Tritium is made by shoving lithium or deuterium into a nuclear reactor where it absorbs a neutron and splits apart (lithium) or just keeps the neutron (deuterium).
I do see your point, but I still disagree. The money market is the epitome of capitalism. Essentially, the money market is a way to move capital, very very quickly, with a minimum of impediments. People who make money off the money market are profiting purely from their ownership (or borrowing, or managing for someone else) of capital. Do I think it's a good thing? No. But then I've studied what unfettered capitalism actually means.
The situation actually has interesting parallels to the problem of absentee landlords - both occurred when too much of the capital was concentrated in the hands of a very few, those few were very isolated from actual production (and the people doing it), and were instead concentrating on growing capital purely through controlling capital.
1. It doesn't worry me that professionals don't do better than index funds or monkeys - it's why I don't pay a professional investor to invest for me. It's not worth it. However, putting my money in the stock market is NOT the same as paying roulette in Vegas. In the stock market I have an expected return greater than zero (formally, E(r) > 0, or the market goes up on average). At Vegas, the expected return is less than zero (E(r) 0 (to high probability over sufficiently long periods) E(rVegas) 0 and E(rPro) > E(rVegas)
2. Asking what happens when the index listings themselves come crashing down doesn't mean more than asking what happens when you have a lucky streak in Vegas. The market as a whole drops sometimes. You will lose money if you buy then sell at those times. Sometimes you win money in Vegas too. It doesn't mean that the market is a casino anymore than it means Vegas is a sound investment strategy.
Professional investors appear to be leeches - they demand high salaries but don't add any value, except perhaps for insulating individuals from making emotional trades, which is certainly not worth what they're paid. That DOESN'T mean that the stock market is a casino.
"Or that the professional managers outperformed the Dow Jones Average index only 51 out of 100 times?"
Since the DJIA goes up over time, on average, matching it makes money, over the long term. If a trader, high frequency or otherwise, is making money on average, he is participating in something that is very much NOT like a casino.
CAPITAL-ism is a system for deciding what gets produced, based on the private ownership of capital, and private individuals and groups deciding what to do with their capital. Stock markets such as we have aren't absolutely critical to that, but they're pretty close. "Wall street," the investment of privately held capital, is the epitome of capitalism.
That's not to say that HFT is a necessary part of capitalism, but stock trading IS.
This is what I said: humans are one of the ONLY species to have demonstrated the ability to self regulate their activities so as not to degrade their habitat. That statement does NOT imply that "everyone loves the Earth equally" or that all humans will avoid habitat destruction.
Compare that with other animals. Grazing animals will happily graze out one pasture then move on to another. If they don't have any predators or other factors limiting their activities, they will destroy their own habitat to the point where THAT limits their activities. I suppose there are probably examples of organisms in some very isolated environment that have evolved the ability to self-limit, but they are quite rare.
Despite your emotional arguments, organisms damaging their habitat is the norm. Organisms damaging their habitat extensively when they have no predators is also common. Humans are in the somewhat unique position of having essentially out-competed all our competitors and so we'll either evolve or otherwise develop the very special ability to self-limit, or we'll be harshly limited by physical reality. Unless of course we haven't out-competed our competitors and some virus comes along to put us in our place.
Addressing privacy concerns is one thing. Your approach seems to be along the lines of "look how smart I am, you idiots should do as I do!" which isn't really productive at all. The opposite, actually. Particularly since you're not actually saying anything really intelligent, just ranting.
A moon based optical telescope combines the ease of construction of a ground based telescope (your mirror doesn't have to fold up into a rocket) with the no air to look through advantages of a space based telescope. A moon based radio telescope can be sheltered from the Earth's interference by the bulk of the moon.
Really, your statement doesn't really make any sense.
You know your phone can be tracked by cell triangulation, right? And the phone company keeps logs of who you call, when? Ditto with text messages? And I suppose you've given your carrier your real name and address?
If you're going to be paranoid, at least do it right.
No, he wasn't. But Asimov WAS writing about AI. My smartphone isn't really smart. If Moglen has one that is, and is able to make complex moral decisions, I'd like to see it.
What we need is for more people to NOT take the spyware enabled contract phone from the carrier and not use free-app-in-exchange-for-spying software.
Then whatever you are referencing is no more reliable than late 90's action movies. Shepherds five thousand years ago knew very well that their herds would happily destroy a field by grazing unless they were forcibly moved around, or kept in check by predators. The truth is closer to the opposite of what you've stated: humans are the only animal to have shown the ability to self regulate their activities to maintain a viable habitat.
My question also. The moon would be a potentially more useful target: large telescopes could be set up in vacuum, manufactured and mined products could potentially be returned to Earth or near Earth space projects, and the trip wouldn't necessarily be one way. Sending people one way to Mars seems to be of little practical value.
Doesn't seem like a problem at all - both points illustrate clearly that religious beliefs, no matter what kind, shouldn't influence what is taught in schools.
Probably not in a million. It appears that evolution takes something more like several tens of millions of years to turn something like a housecats into college mathematics professors. On the other hand, we only have one example of that happening and, given the right selective pressure, it could potentially happen more quickly.
The article is about a Christian fundamentalist textbook that is going to be used in Louisiana. So yes, Christians DO (or at least are going to) teach the contents of this article. We're all quite aware that not ALL Christians are insane, but some clearly are, and unfortunately enough are, or at least enough have enough power, that they're going to screw up at least one generation of kids in at least one major area.
Well, if a lot of people uninstall Android, or switch the default search, Google doesn't get any information about those people. That's kind of the point of Android.
But we're not talking about Google going out of their way to stop it - we're talking about why they would choose a chipset that doesn't have good open source support, making it more difficult to install things other than Android. The answer is, Google doesn't particularly want you installing something other than Android, and certainly isn't going to let that factor into decisions about which chipset they use.
People say "consumption" like it's a bad thing. Many people spend much of their work days reading, particularly when they're not at their desks, sitting in front of, you know, a computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Take a pass on Windows Phone until Microsoft supports a standard language?
Tritium is made by shoving lithium or deuterium into a nuclear reactor where it absorbs a neutron and splits apart (lithium) or just keeps the neutron (deuterium).
I do see your point, but I still disagree. The money market is the epitome of capitalism. Essentially, the money market is a way to move capital, very very quickly, with a minimum of impediments. People who make money off the money market are profiting purely from their ownership (or borrowing, or managing for someone else) of capital. Do I think it's a good thing? No. But then I've studied what unfettered capitalism actually means.
The situation actually has interesting parallels to the problem of absentee landlords - both occurred when too much of the capital was concentrated in the hands of a very few, those few were very isolated from actual production (and the people doing it), and were instead concentrating on growing capital purely through controlling capital.
Meh. Slashdot ate my math. Good thing I didn't paste MathML.
It is not fallacious logic.
1. It doesn't worry me that professionals don't do better than index funds or monkeys - it's why I don't pay a professional investor to invest for me. It's not worth it. However, putting my money in the stock market is NOT the same as paying roulette in Vegas. In the stock market I have an expected return greater than zero (formally, E(r) > 0, or the market goes up on average). At Vegas, the expected return is less than zero (E(r) 0 (to high probability over sufficiently long periods)
E(rVegas) 0 and E(rPro) > E(rVegas)
2. Asking what happens when the index listings themselves come crashing down doesn't mean more than asking what happens when you have a lucky streak in Vegas. The market as a whole drops sometimes. You will lose money if you buy then sell at those times. Sometimes you win money in Vegas too. It doesn't mean that the market is a casino anymore than it means Vegas is a sound investment strategy.
Professional investors appear to be leeches - they demand high salaries but don't add any value, except perhaps for insulating individuals from making emotional trades, which is certainly not worth what they're paid. That DOESN'T mean that the stock market is a casino.
"Or that the professional managers outperformed the Dow Jones Average index only 51 out of 100 times?"
Since the DJIA goes up over time, on average, matching it makes money, over the long term. If a trader, high frequency or otherwise, is making money on average, he is participating in something that is very much NOT like a casino.
CAPITAL-ism is a system for deciding what gets produced, based on the private ownership of capital, and private individuals and groups deciding what to do with their capital. Stock markets such as we have aren't absolutely critical to that, but they're pretty close. "Wall street," the investment of privately held capital, is the epitome of capitalism.
That's not to say that HFT is a necessary part of capitalism, but stock trading IS.
This is what I said: humans are one of the ONLY species to have demonstrated the ability to self regulate their activities so as not to degrade their habitat. That statement does NOT imply that "everyone loves the Earth equally" or that all humans will avoid habitat destruction.
Compare that with other animals. Grazing animals will happily graze out one pasture then move on to another. If they don't have any predators or other factors limiting their activities, they will destroy their own habitat to the point where THAT limits their activities. I suppose there are probably examples of organisms in some very isolated environment that have evolved the ability to self-limit, but they are quite rare.
Despite your emotional arguments, organisms damaging their habitat is the norm. Organisms damaging their habitat extensively when they have no predators is also common. Humans are in the somewhat unique position of having essentially out-competed all our competitors and so we'll either evolve or otherwise develop the very special ability to self-limit, or we'll be harshly limited by physical reality. Unless of course we haven't out-competed our competitors and some virus comes along to put us in our place.
Addressing privacy concerns is one thing. Your approach seems to be along the lines of "look how smart I am, you idiots should do as I do!" which isn't really productive at all. The opposite, actually. Particularly since you're not actually saying anything really intelligent, just ranting.
A moon based optical telescope combines the ease of construction of a ground based telescope (your mirror doesn't have to fold up into a rocket) with the no air to look through advantages of a space based telescope. A moon based radio telescope can be sheltered from the Earth's interference by the bulk of the moon.
Really, your statement doesn't really make any sense.
You know your phone can be tracked by cell triangulation, right? And the phone company keeps logs of who you call, when? Ditto with text messages? And I suppose you've given your carrier your real name and address?
If you're going to be paranoid, at least do it right.
No, he wasn't. But Asimov WAS writing about AI. My smartphone isn't really smart. If Moglen has one that is, and is able to make complex moral decisions, I'd like to see it.
What we need is for more people to NOT take the spyware enabled contract phone from the carrier and not use free-app-in-exchange-for-spying software.
Then whatever you are referencing is no more reliable than late 90's action movies. Shepherds five thousand years ago knew very well that their herds would happily destroy a field by grazing unless they were forcibly moved around, or kept in check by predators. The truth is closer to the opposite of what you've stated: humans are the only animal to have shown the ability to self regulate their activities to maintain a viable habitat.
My question also. The moon would be a potentially more useful target: large telescopes could be set up in vacuum, manufactured and mined products could potentially be returned to Earth or near Earth space projects, and the trip wouldn't necessarily be one way. Sending people one way to Mars seems to be of little practical value.
They're going to Mars to die. And you're worried about whether it's selfish to ask them to use a bit of power to send back the video of it?
Try a simple experiment. Pour a glass of water. Blow over the top. See how the water piles up on one side?
"Humans are the only animal known to destroy their own habitat."
The Matrix is not a reliable source for information about ecology and comparative zoology.
If you read the article, they're reporting findings from sea level monitoring stations all around the east coast of North America.
Doesn't seem like a problem at all - both points illustrate clearly that religious beliefs, no matter what kind, shouldn't influence what is taught in schools.
Probably not in a million. It appears that evolution takes something more like several tens of millions of years to turn something like a housecats into college mathematics professors. On the other hand, we only have one example of that happening and, given the right selective pressure, it could potentially happen more quickly.
The article is about a Christian fundamentalist textbook that is going to be used in Louisiana. So yes, Christians DO (or at least are going to) teach the contents of this article. We're all quite aware that not ALL Christians are insane, but some clearly are, and unfortunately enough are, or at least enough have enough power, that they're going to screw up at least one generation of kids in at least one major area.
Well, if a lot of people uninstall Android, or switch the default search, Google doesn't get any information about those people. That's kind of the point of Android.
But we're not talking about Google going out of their way to stop it - we're talking about why they would choose a chipset that doesn't have good open source support, making it more difficult to install things other than Android. The answer is, Google doesn't particularly want you installing something other than Android, and certainly isn't going to let that factor into decisions about which chipset they use.
Why in the world would Google want to go out of their way to make it easy to port something other than android to their tablet?
Um, perhaps you should go back and read more carefully. Or maybe you need a higher resolution display? ;)
People say "consumption" like it's a bad thing. Many people spend much of their work days reading, particularly when they're not at their desks, sitting in front of, you know, a computer.