Bailing out the banks failed to help overall for the same reason the "quantitative easing" programs failed. No net money was created in the system (since the injections were offset by matching liabilities). Only government deficit spending creates net money, and that's what should have been done. Worrying about government insolvency is silly, since why would a sovereign worry about debt enumerated in a currency of which it is the monopoly issuer? The government doesn't need to borrow money to fund itself. http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system
While that is useful for individuals and corporations, Austrian economics is useless on a macroeconomic level and is part of the shit that has gotten us in the current mess. Austrian theory was developed when the world was on a gold standard, and so it is unsurprising that while it is invaluable in understanding markets and the dangers of an unconstrained fiat monetary system, it is incomplete as a description of the monetary system that we have today. Austrian thinking results in nonsense claims such as that the government needs to borrow to fund itself or that it is revenue constrained. The fact is, Austrian economics is as failed a model as Keneysian economics. http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system
But Gormenghast is free of the supernatural, so it may be a bit of a stretch to call it fantasy. The setting is fictional, but so are the settings of many books which are neither fantasy nor science fiction.
By the way, I was referring to Sci-Fi classics, for fuck's sake! How obvious can that be?
I like Dickens as much as the next guy, and other classic literature: Henry James, Joseph Conrad, etc. But the motherfucking context of this discussion was Sci-Fi!
Yep, I'm referring to "obscure" books. *rolleyes* And how the fuck is End of Eternity dated, for example? Other than the terminology regarding computers? The point the book makes is extremely applicable to our times, with the concentration of all our attention to the inner space of computing, at the expense of outward expansion.
This accounts for the parallax and convergence depth cues, but does it account for accommodation? Are the virtual objects reproduced with actually different focal distances?
Oops, this one fell through the cracks. Apologies for the delay in replying.
Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is a type of modern monetary theory. Does this clear up my use of terminology? By Chartalism I mean neo-Chartalism, which is essentially synonymous with MMT.
I can clearly see that in part our disagreement has to do with you not being familiar with MMT. I highly recommend this concise but complete summary http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1905625 I know you're not likely to read it (and I understand as we are all busy), but that would be a shame. Also, take a look at an MMT proponent's comments on Austrian economists http://pragcap.com/the-austrians-are-intrigued (to an extent he sympathizes with them). Without this background to frame the discussion, there can't be much of a discussion.
PS You misread my comment on the correlation between employment and inflation. I know very well that long term correlation has been disproved. My point is that there is far more ignorance of that fact among the, for lack of a better term, elites, than you allow for.
Jane, nearly every sentence in your post is incorrect. MMT has never been fully applied by any government that I'm aware of, at any period, so saying it got us into this mess is nonsense. Chartalism is far from flawed and I haven't seen a criticism that hasn't been addressed by the MMT community. Your claim that fiat money is the basis of all our problems is like saying that vehicles with wheels are the cause of all road accidents. The alternative is far worse, and in your support of it, you're right in line with the Randians of the Tea Party. It's baloney. Unlike Austrian economics, MMT is not merely a theory but operational reality; it is the lack of the government's understanding of this basic fact that has resulted in a horrible mismanagement and put us in our current predicament. You say that MMT worships the current system, but nothing could be further from the truth. The current system worries about debt and minimizing inflation (with the added mistaken belief among those holding the reins that high unemployment keeps inflation down, and they're loving it). None of this is the case under MMT. Populism and naive enthusiasm is not going to bring us to a sound economic basis; education and a rational approach will. Unfortunately, you as well as the Occupy Wall Street protesters are falling into the irrational approach of becoming but the left's Tea Party, and that saddens me as it represents a lost opportunity to make a positive change in the world.
As much as I admire Ron Paul's honesty, that is a necessary but (by itself) insufficient condition for a good candidate. Sadly, both parties are guilty of committing that one most basic of economic fallacies, the fallacy of composition. http://kingwatch.co.nz/Christian_Political_Economy/fallacy_of_composition.htm Macroeconomic debt is a completely different animal from personal or institutional debt. Why should the US worry about debt which is enumerated in a currency of which it is the monopoly issuer? Printing money is one of the most powerful fiscal tools of a sovereign power with which to exercise some control over its economy, and misunderstandings of exactly how it works among both parties has resulted in the government yielding this tool very poorly. Ron Paul would rather go back to commodity-based currency, which is infantile at best and shows a lack of maturity, a lack of economic sophistication, and a deep-seated ideological bias.
You're ignoring that other little part to this: Hydrogen.
Reaction: Ni62 + p -> Cu63
Energy: 62.92960u - (61.92835u + 1.00728u) = 0.00603u = ~28MeV
Just because Cu63 has more energy than Ni62 doesn't mean that Cu63 has more energy than Ni62 and H1 combined.
The title says it all. It's just a logical extension of division of labor, really.
Forget the current reprogenetics tendencies and the development of genetic screening of embryos; in short order we'll be making better workers. I can just imagine the advertisements for workers with genes turned off for boredom for repetitive low skill tasks, soldiers with atrophied brain areas responsible for emotion, and all the other goodies.
Welcome to the new utopia/dystopia (depending on whether you're an employer or employee).
This is simply brute-forcing the password, relying on a short user password. It is only viable if the user has set up the phone security options in a weak way: selected to encrypt media card with user password only, rather than user password plus device key. So really there is nothing surprising in this attack. If you want good security on a Blackberry, it's a matter of setting it up in the options.
You're shamelessly playing with word semantics here. We use von Neumann machines and the distinction between data and progtam is arbitrary and only in the mind. A key and a system are only separate from a subjective view. There is no reason other than practicality why we have many keys but few crypto systems. One could trivially create a set of systems which can have an exponential number of variations on the underlying algorithm,with automatic generation of these variations. Then the specific set member is your secret. There is no distinction between secret and obscure other than one of degree (at best).
Having said this, I still think most likely this result is due to a subtle experimental error, whether we find the error or not (it could be too subtle for the human mind, we are only boundedly rational agents after all).
I was not referring to straightforward acceleration due to the gravity field. I was referring to Lorentz-violating oscillations between neutrino types. Since only while it is a muon neutrino it may be tachyonic, and the oscillation between types is frequent, it makes no sense to think of this as some acceleration early on while close to the star. Any such effect would be counteracted during the bradyon phases. However, the space-like geodesic of the tachyonic phase gives it sort of short-cut while going through a gravity field. So the fraction of the overall trip spend going through gravity can be exactly what makes the difference.
If neutrinos are tachyonic, they have imaginary mass and can travel faster through a gravitational field (such as Earth's in this experiment) than through the vacuum of space between us and a supernova.
Slashdot Mirror
MMT also predicted the crash, and does a far better job of describing the workings of the current system than the Austrians.
If Krugman is so great, how come he still doesn't get MMT?
The ones that best predicted it, and the failings of attempts at corrections (quantitative easing, etc.), are the ones that understand MMT/neo-Chartalism. http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system
Bailing out the banks failed to help overall for the same reason the "quantitative easing" programs failed. No net money was created in the system (since the injections were offset by matching liabilities). Only government deficit spending creates net money, and that's what should have been done. Worrying about government insolvency is silly, since why would a sovereign worry about debt enumerated in a currency of which it is the monopoly issuer? The government doesn't need to borrow money to fund itself. http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system
While that is useful for individuals and corporations, Austrian economics is useless on a macroeconomic level and is part of the shit that has gotten us in the current mess. Austrian theory was developed when the world was on a gold standard, and so it is unsurprising that while it is invaluable in understanding markets and the dangers of an unconstrained fiat monetary system, it is incomplete as a description of the monetary system that we have today. Austrian thinking results in nonsense claims such as that the government needs to borrow to fund itself or that it is revenue constrained. The fact is, Austrian economics is as failed a model as Keneysian economics. http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system
But Gormenghast is free of the supernatural, so it may be a bit of a stretch to call it fantasy. The setting is fictional, but so are the settings of many books which are neither fantasy nor science fiction.
By the way, I was referring to Sci-Fi classics, for fuck's sake! How obvious can that be?
I like Dickens as much as the next guy, and other classic literature: Henry James, Joseph Conrad, etc. But the motherfucking context of this discussion was Sci-Fi!
ORLY http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2484506&cid=37774636
Yep, I'm referring to "obscure" books. *rolleyes* And how the fuck is End of Eternity dated, for example? Other than the terminology regarding computers? The point the book makes is extremely applicable to our times, with the concentration of all our attention to the inner space of computing, at the expense of outward expansion.
I'm 31. NASA _used_ to be something to look up to. Subsequent to the Apollo missions, it's become worthy of shame.
Seems people are simply not aware of the classics very well, given some startling omissions here. "The End of Eternity" is one of Asimov's greatest works and its lesson is one very applicable today (hint: replace time travel with information technology after reading this book, I got goosebumps thinking about that, shame on NASA for making space boring) http://www.amazon.com/End-Eternity-Isaac-Asimov/dp/0765319187/ I also don't see a single book from the sci-fi grandmasters like Jack Williamson (the timeless classic "The Humanoids" http://www.amazon.com/Humanoids-Novel-Jack-Williamson/dp/0312852533 and it's sequel, etc.) or Clifford Saimak ("Cemetery World" http://www.amazon.com/Cemetery-World-Clifford-D-Simak/dp/0399110712 etc.).
Quite honestly, I am stunned and shocked that the Gormenghast books are not in there. http://www.amazon.com/Gormenghast-Novels-Titus-Groan-Alone/dp/0879516283
This accounts for the parallax and convergence depth cues, but does it account for accommodation? Are the virtual objects reproduced with actually different focal distances?
Oops, this one fell through the cracks. Apologies for the delay in replying.
Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is a type of modern monetary theory. Does this clear up my use of terminology? By Chartalism I mean neo-Chartalism, which is essentially synonymous with MMT.
I can clearly see that in part our disagreement has to do with you not being familiar with MMT. I highly recommend this concise but complete summary http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1905625 I know you're not likely to read it (and I understand as we are all busy), but that would be a shame. Also, take a look at an MMT proponent's comments on Austrian economists http://pragcap.com/the-austrians-are-intrigued (to an extent he sympathizes with them). Without this background to frame the discussion, there can't be much of a discussion.
PS You misread my comment on the correlation between employment and inflation. I know very well that long term correlation has been disproved. My point is that there is far more ignorance of that fact among the, for lack of a better term, elites, than you allow for.
Jane, nearly every sentence in your post is incorrect. MMT has never been fully applied by any government that I'm aware of, at any period, so saying it got us into this mess is nonsense. Chartalism is far from flawed and I haven't seen a criticism that hasn't been addressed by the MMT community. Your claim that fiat money is the basis of all our problems is like saying that vehicles with wheels are the cause of all road accidents. The alternative is far worse, and in your support of it, you're right in line with the Randians of the Tea Party. It's baloney. Unlike Austrian economics, MMT is not merely a theory but operational reality; it is the lack of the government's understanding of this basic fact that has resulted in a horrible mismanagement and put us in our current predicament. You say that MMT worships the current system, but nothing could be further from the truth. The current system worries about debt and minimizing inflation (with the added mistaken belief among those holding the reins that high unemployment keeps inflation down, and they're loving it). None of this is the case under MMT. Populism and naive enthusiasm is not going to bring us to a sound economic basis; education and a rational approach will. Unfortunately, you as well as the Occupy Wall Street protesters are falling into the irrational approach of becoming but the left's Tea Party, and that saddens me as it represents a lost opportunity to make a positive change in the world.
What more do you want?
How about a candidate that understands Modern Monetary Theory? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism
As much as I admire Ron Paul's honesty, that is a necessary but (by itself) insufficient condition for a good candidate. Sadly, both parties are guilty of committing that one most basic of economic fallacies, the fallacy of composition. http://kingwatch.co.nz/Christian_Political_Economy/fallacy_of_composition.htm Macroeconomic debt is a completely different animal from personal or institutional debt. Why should the US worry about debt which is enumerated in a currency of which it is the monopoly issuer? Printing money is one of the most powerful fiscal tools of a sovereign power with which to exercise some control over its economy, and misunderstandings of exactly how it works among both parties has resulted in the government yielding this tool very poorly. Ron Paul would rather go back to commodity-based currency, which is infantile at best and shows a lack of maturity, a lack of economic sophistication, and a deep-seated ideological bias.
You're ignoring that other little part to this: Hydrogen. Reaction: Ni62 + p -> Cu63 Energy: 62.92960u - (61.92835u + 1.00728u) = 0.00603u = ~28MeV
Just because Cu63 has more energy than Ni62 doesn't mean that Cu63 has more energy than Ni62 and H1 combined.
The title says it all. It's just a logical extension of division of labor, really. Forget the current reprogenetics tendencies and the development of genetic screening of embryos; in short order we'll be making better workers. I can just imagine the advertisements for workers with genes turned off for boredom for repetitive low skill tasks, soldiers with atrophied brain areas responsible for emotion, and all the other goodies. Welcome to the new utopia/dystopia (depending on whether you're an employer or employee).
This is simply brute-forcing the password, relying on a short user password. It is only viable if the user has set up the phone security options in a weak way: selected to encrypt media card with user password only, rather than user password plus device key. So really there is nothing surprising in this attack. If you want good security on a Blackberry, it's a matter of setting it up in the options.
You're shamelessly playing with word semantics here. We use von Neumann machines and the distinction between data and progtam is arbitrary and only in the mind. A key and a system are only separate from a subjective view. There is no reason other than practicality why we have many keys but few crypto systems. One could trivially create a set of systems which can have an exponential number of variations on the underlying algorithm,with automatic generation of these variations. Then the specific set member is your secret. There is no distinction between secret and obscure other than one of degree (at best).
Having said this, I still think most likely this result is due to a subtle experimental error, whether we find the error or not (it could be too subtle for the human mind, we are only boundedly rational agents after all).
I was not referring to straightforward acceleration due to the gravity field. I was referring to Lorentz-violating oscillations between neutrino types. Since only while it is a muon neutrino it may be tachyonic, and the oscillation between types is frequent, it makes no sense to think of this as some acceleration early on while close to the star. Any such effect would be counteracted during the bradyon phases. However, the space-like geodesic of the tachyonic phase gives it sort of short-cut while going through a gravity field. So the fraction of the overall trip spend going through gravity can be exactly what makes the difference.
There is no reference light beam, genius. The neutrino detector is deep underground, you can't shine a light through to it.
If neutrinos are tachyonic, they have imaginary mass and can travel faster through a gravitational field (such as Earth's in this experiment) than through the vacuum of space between us and a supernova.
If neutrinos are massless, yes. If they're tachyonic (imaginary mass), they'll be sped up.
"the speed of a tachyon increases as its energy decreases." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon