Somebody is always left holding the bag. In this case the bitcoins are held entirely by the exchanges so in aggregate they effectively hold the necessary bitcoins statically. If there's no arbitrage between them then movements in the value of bitcoin are shared equally among them. If the hypothetical rich argentinians are somehow unable to turn their bitcoins into us-dollars-in-the-us then they take the loss instead.
Someone suggested it's rich Argentinians who want to get their money out of Argentina. Sounds like there's a market for a US-dollars-located-in-the-US to pesos-located-in-argentina exchange business. That would replace at least two middlemen with just one and eliminate the risk of dealing with an unstable medium of exchange. There's really no reason to involve bitcoin at all, except to facilitate two separate exchanges skimming off a fee.
Not if you can't spend the bitcoin to buy stuff. If you have to convert it into pesos first, the black-market peso-bitcoin dealer is going to take is cut the same as he would for dollars.
I don't know anyone who holds a significant amount of currency, rich or poor. If you're poor you're probably not holding any more money in any form than you need to buy essentials for the next month. If you're better off you might have savings, but they'll be in a bank. If you're rich you have investments.
One of the reasons the rich keep getting richer is because the poor and middle class are willing to lend value (in work or money) to them for cheap or free.
OMG, a brief product description from a consumer electronics company made a simplification in it's marketing materials that is all but pedantically true!
You're right. These things were worked out for aircraft and boats some time ago. For example, in Canada, a pleasure boat owner can share expenses (usually fuel and other expendables, but not intangibles like "wear and tear") with guests. If they pay anything over that amount they are passengers and the trip is commercial. http://www.admiraltylaw.com/pa...
I'd be a bit surprised if the IRS and the insurance industry don't already have guidance for what constitutes a commercial land vehicle trip.
Just announce bad news first thing on Monday morning when everyone is in a bad mood and buy any of your stock that's offered below whatever limit you think is reasonable. Profit.
I was pretty shocked at the minimum state requirements in the US. Last time I rented a car in Nevada it was $5000. I live in Canada and $1 million used to be the recommendation for personal liability twenty years ago. About five years ago my insurance company suggested I bump mine to $2 million. It was an insignificant difference in premiums. And Canada has a much lower rate of lawsuits, and much smaller awards.
I'm pretty sure it was Uber and Lyft since they're the ones that set the prices. The other requirement of ridesharing is that you "share the expenses." Emphasis on expenses. Nobody makes a profit, except perhaps a small fee to the website that matched you.
Uber and Lyft operate on the principle that the person requesting the ride will pay enough to cover the matching fee, the full expenses of the person driving, and profit. That's not ridesharing in any sense, it's a car for hire.
The medical industry has both. There's a lot of paperwork for accountability and traceability, but most of the expense, at least for new things, is directly related to safety and efficacy. It's relatively easy to test whether airplanes fly or not, and you can test safety and reliability without exposing airliners worth of people to danger. You can't do that with drugs and medical devices - you have to test them for efficacy on lots of actual people.
The regulatory agencies have a lot of catching up to do regarding the engineering bits like device security, but their regulations are usually fairly reasonable regarding safety and efficacy.
Many companies sell, either of their own volition or through government encouragement, to the third world for steep discounts already because there's less risk of being sued and for humanitarian reasons. It's naive to look at what a hospital in the US charges their customers (er, patients) and think that's what someone in the third world has to pay.
The safety razor was a rather important invention (invented quite a while ago). Shaving with a straight razor requires skill, is more dangerous, and keeping that razor sharp requires more skill, time, and equipment. Safety razors took over pretty quickly because they're a lot more convenient. I don't know whether the modern multi bladed ones are better than single bladed ones, but I wouldn't call that "technology." It's just marketing.
Usually it's called reckless endangerment, or perhaps criminal negligence. If you take an action that you know will cause death, it usually qualifies as murder though, whether it's telling a lie or pulling a trigger.
If you think there are nasty surprises in human testing, you should see what happens in the preclinical animal testing. Nothing gets put into a human until we're as sure as we can be that it works as desired and isn't harmful in animals.
Even if it were visible (it's not) there's no way you can see or be affected by an LED modulated at 100 mHz. It would look around half as bright as a regular light of the same size though (and use half the power).
The point is that it's line of sight. You have to be directly under the emitter. So, for example, you could stick one over every chair in the airport. Everybody gets their own bandwidth, no interference.
The trick in the article seems to be a system where you can switch between the optical units and regular wifi if you lose contact.
Remember how when Steve Jobs stood up and said "hey, we've got an awesome solution! Webapps!" everyone said it would suck and it did? Remember when Google said the same thing?
I assume you're getting at multiple comparisons because you said "he measures many things."
You're right, the researcher should correct his p-value for the multiple comparisons. Unfortunately, alternatives to p-values ALSO give misleading results if not corrected and, in general, are more difficult to correct quantitatively.
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody is always left holding the bag. In this case the bitcoins are held entirely by the exchanges so in aggregate they effectively hold the necessary bitcoins statically. If there's no arbitrage between them then movements in the value of bitcoin are shared equally among them. If the hypothetical rich argentinians are somehow unable to turn their bitcoins into us-dollars-in-the-us then they take the loss instead.
Yeah. The interesting question is, why?
Someone suggested it's rich Argentinians who want to get their money out of Argentina. Sounds like there's a market for a US-dollars-located-in-the-US to pesos-located-in-argentina exchange business. That would replace at least two middlemen with just one and eliminate the risk of dealing with an unstable medium of exchange. There's really no reason to involve bitcoin at all, except to facilitate two separate exchanges skimming off a fee.
Not if you can't spend the bitcoin to buy stuff. If you have to convert it into pesos first, the black-market peso-bitcoin dealer is going to take is cut the same as he would for dollars.
I don't know anyone who holds a significant amount of currency, rich or poor. If you're poor you're probably not holding any more money in any form than you need to buy essentials for the next month. If you're better off you might have savings, but they'll be in a bank. If you're rich you have investments.
One of the reasons the rich keep getting richer is because the poor and middle class are willing to lend value (in work or money) to them for cheap or free.
Somebody with pesos still has to want your bitcoin. Apparently, somebody does.
"Apple does jack shit for actual product testing"
"those failures occur ON THE LINE DURING BENCH TESTING"
Hm perhaps during your time either as an Apple repair tech or an international photonics expert you were exposed to something cognitively detrimental?
Not being able to get a heart rate reading from an Apple Watch won't kill you.
However, you should google "Ford Pinto" sometime.
OMG, a brief product description from a consumer electronics company made a simplification in it's marketing materials that is all but pedantically true!
You're right. These things were worked out for aircraft and boats some time ago. For example, in Canada, a pleasure boat owner can share expenses (usually fuel and other expendables, but not intangibles like "wear and tear") with guests. If they pay anything over that amount they are passengers and the trip is commercial. http://www.admiraltylaw.com/pa...
I'd be a bit surprised if the IRS and the insurance industry don't already have guidance for what constitutes a commercial land vehicle trip.
Just announce bad news first thing on Monday morning when everyone is in a bad mood and buy any of your stock that's offered below whatever limit you think is reasonable. Profit.
I was pretty shocked at the minimum state requirements in the US. Last time I rented a car in Nevada it was $5000. I live in Canada and $1 million used to be the recommendation for personal liability twenty years ago. About five years ago my insurance company suggested I bump mine to $2 million. It was an insignificant difference in premiums. And Canada has a much lower rate of lawsuits, and much smaller awards.
I'm pretty sure it was Uber and Lyft since they're the ones that set the prices. The other requirement of ridesharing is that you "share the expenses." Emphasis on expenses. Nobody makes a profit, except perhaps a small fee to the website that matched you.
Uber and Lyft operate on the principle that the person requesting the ride will pay enough to cover the matching fee, the full expenses of the person driving, and profit. That's not ridesharing in any sense, it's a car for hire.
The medical industry has both. There's a lot of paperwork for accountability and traceability, but most of the expense, at least for new things, is directly related to safety and efficacy. It's relatively easy to test whether airplanes fly or not, and you can test safety and reliability without exposing airliners worth of people to danger. You can't do that with drugs and medical devices - you have to test them for efficacy on lots of actual people.
The regulatory agencies have a lot of catching up to do regarding the engineering bits like device security, but their regulations are usually fairly reasonable regarding safety and efficacy.
Yeah. Good thing you guys talked yourselves out of public health care. Keep up the good work!
Many companies sell, either of their own volition or through government encouragement, to the third world for steep discounts already because there's less risk of being sued and for humanitarian reasons. It's naive to look at what a hospital in the US charges their customers (er, patients) and think that's what someone in the third world has to pay.
You both forgot "open."
The safety razor was a rather important invention (invented quite a while ago). Shaving with a straight razor requires skill, is more dangerous, and keeping that razor sharp requires more skill, time, and equipment. Safety razors took over pretty quickly because they're a lot more convenient. I don't know whether the modern multi bladed ones are better than single bladed ones, but I wouldn't call that "technology." It's just marketing.
Probably because you're not willing to lie to get what you want. And you're likely not hot.
Usually it's called reckless endangerment, or perhaps criminal negligence. If you take an action that you know will cause death, it usually qualifies as murder though, whether it's telling a lie or pulling a trigger.
If you think there are nasty surprises in human testing, you should see what happens in the preclinical animal testing. Nothing gets put into a human until we're as sure as we can be that it works as desired and isn't harmful in animals.
Even if it were visible (it's not) there's no way you can see or be affected by an LED modulated at 100 mHz. It would look around half as bright as a regular light of the same size though (and use half the power).
The point is that it's line of sight. You have to be directly under the emitter. So, for example, you could stick one over every chair in the airport. Everybody gets their own bandwidth, no interference.
The trick in the article seems to be a system where you can switch between the optical units and regular wifi if you lose contact.
Nah, he was only wounded by astronomy. Some dude with a pencil and paper who signed onto a navy ship as a "naturalist" did the actual deed.
Remember how when Steve Jobs stood up and said "hey, we've got an awesome solution! Webapps!" everyone said it would suck and it did? Remember when Google said the same thing?
I assume you're getting at multiple comparisons because you said "he measures many things."
You're right, the researcher should correct his p-value for the multiple comparisons. Unfortunately, alternatives to p-values ALSO give misleading results if not corrected and, in general, are more difficult to correct quantitatively.