Investment is less about commodities and more about managed risk. The thing that makes gambling stupid is that there is no management of risk on the part of the gambler: the house always takes in more money than it puts out, so in the long run you are guaranteed to lose. However, if you're clever with your investments (and futures), you can balance the probabilities so that you are guaranteed to make money. There's all kinds of mathematical theory on this subject.
As for the self-fulfilling prophecy, that is a problem. However, nobody is going to offer a million-dollar future on terrorists bombing Israel, since it happens so frequently.
There is a problem with applying a universal standard to different contexts.
Consider the converse of your argument: Good medical care is a luxury, since not everyone in the world has access to it, so anyone who gets it is lucky to have it. Therefore, we have no obligation to provide anyone with good medical care. The argument could be easily extended to drinking water, food, education, democracy, and so on.
I think the point you are making is defeatist. I agree that there are people in the world who don't have the benefits we have in the west. However, it seems to me that by your argument, we have no obligation to use the tools we have to take care of less fortunate people in our own culture.
Of coure I wasn't being serious. However, I was disturbed by the theme of the thread, which seems to be that death is inevitable, so preserving human life is worthless. I was trying to make the point that preserving life is certainly worthwhile to the person living it.
And just because death is inevitable, it doesn't mean that we should be flippant about it. I believe that the sanctity of human life is crucial in a just society.
I would pay to see this: some guy playing a fps on a machine in the library, using headphones for sound... he gets fragged, and foretting where he is (and without warning to anyone around him), bellows "FUCK!!!!!!!!" at the top of his lungs.
"There's no question" = Don't ask questions. "Clearly" = I don't feel like going through three pages of boring derivation. "It's obvious" = It's obvious to me, since I have a Ph.D. in math.
OK, reply with your current address. Since death is inevitable, I will come over and get it over with for you right now. What's that? You haven't come to terms with death yet? Sure, a few extra years would be nice, but you're never going to do anything great, and you'd probably waste them at star trek conventions and whatnot.
But if you're not trolling, I gather that you've never had a serious medical problem? If you did, would you stay at home and let nature take its course, because the artificial extension of your life has little intrinsic benefit?
heh... i once had a chevrolet sprint, which had a 1L, 3 cylinder engine that would not have been out of place in a lawnmower... downhill, wind at its back, pedal on the floor, I think I once managed to make that thing go 85mph...
No, a Theorem is a mathematical proposition that can be proven from other propositions or axioms. The term you may be thinking of is "Theory".
The term "Law" is not defined rigorously in either physics or mathematics, but it sounds impressive (like Newton's Laws or the Laws of Thermodynamics). Personally, I think a better term would be "Moore's Observation".
Pretty much all this analysis assumes that Moore's Law will keep going indefinitely. As soon as that runs out of steam, computer technology will advance far more slowly, and any advances that seemed to be just ten years off will be shunted off to the far future.
At the risk of telling boring old war stories, I attended a military college where one sad soul forgot to log his machine off. Someone found the machine and used it to send a vulgar message to the universal e-mail alias, including the commandant, director of cadets, and professors, on down to the lowliest first year. In true military fashion, they made no attempt to find the real author of the e-mail, but instead threatened to court martial the guy who left the computer logged on, for violating security rules. Eventually he avoided court martial, but was given a severe administrative punishment.
How to Save the Net
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You never were worried about breaking the law when you copied cassette tapes or video tapes for your friends back in the 80s/90s, were you?
You weren't worried about getting caught, which is different. I think most people agree that copying music is wrong. At least it feels wrong to some people, since you can go buy a CD for $15, or burn it for free, so there must be something illegitimate about burning. So people don't object strongly when it's called "piracy", "theft", etc. -- and why people don't have strong opinions about IP law.
I'm not a lawyer, but I did sit in a lecture on telecom law, which had the following interesting tidbit:
Under telecommunications law in Canada, telcos must offer services without discrimination. When the telcos were mostly monopolies, this provision was interpreted to mean that the telcos had to offer services to each individual customer who wanted them, without preferential service or pricing. Now that the telcos are facing competition, and deal amongst themselves, the provision has been reinterpreted to mean that telcos also cannot discriminate against businesses, even their competitors. That's probably where this ruling is coming from.
Uncroyable, corn the blubber do world nay pearl pace English. And, plus uncroyable queue car, l'ONU nay pace interdate utilisation days languid non-English. Axis do male, on device agitate cells singe queue Aimster cheese and sea render always. And l'ONU, crest un-Aimster days terrorists queue voluptuous supine languid days God with cells terms diabolical. Quint on write "courriel", on dander support a Housemate Bin Laden.
If these are fighting words, what prompted them? Surely this guy didn't suddenly make this threat out of boredom. Was he baited? Any links to earlier in the thread?
I would like to announce that I am giving away $1000 to the first 10 slashdotters who reply to this post. In your reply, please include your credit card number and social security number for verification.
Disclaimer for idiots: This is a joke. Go to http://goatse.cx for the real giveaway.
Slashdot Mirror
Investment is less about commodities and more about managed risk. The thing that makes gambling stupid is that there is no management of risk on the part of the gambler: the house always takes in more money than it puts out, so in the long run you are guaranteed to lose. However, if you're clever with your investments (and futures), you can balance the probabilities so that you are guaranteed to make money. There's all kinds of mathematical theory on this subject.
As for the self-fulfilling prophecy, that is a problem. However, nobody is going to offer a million-dollar future on terrorists bombing Israel, since it happens so frequently.
There is a problem with applying a universal standard to different contexts.
Consider the converse of your argument: Good medical care is a luxury, since not everyone in the world has access to it, so anyone who gets it is lucky to have it. Therefore, we have no obligation to provide anyone with good medical care. The argument could be easily extended to drinking water, food, education, democracy, and so on.
I think the point you are making is defeatist. I agree that there are people in the world who don't have the benefits we have in the west. However, it seems to me that by your argument, we have no obligation to use the tools we have to take care of less fortunate people in our own culture.
Although I agree with the sentiment in the parent post, the question is rhetorical and shouldn't be part of the interview.
Thanks, but I live in Canada, where medical care is universal.
Of coure I wasn't being serious. However, I was disturbed by the theme of the thread, which seems to be that death is inevitable, so preserving human life is worthless. I was trying to make the point that preserving life is certainly worthwhile to the person living it.
And just because death is inevitable, it doesn't mean that we should be flippant about it. I believe that the sanctity of human life is crucial in a just society.
I would pay to see this: some guy playing a fps on a machine in the library, using headphones for sound ... he gets fragged, and foretting where he is (and without warning to anyone around him), bellows "FUCK!!!!!!!!" at the top of his lungs.
"There's no question" = Don't ask questions.
"Clearly" = I don't feel like going through three pages of boring derivation.
"It's obvious" = It's obvious to me, since I have a Ph.D. in math.
OK, reply with your current address. Since death is inevitable, I will come over and get it over with for you right now. What's that? You haven't come to terms with death yet? Sure, a few extra years would be nice, but you're never going to do anything great, and you'd probably waste them at star trek conventions and whatnot.
I call troll on you.
But if you're not trolling, I gather that you've never had a serious medical problem? If you did, would you stay at home and let nature take its course, because the artificial extension of your life has little intrinsic benefit?
If sending up a Shuttle to re-establish a fresh orbit for Hubble would be cheaper than building a new and improved Hubble and launching it?
Development cost of Hubble: $2 billion
Cost of one space shuttle launch: $600 million
So you can get in excess of three launches for the same cost of the Hubble.
heh ... i once had a chevrolet sprint, which had a 1L, 3 cylinder engine that would not have been out of place in a lawnmower ... downhill, wind at its back, pedal on the floor, I think I once managed to make that thing go 85mph ...
As long as those speed governors put the stop to rampant car theft by allowing the police to catch up, right?
According to this article: "Canada will be added to the Apple system when the CRIA completes its negotiations in the fall"
CRIA = Canadian Recording Industry Association.
This can only work assuming:
1. Most people who share music are willing to pay for music.
2. Most people who share music are ethical, and won't give the music to non-shareholders.
I think both assumptions are questionable. (Note: if you share music, I'm not saying you are a freeloader and immoral. But is everyone like you?)
No, a Theorem is a mathematical proposition that can be proven from other propositions or axioms. The term you may be thinking of is "Theory".
The term "Law" is not defined rigorously in either physics or mathematics, but it sounds impressive (like Newton's Laws or the Laws of Thermodynamics). Personally, I think a better term would be "Moore's Observation".
Pretty much all this analysis assumes that Moore's Law will keep going indefinitely. As soon as that runs out of steam, computer technology will advance far more slowly, and any advances that seemed to be just ten years off will be shunted off to the far future.
Failing to log off isn't a crime by itself
At the risk of telling boring old war stories, I attended a military college where one sad soul forgot to log his machine off. Someone found the machine and used it to send a vulgar message to the universal e-mail alias, including the commandant, director of cadets, and professors, on down to the lowliest first year. In true military fashion, they made no attempt to find the real author of the e-mail, but instead threatened to court martial the guy who left the computer logged on, for violating security rules. Eventually he avoided court martial, but was given a severe administrative punishment.
Move the whole thing to Canada.
Seriously now. You want Howard Dean? We've got a party full of them. We just keep electing them, and we can't stop ourselves.
You never were worried about breaking the law when you copied cassette tapes or video tapes for your friends back in the 80s/90s, were you?
You weren't worried about getting caught, which is different. I think most people agree that copying music is wrong. At least it feels wrong to some people, since you can go buy a CD for $15, or burn it for free, so there must be something illegitimate about burning. So people don't object strongly when it's called "piracy", "theft", etc. -- and why people don't have strong opinions about IP law.
Remeber Troy McClure from that self-improvement video, Smoke Yourself Thin?
I'm not a lawyer, but I did sit in a lecture on telecom law, which had the following interesting tidbit:
Under telecommunications law in Canada, telcos must offer services without discrimination. When the telcos were mostly monopolies, this provision was interpreted to mean that the telcos had to offer services to each individual customer who wanted them, without preferential service or pricing. Now that the telcos are facing competition, and deal amongst themselves, the provision has been reinterpreted to mean that telcos also cannot discriminate against businesses, even their competitors. That's probably where this ruling is coming from.
Uncroyable, corn the blubber do world nay pearl pace English. And, plus uncroyable queue car, l'ONU nay pace interdate utilisation days languid non-English. Axis do male, on device agitate cells singe queue Aimster cheese and sea render always. And l'ONU, crest un-Aimster days terrorists queue voluptuous supine languid days God with cells terms diabolical. Quint on write "courriel", on dander support a Housemate Bin Laden.
If these are fighting words, what prompted them? Surely this guy didn't suddenly make this threat out of boredom. Was he baited? Any links to earlier in the thread?
I would like to announce that I am giving away $1000 to the first 10 slashdotters who reply to this post. In your reply, please include your credit card number and social security number for verification.
Disclaimer for idiots: This is a joke. Go to http://goatse.cx for the real giveaway.
No. Obviously, we need to do away with crash investigations, since air crashes are so unpredictable, and everybody is trying their best anyway.