That's quite, quite wrong. Socialism has no beef with free markets. You can in fact have free markets under communism quite easily even, but we're not talking about communism here.
All that is required in a free market is the ability to exchange goods and services for payment. What socialism, and its variants, is about is (re)distributing resources (such as money etc) to the market participants, who can then use them to exchange goods and services for payment, in typical free market fashion, sustainably.
Whereas the least socialist countries are happy to let money accumulate in hereditary dynasties, while the society at large is progressively starved of funds to participate in the markets, through the natural outcome of unbridled exploitation.
Aside from the above, socialism also takes a more regulatory stance to protect human beings, solely on the grounds that they are human. For example, China today is ultra capitalist, and has very weak laws to regulate economic activities. So you get slavery in factories, and lead poisoning from toys being exported to foreign countries, etc. Whereas European countries are more socialist, and they outlaw slavery in factories, and ban certain toys from being sold due to poisoning issues.
Translation: "We're ignoring the new monetary system that no one controls so we can push onto you the new monetary system that and the NSA we control."
Never forget that US companies are in bed with the NSA. They have to be if asked under terrorism related laws, both public and secret.
What rights are you talking about? A movie theatre is on private property, and as such any glasshole has no right to film from the interior without permission. Movie theatres generally make it VERY clear that patrons are not permitted to film on the premises.
Ergo, any glasshole who even wears the google glasses is under suspicion, and if he turns it on even for a second in the toilet he can be prosecuted in theory.
So no, glassholes have no legal grounds to stand on when in places like movie theatres, restaurants, shops, etc.
Private abuse due to multiple corporations is infinitely more difficult to deal with than government abuse due to law enforcement zeal. It's the difference between killing one monster and playing whackamole forever.
Companies like Google collect data and package it, so that in future thousands of other companies can and will use it in creative ways to extort money from people. And if Google didn't do this despicable thing, those other companies would never be able to collect all that data on their own. But Google makes it possible. Right now, they just want to milk the data for themselves as much as possible, but when that starts running out of steam and when the shareholders still demand more profits, the data will be sold to anybody. This is capitalism. It is how every corporation behaves.
Nobody should be skewered for putting an idea out there,
Ideas are not all interchangeable. We should respond apropriately to the severity of each "proposal". Some proposals are, by their nature, move vile than others. For example, we do not discuss politely the pros and cons of slavery, genocide, etc. We shouldn't discuss these particular ideas politely either. We should be meeting them with derision, and blaming these ignorant economists for skirting human history and ethics, whether deliberately as they claim, or more likely because their education is too specialized and lacking in some areas.
That should depend on the crime. Someone who tortured and killed his victims doesn't deserve a quick and painless death in return. Either keep them alive in a cell for the rest of their lives, or let them die in agony themselves if you must execute them.
Replace BTC with USD in your entire statement, and you'll have your answer as to why everyone (including governments) sees the USD as some sort of "magically universally accepted currency".
Totally. wrong. The magic words that exist on USD and don't exist on BTC are "legal tender". It means the bad boys with guns of the US government protect the purpose of your USD's on US soil, as a means of exchanging goods and services. In other words, currencies become accepted because regional powers are willing to kill, maim, and imprison if need be to make it so.
You're oversimplifying. Even without witness, client or evidence, an adversarial process can still oppose incorrect procedure. Basically, if the judges decide to cut corners with the law, it doesn't actually matter who is being accused or what the facts of the case are. Judges cutting corners with the law is wrong.
The truth is that the FISA judges know they're not doing a professional job to uphold the law, and don't want someone else to point out their deliberate shortcomings.
Exactly. This in my opinion is the main justification for BSD style licenses. Another example is security - building a secure OS is hard, and OpenBSD attempts to do it uncompromisingly.
Computation is still really expensive, for worthwhile problems. Hard problems today tend to deal either with huge datasets where the difference between one and two passes is measured in days or weeks. Other hard problems have realtime constraints where every microsecond counts, and you still can't afford two passes over one pass..
Choosing a different measure of deviation does not mean the null is "more likely to be rejected." Nulls are rejected based on the assumed underlying distribution, not the particular measure of deviation.
Just a clarification. While nulls can be rejected based on many different measures of deviation, statistical theory explains which among all possible statistics are the most efficient at rejecting a hypothesis. The prime importance of standard deviation (and variance) is no accident.
Nonsense. The standard deviation is a much better measure to use, due to the three sigma rule. This tells you much more for Gaussian, and approximately Gaussian distributions, which occur very frequently in science and engineering (unlike economics).
Most are. In engineering and science, datasets a either bounded, or explicitly truncated. Therefore central limit theory applies.
Frankly, Taleb has a bugbear about heavy tails, when in fact heavy tails are often a symptom of badly thought out measurements in scientific disciplines.
Not usually. A lot of open source (licensed as BSD or variations thereof) is about creating software that will get used EVERYWHERE, and discouraging competing projects that do the same task. The devs don't want more devs involved (if they did they should be using the GPL instead), what they want is to make it so that their software is basically the one and only correct way to do something, ie their vision is it. So they give their code away without any requirement to give back from anybody, or any requirement to improve it, etc. The reasoning is basically that if it's available and anybody can take it and rebrand it and sell it etc, then companies will do the math and won't build their own. So the BSD software "wins".
Uh, if you're doing it for the million dollars, then your priorities are fucked up. Luckily those who work seriously on the problem often have the right priorities, and those that have the wrong priorities are often delusional wankers. So it's an easy classification problem.
Mate, you're skirting dangerously into crackpot territory. Quoting James Gleick as a scientific authority is demented. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're on thin ice. I'll assume that you have a specific form of differentiability with respect to a particular set of parameters in mind, which you didn't detail to us. Certainly, you're not helping yourself with statements such as "obvious to even the smallest child", "read for once in your life" etc.
Slashdot Mirror
That's quite, quite wrong. Socialism has no beef with free markets. You can in fact have free markets under communism quite easily even, but we're not talking about communism here.
All that is required in a free market is the ability to exchange goods and services for payment. What socialism, and its variants, is about is (re)distributing resources (such as money etc) to the market participants, who can then use them to exchange goods and services for payment, in typical free market fashion, sustainably. Whereas the least socialist countries are happy to let money accumulate in hereditary dynasties, while the society at large is progressively starved of funds to participate in the markets, through the natural outcome of unbridled exploitation.
Aside from the above, socialism also takes a more regulatory stance to protect human beings, solely on the grounds that they are human. For example, China today is ultra capitalist, and has very weak laws to regulate economic activities. So you get slavery in factories, and lead poisoning from toys being exported to foreign countries, etc. Whereas European countries are more socialist, and they outlaw slavery in factories, and ban certain toys from being sold due to poisoning issues.
(Uhm... that's all I wanted to say)
Well? Has he said anything about them? If not, why not?
Never forget that US companies are in bed with the NSA. They have to be if asked under terrorism related laws, both public and secret.
So no, glassholes have no legal grounds to stand on when in places like movie theatres, restaurants, shops, etc.
Companies like Google collect data and package it, so that in future thousands of other companies can and will use it in creative ways to extort money from people. And if Google didn't do this despicable thing, those other companies would never be able to collect all that data on their own. But Google makes it possible. Right now, they just want to milk the data for themselves as much as possible, but when that starts running out of steam and when the shareholders still demand more profits, the data will be sold to anybody. This is capitalism. It is how every corporation behaves.
Ideas are not all interchangeable. We should respond apropriately to the severity of each "proposal". Some proposals are, by their nature, move vile than others. For example, we do not discuss politely the pros and cons of slavery, genocide, etc. We shouldn't discuss these particular ideas politely either. We should be meeting them with derision, and blaming these ignorant economists for skirting human history and ethics, whether deliberately as they claim, or more likely because their education is too specialized and lacking in some areas.
Cambridge, UK.
Oh wait, you mean in the US? I guess not.
People who truly know what they're doing have always been few - hmm, I guess that explains a lot.
Well for one thing, the Google boys like to spy on us.
That should depend on the crime. Someone who tortured and killed his victims doesn't deserve a quick and painless death in return. Either keep them alive in a cell for the rest of their lives, or let them die in agony themselves if you must execute them.
They certainly do. They can use firefox, chrome, safari, or even lynx if they so choose, to browse any part of the web they like.
They have ZERO right to use MY web browser to push their wares in front of my eyeballs.
No. No. No.
Repeat after me: The world doesn't owe any website operators a living.
Totally. wrong. The magic words that exist on USD and don't exist on BTC are "legal tender". It means the bad boys with guns of the US government protect the purpose of your USD's on US soil, as a means of exchanging goods and services. In other words, currencies become accepted because regional powers are willing to kill, maim, and imprison if need be to make it so.
The truth is that the FISA judges know they're not doing a professional job to uphold the law, and don't want someone else to point out their deliberate shortcomings.
Exactly. This in my opinion is the main justification for BSD style licenses. Another example is security - building a secure OS is hard, and OpenBSD attempts to do it uncompromisingly.
Computation is still really expensive, for worthwhile problems. Hard problems today tend to deal either with huge datasets where the difference between one and two passes is measured in days or weeks. Other hard problems have realtime constraints where every microsecond counts, and you still can't afford two passes over one pass..
Just a clarification. While nulls can be rejected based on many different measures of deviation, statistical theory explains which among all possible statistics are the most efficient at rejecting a hypothesis. The prime importance of standard deviation (and variance) is no accident.
Nonsense. The standard deviation is a much better measure to use, due to the three sigma rule. This tells you much more for Gaussian, and approximately Gaussian distributions, which occur very frequently in science and engineering (unlike economics).
Most are. In engineering and science, datasets a either bounded, or explicitly truncated. Therefore central limit theory applies. Frankly, Taleb has a bugbear about heavy tails, when in fact heavy tails are often a symptom of badly thought out measurements in scientific disciplines.
Not usually. A lot of open source (licensed as BSD or variations thereof) is about creating software that will get used EVERYWHERE, and discouraging competing projects that do the same task. The devs don't want more devs involved (if they did they should be using the GPL instead), what they want is to make it so that their software is basically the one and only correct way to do something, ie their vision is it. So they give their code away without any requirement to give back from anybody, or any requirement to improve it, etc. The reasoning is basically that if it's available and anybody can take it and rebrand it and sell it etc, then companies will do the math and won't build their own. So the BSD software "wins".
Don't worry, you have to read up to 10,000 slashdot articles on average before you RTFA by mistake.
Uh, if you're doing it for the million dollars, then your priorities are fucked up. Luckily those who work seriously on the problem often have the right priorities, and those that have the wrong priorities are often delusional wankers. So it's an easy classification problem.
Mate, you're skirting dangerously into crackpot territory. Quoting James Gleick as a scientific authority is demented. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're on thin ice. I'll assume that you have a specific form of differentiability with respect to a particular set of parameters in mind, which you didn't detail to us. Certainly, you're not helping yourself with statements such as "obvious to even the smallest child", "read for once in your life" etc.
Ok then, Number One. Make it so!