoveling money around, should give you a reason to reconsider your position).
It doesn't even need the 14th amendment. The question is whether the President has the balls to avoid default.
Actually, the urge to be a dick is indicative of a structural problem that affects some software shops. Managers sometimes forget that software should be designed before it is written. And in the design to release process there should be design reviews. Any software problem that makes you want to be a dick should have been fixed in one of the design reviews, before a rookie programmer decides that he's going to write a new associative container in C++ based upon a bubble sort rather than using a standard container.
I don't see the programmers as the impediment to code reviews. Projects are often not structured in a way that code reviews are easy to do. Suppose you a small project with 5 programmers. Programmer A has a big chunk of code to be reviewed, so B-E spend a day looking it over, and then half a day in a meeting to discuss changes and fixes. That's 6.5 person days. Multiply by 5 for reviewing the other guys code, and you've got 32.5 person days. A bit more than a man month spent reviewing code. $10k. Now how many times a year do you need to do it? To the average PHB, reviewing code is unproductive time. "Bugs will be found in beta, or after we ship" he'll say. "It's not going to kill anyone. Now get back to work on the brake system software."
Now try a cross project review. What does your boss say when you tell him another project wants you to spend a day and a half reviewing code?
If you are stupid enough to think Al Gore's stance on global warming has any effect on whether it exists you probably should be wearing a foam helmet to keep from hurting yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Tablets will replace PCs, but only for people who only use their PCs for web surfing, email, and entertainment. If you actually have to do work on it, you'll need something with more reasonable input devices, larger display, and that can hook to a variety of accessories. So no worries. There will still be a market for real computers.
Crab people! Crab people! Crab people!
In recent years (10-15) the warming is far below any noise level.
In any 10 to 15 year period the warming is below the noise level, because we're talking about a global average of about 0.15C per decade, and changes in heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere from year to year cause variations that are larger than that. But, even with the annual variations over the last decade, the warming trend is still apparent. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm
But even though the global trend is 0.15C per decade that doesn't mean that changes in specific places haven't been much larger.
Can you really measure both of these as the same time? Doesn't one of these have to be a dependent variable?
There isn't anything that has a stable value, so it's hard to immediately tell whether the increases in corn prices are reduced supply and increased demand, or whether, since the demand is international, there's a substantial weak dollar component. Then again, it could just be speculators manipulating the futures market again.
Yeah, the North Slope and ANWR may have enough oil to supply our needs for a whole year. Unless the economy recovers, that is.
I wish I could mod you up for that. What currently passes for a "free market" solution would be: 1) The government sells Nasty Corp. the mineral right for $1. 2) Nasty Corp. destroys an area the size of Connecticut while digging it up and dumps large quantities of arsenic, lead, mercury, and cyanide compounds into the nearest river. 3) Nasty Corp. pays its executives exorbitant amounts, but doesn't pay dividends to the shareholders. 4) When the mine closes, Nasty Corp. declares bankruptcy and leaves the mess for the "free market" to clean up.
They are? You can hardly find cinnamon in the US. They use the much cheaper cassia bark, which they sell as cinnamon.
They probably are talking about cassia bark rather than true cinnamon in that graph. Most Americans probably wouldn't recognize true cinnamon as cinnamon by flavor, and would probably prefer cassia.
If you've got rare resources, you don't want to be the first to sell. You want to be the last. Imagine what the last barrel of oil will cost.
You may notice those charts are logarithmic. 20% inflation for a year is barely going to show.
The chart represents reality as well as it can be known from the records we have, and are not typically month to month or worst case. The wild swings were due to multiple factors, but it's generally standard econ 101. Supply and demand. Even if the gold supply were fixed (which it isn't), the supply of goods is not. Prices will always change due to these factors, and one year of shortage ripples through the whole economy. So you'd get a year or two of general shortages due to weather, bad roads, disease, etc. that would cause double digit inflation. Then you'd get a few years of stagnation while prices slid back to where they were before the shortages. The economy to a stand still because nobody could afford to buy things, and merchants didn't want to reduce prices because the merchants couldn't afford to buy things either, and they paid more for everything on the shelf than it's worth now. Psychology still works under the gold standard.
It might be that modern transportation would allow a smoother economy and fewer shortages to drive inflation. Then again, maybe not. We might get immediately back into an inflationary spiral. Or into a deflationary spiral. Any deflation is economically disastrous, as recent experience should show. Gold has never been a fixed value item. It's subject to same supply and demand as everything else.
Let me guess.... Angry white man?
Perhaps they are trying expand their audience. Maybe one of the authors read a newspaper and noticed that in the USA fewer than half of the young men are white these days. Is targeting your product to one half of one half of one eighth of the populations a good strategy? Or are you seriously suggesting that there's something intrinsic to being Hispanic that requires that a young Hispanic man wouldn't want an escapist fantasy?
But everyone knows that only Americans that agree with my political beliefs are real Americans.
You forget syphilitic.
Are you IMPLYING that everything with 8 LEGS must be an arthropod? You jointed-exoskeletoned BASTARD!
If I understand it correctly, List Price is another term for MSRP (suggested retail price), and is not changed by Amazon when they choose to retail for $0.00.
Except, as TFA makes clear enough, the publisher agreed to reduce the MSRP to $0.00 for a day in order to participate in the free app of the day promotion. Unfortunately, Amazon's software for app publishers is not as clear. In essence Amazon told them they would get $0.00. They asked if that was correct, and Amazon told them "Yes, you will get nothing". AFAICT, on they day their app was FAD, Amazon's app publishing site told them they would get $54,800. Rather than believe what they were told, they chose to believe the software. And then they got upset that what they were told initially was right.
I don't use the Amazon app store, but the fact that these people published this tirade makes me want to start getting my apps there.
Yes, it is, in fact, scaremongering. Someone doesn't understand that a trojan pretends to be something it isn't. This appears to be what it's advertised to be.
We need a name for apps that do things that the OS maker doesn't want apps to do. Since it's Android, I think the appropriate term is "renegade." How's this for a title "Renegade app allows Android users to do something Google doesn't want them to do."
Page 6 is the one you want to look at.
Before fiat currency, in the American colonies and later America, the purchasing power of a dollar was nearly flat for 300 years, except for a few little blips around wartime. And the economy was a hell of a lot healthier than it is now.
People repeat this lie often in hopes that it will somehow become true. Sorry, it never will. Periods of high (double digit) inflation and deflation were common before we left the gold standard, and the economy could not be described as "healthy" according to any modern definition of healthy. It's essentially an accident that the value of the dollar at the beginning and the end of that period. But don't let reality get in the way of a good story. http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/faculty-research/sahr/sumprice.pdf
If you look at a graph of the money supply in the US over the past few decades, you will observe that the vast majority of it was created by private sources such as banks.
We have a debt based currency. The way money is created is that you borrow money from a bank against the value of an asset. In a very contorted way, the money you borrow is created by the federal reserve out of nothing. So to first order the money supply is equal to the value of all of the assets that have been borrowed against. The only way to really "create" money is to increase the value of those assets (or create more of them).
So what happens if the federal reserve makes money out of nothing (as proposed)? Well, the rule still holds. Suppose the money supply is (pulling numbers out of nowhere) $20T and the fed makes $5T more. Now the value of all those assets is $25T. But the assets haven't changed in value, so the dollar is really worth 20% less. That means (over some unspecified time) everything else has to get 20% more expensive.
That also explains why the money supply collapsed so badly in the mortgage crisis. Both the cost and value of the assets collapsed. The mortgages that backed them and the dollars they represented disappeared. The money supply (M3 is the one to look at, and that's why the government doesn't produce it any more) hasn't recovered yet. That's why the stimulus and quantitative easing aren't causing inflation yet. They're much smaller than the money supply collapse. That's also why they aren't very effective. Way too small to do much good.
Now it's left for the reader to ponder why default, which in theory destroys assets that can be borrowed against, has the opposite effect on inflation that a collapse in housing market does.
It's never been an issue of what could be done to avert default. It's about what is politically possible. Sure massive seigniorage would make it clear that we're willing to devalue their bonds by some fraction significant to avoid default. Default says were willing to devalue their bonds to near zero on Wednesday. Default will cause inflation higher than massive seigniorage would. Of course massive seigniorage isn't going to happen.
Of course, the less damaging means is to bypass a congress that doesn't seem to comprehend or care what they are doing. The President would have reasonable legal and political cover for either claiming that when appropriations are in conflict with an earlier debt ceiling, the later legislation takes precedence. The Supreme Court has already opined that a President must spend an appropriation and has no authority to cease, divert, or limit spending that has been passed by Congress and signed by the President. (Which, for those of you who think default can be avoided by shoveling money around, should give you a reason to reconsider your position).
It doesn't even need the 14th amendment. The question is whether the President has the balls to avoid default.
Actually, the urge to be a dick is indicative of a structural problem that affects some software shops. Managers sometimes forget that software should be designed before it is written. And in the design to release process there should be design reviews. Any software problem that makes you want to be a dick should have been fixed in one of the design reviews, before a rookie programmer decides that he's going to write a new associative container in C++ based upon a bubble sort rather than using a standard container.
I don't see the programmers as the impediment to code reviews. Projects are often not structured in a way that code reviews are easy to do. Suppose you a small project with 5 programmers. Programmer A has a big chunk of code to be reviewed, so B-E spend a day looking it over, and then half a day in a meeting to discuss changes and fixes. That's 6.5 person days. Multiply by 5 for reviewing the other guys code, and you've got 32.5 person days. A bit more than a man month spent reviewing code. $10k. Now how many times a year do you need to do it? To the average PHB, reviewing code is unproductive time. "Bugs will be found in beta, or after we ship" he'll say. "It's not going to kill anyone. Now get back to work on the brake system software."
Now try a cross project review. What does your boss say when you tell him another project wants you to spend a day and a half reviewing code?
If you are stupid enough to think Al Gore's stance on global warming has any effect on whether it exists you probably should be wearing a foam helmet to keep from hurting yourself.