Naked shorting is almost exactly equal-and-opposite to leveraged long positions, much as normal shorting is equal-and-opposite to nonleveraged long positions.
If you want to ban both kinds of leverage, go ahead: require all shorts to be covered, and all long positions to be backed by cash. But banning leverage on the downside but not the upside inflates prices artificially.
A tiny number of wealthy people custom-retrofitting cars at uneconomical cost isn't really what advocates of plug-in hybrids have in mind, so I wouldn't say the concept is "here" yet.
A huge proportion of leveraged speculation is with uncollateralized loans. You don't think hedge funds are all backing up their lines of credit with tracts of land as collateral, do you?
The US Post Office has, for years, had fairly reliable automated reading of handwritten digits, which is used to auto-sort and -route mail by zipcode. It can handle some pretty terrible handwriting, crazy arrangement on the envelope, and unlikely variations, so only a relatively small percentage of letters are spit out to be read by human eyes.
Its task is made easier by the fact that they're locating and segmenting fixed-length sequences that are usually at least somewhat separated: they're looking for either a 5-digit zip code or a 5-dash-4-digit zip+4, and handwritten digits usually don't connect in the way that cursive letters do. That and you have only 10 digits to deal with, instead of 36 alphanumeric characters plus punctuation, but that particular difference is just a matter of computing power and memory to scale up to ~4x the charset.
Naked shorting, as essentially leveraged speculation on downward price movements, does serve as a useful counter to the massive, and often highly leveraged (i.e. bank-created money) speculation on upward price movements that created the bubble that got us into this mess in the first place.
The Economist provides a nice tongue-in-cheek fake newspaper article from the future, in which regulators ban naked longs to avoid that sort of speculative market manipulation.
One frequently recounted tale is that the first computer system to systematically beat most doctors in diagnosis (in an admittedly narrow domain), the blood-infection diagnosis system MYCIN from Stanford in the early 1970s, was never deployed due in significant part to opposition in principle to having computers do diagnosis. (Another major reason, of course, was that computers at the time were expensive, clunky to interface with, and not already routinely installed at hospitals.)
I suppose the situation may have improved over the past few decades? I research in AI myself (though not bioinformatics-oriented AI), and I'd say probably most people in the field still assume that the medical profession is a bunch of anti-AI luddites, possibly driven by self-interested doctors' organizations who don't like the idea of being "replaced by machines".
(However, currently it's line-of-sight on both ends using low-frequency lasers. That would require one transceiver for each connected house on top of that church tower!)
This sounds like the premise for a B-movie that results in a convergence of a village worth of lasers on a church tower summoning Jesus and/or Satan.
Like Phil Gramm, McCain's economic advisor, who calls people "whiners" if they think the economy is doing badly?
Heck, conservatives are most of the elite---Bush beat Kerry by huge margins among people making $200k+, even in states that Kerry otherwise won handily (he won 64-35% among that demographic in California). Rich liberals are a fairly small subset of overall rich people---even in California, conservative aerospace/defense industry, real-estate, and import/export businessmen far outnumber Hollywood actors and tech bosses.
She's only really in the Democratic Party at all because she has liberal views on social issues (abortion, gay rights, etc.), but she's quite conservative on business/economic issues.
She also happens to be married to Richard C. Blum, chairman of Blum Capital Partners, who as you might suspect rather like the idea of a financial-industry bailout.
I assume what the previous poster meant by "purely on gas" is the situation once you've outrun the electric-only range, so in effect all the power needs to come from burning gasoline. The fact that you burn the gasoline to charge batteries to power an electric engine rather than powering the axles directly doesn't really affect the fact that the energy is ultimately all coming from burning gas.
Of course your proposed measures could be used to compute the mpg: if you know the miles/kW of the electric engine, and the kW/gallon of the generator, you can get the miles/gallon.
Google alone has hired 10,000 new employees over the past year. Microsoft has added 11,000. I know people who have no CS degrees at all, but who have managed to get some relevant experience on their resumes (usually something web 2.0-ish) being fought over in signing-bonus bidding wars, because everyone who isn't Microsoft or Google is desperate to find some good talent out of the pool that's left.
They didn't teach us the algorithms that are actually needed to solve it, but they taught us how to pose questions as linear-programming problems, how to solve simple 2d ones geometrically, and use off-the-shelf computer tools to solve more complex ones. I.e., exactly what this grad student did.
Sure, when you're stuck on a windows box with time to kill, there's always web games if it's got an internet connection and a browser, but I like being able to assume that I'll always have Minesweeper and FreeCell to waste my time.
I've rarely run into problems like that when I wrote decent stubs (at least a few sentences, ideally, say, two paragraphs) with footnotes to the sources I used, which were things other than geocities websites; for example, publications of the local government, or books published by the local historical society, or articles in at least semi-mainstream media.
Even then you occasionally run into someone who wants to delete it, but it really is much less frequent if your articles are solidly sourced.
The biggest problem for me isn't the default blocking and a need for me to manually verify if I do indeed want to visit the site after seeing the warning. It's that I can't then tell it to go away. Even if I click "ignore", it'll then load the site, but it'll pop up the red block screen every single time I click on another link to another part of the site. It also throws away POST data when doing this, so I can't use search features on sites. There's no way to add an exception, like "foo.com really is OK, I mean it, now shut the fuck up about it forever".
The only way to get that functionality is to turn the "anti-phishing protection" off entirely, so that's what I did of necessity, since it's not usable otherwise.
Basically any site that includes a forum can get blocked if someone in the forum links to something considered malware. I actually have no idea how places like Slashdot haven't gotten blocked for that (maybe they special-case high-profile sites?), but a bunch of smaller sites with forums like ratebeer and Gamasutra have gotten blocked repeatedly.
I mean, fundamentally, a giant mechanical clock with a large escapement on the outside functioning as both sculpture and working escapement is kind of cool, technologically.
Some of the variations that make this an art piece are also interesting technologically, though I haven't seen them all explained, mostly the ways it varies from operating in a purely predictable way "like clockwork". For example, the pendulum sometimes appears to catch slightly, the time lags backwards, then races ahead, etc.
Nielsen obviously can't prevent Wikipedia from having templates listing, say, television stations in the New York City area, even if it happens to be the same ones Nielsen lists. They at least have a borderline claim on using the specific names and numbers from their Designated Market Area system, though.
A clause like this is attempting to inflate citation counts beyond what would normally be expected, mainly by forcing even marginal use to result in a citation when often it wouldn't merit one (I don't cite, say, the manual for the Dell computer I use).
Citations are generally a matter of academic integrity (giving credit where it's due), and assistance to the reader (pointing out sources for statements that are argued for or proved elsewhere, and further reading). I rather dislike attempts to interfere in that judgment process.
Generally of course I do cite the paper for software I use, though it depends somewhat on the journal style (some journals prefer footnotes for software instead of normal references, unless the software's paper is something other than a manual, e.g. also proved some new result that you rely on).
It's a complicated public/private structure, and basically anything less than a book-length explanation of it oversimplifies in one way or another. It's the de facto U.S. central bank, and the main federal agency regulating banking, but also has significant private components. Its funding sources are technically ownership and fees by various private banks, but restricted in such ways that it's de facto more like government regulation and bank taxes than ownership and fees between private entities. Its board of governors are appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. It's also effectively an operational arm of the U.S. Treasury for everything from tax collection to paper-money supply to treasury-bond issuance and interest payments.
More to the point, its solvency is implicitly guaranteed by the U.S. government, much like that of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were (and those two quasi-private entities were actually de facto considerably more private than the Fed is).
If party A is using a service provided by party B that you think is immoral, what's the right way to go about stopping it? Well, at both ends. You try to convince party A not to use the service, and you try to convince party B not to provide it.
In this case, you're right, these countries shouldn't allow unsafe waste-processing, and shouldn't allow importing of waste unless it can be safely processed. That's one place to put pressure. However it's also perfectly legitimate to put pressure at the other end: US companies shouldn't be exporting waste except to safe processing facilities.
Although only administrators can actually delete articles, contested deletions are decided on the basis of a discussion/vote that anyone with at least a semi-established account, admin or not, can participate in. Some of the more aggressive pro-deletion nominators/voters aren't actually admins at all, in fact.
Traditionally, the liberal view on science has been one of a fair amount of skepticism. Especially from the mid 20th century, this was largely a reaction to a whole bunch of junk science that had somehow gotten into the mainstream, from phrenology to racial science, leading to a rethinking of the relationships between science as a fallible sociological process and science as a truth-uncovering process.
Now that things have become politicized in the sense of two hot-button "liberal" issues being supported by science. with "conservatives" happening to be on the "anti-science" side on those two issues, it leads to an odd reversal. I hear things from political liberals about accepting scientific conclusions as dogmatic and un-questionable (except perhaps by people with PhDs and specialized training in the specific area), which until quite recently would've been seen as a highly reactionary and conservative viewpoint. And I hear conservatives talking about things like respecting "different truths" that come from different cultural traditions that until quite recently would've been more likely to come from a left-wing post-colonial theory academic than a right-wing politician.
Slashdot Mirror
Naked shorting is almost exactly equal-and-opposite to leveraged long positions, much as normal shorting is equal-and-opposite to nonleveraged long positions.
If you want to ban both kinds of leverage, go ahead: require all shorts to be covered, and all long positions to be backed by cash. But banning leverage on the downside but not the upside inflates prices artificially.
A tiny number of wealthy people custom-retrofitting cars at uneconomical cost isn't really what advocates of plug-in hybrids have in mind, so I wouldn't say the concept is "here" yet.
A huge proportion of leveraged speculation is with uncollateralized loans. You don't think hedge funds are all backing up their lines of credit with tracts of land as collateral, do you?
The US Post Office has, for years, had fairly reliable automated reading of handwritten digits, which is used to auto-sort and -route mail by zipcode. It can handle some pretty terrible handwriting, crazy arrangement on the envelope, and unlikely variations, so only a relatively small percentage of letters are spit out to be read by human eyes.
Its task is made easier by the fact that they're locating and segmenting fixed-length sequences that are usually at least somewhat separated: they're looking for either a 5-digit zip code or a 5-dash-4-digit zip+4, and handwritten digits usually don't connect in the way that cursive letters do. That and you have only 10 digits to deal with, instead of 36 alphanumeric characters plus punctuation, but that particular difference is just a matter of computing power and memory to scale up to ~4x the charset.
Naked shorting, as essentially leveraged speculation on downward price movements, does serve as a useful counter to the massive, and often highly leveraged (i.e. bank-created money) speculation on upward price movements that created the bubble that got us into this mess in the first place.
The Economist provides a nice tongue-in-cheek fake newspaper article from the future, in which regulators ban naked longs to avoid that sort of speculative market manipulation.
One frequently recounted tale is that the first computer system to systematically beat most doctors in diagnosis (in an admittedly narrow domain), the blood-infection diagnosis system MYCIN from Stanford in the early 1970s, was never deployed due in significant part to opposition in principle to having computers do diagnosis. (Another major reason, of course, was that computers at the time were expensive, clunky to interface with, and not already routinely installed at hospitals.)
I suppose the situation may have improved over the past few decades? I research in AI myself (though not bioinformatics-oriented AI), and I'd say probably most people in the field still assume that the medical profession is a bunch of anti-AI luddites, possibly driven by self-interested doctors' organizations who don't like the idea of being "replaced by machines".
(However, currently it's line-of-sight on both ends using low-frequency lasers. That would require one transceiver for each connected house on top of that church tower!)
This sounds like the premise for a B-movie that results in a convergence of a village worth of lasers on a church tower summoning Jesus and/or Satan.
Like Phil Gramm, McCain's economic advisor, who calls people "whiners" if they think the economy is doing badly?
Heck, conservatives are most of the elite---Bush beat Kerry by huge margins among people making $200k+, even in states that Kerry otherwise won handily (he won 64-35% among that demographic in California). Rich liberals are a fairly small subset of overall rich people---even in California, conservative aerospace/defense industry, real-estate, and import/export businessmen far outnumber Hollywood actors and tech bosses.
She's only really in the Democratic Party at all because she has liberal views on social issues (abortion, gay rights, etc.), but she's quite conservative on business/economic issues.
She also happens to be married to Richard C. Blum, chairman of Blum Capital Partners, who as you might suspect rather like the idea of a financial-industry bailout.
I assume what the previous poster meant by "purely on gas" is the situation once you've outrun the electric-only range, so in effect all the power needs to come from burning gasoline. The fact that you burn the gasoline to charge batteries to power an electric engine rather than powering the axles directly doesn't really affect the fact that the energy is ultimately all coming from burning gas.
Of course your proposed measures could be used to compute the mpg: if you know the miles/kW of the electric engine, and the kW/gallon of the generator, you can get the miles/gallon.
Google alone has hired 10,000 new employees over the past year. Microsoft has added 11,000. I know people who have no CS degrees at all, but who have managed to get some relevant experience on their resumes (usually something web 2.0-ish) being fought over in signing-bonus bidding wars, because everyone who isn't Microsoft or Google is desperate to find some good talent out of the pool that's left.
They didn't teach us the algorithms that are actually needed to solve it, but they taught us how to pose questions as linear-programming problems, how to solve simple 2d ones geometrically, and use off-the-shelf computer tools to solve more complex ones. I.e., exactly what this grad student did.
Sure, when you're stuck on a windows box with time to kill, there's always web games if it's got an internet connection and a browser, but I like being able to assume that I'll always have Minesweeper and FreeCell to waste my time.
I've rarely run into problems like that when I wrote decent stubs (at least a few sentences, ideally, say, two paragraphs) with footnotes to the sources I used, which were things other than geocities websites; for example, publications of the local government, or books published by the local historical society, or articles in at least semi-mainstream media.
Even then you occasionally run into someone who wants to delete it, but it really is much less frequent if your articles are solidly sourced.
The biggest problem for me isn't the default blocking and a need for me to manually verify if I do indeed want to visit the site after seeing the warning. It's that I can't then tell it to go away. Even if I click "ignore", it'll then load the site, but it'll pop up the red block screen every single time I click on another link to another part of the site. It also throws away POST data when doing this, so I can't use search features on sites. There's no way to add an exception, like "foo.com really is OK, I mean it, now shut the fuck up about it forever".
The only way to get that functionality is to turn the "anti-phishing protection" off entirely, so that's what I did of necessity, since it's not usable otherwise.
Basically any site that includes a forum can get blocked if someone in the forum links to something considered malware. I actually have no idea how places like Slashdot haven't gotten blocked for that (maybe they special-case high-profile sites?), but a bunch of smaller sites with forums like ratebeer and Gamasutra have gotten blocked repeatedly.
I mean, fundamentally, a giant mechanical clock with a large escapement on the outside functioning as both sculpture and working escapement is kind of cool, technologically.
Some of the variations that make this an art piece are also interesting technologically, though I haven't seen them all explained, mostly the ways it varies from operating in a purely predictable way "like clockwork". For example, the pendulum sometimes appears to catch slightly, the time lags backwards, then races ahead, etc.
Nielsen obviously can't prevent Wikipedia from having templates listing, say, television stations in the New York City area, even if it happens to be the same ones Nielsen lists. They at least have a borderline claim on using the specific names and numbers from their Designated Market Area system, though.
A clause like this is attempting to inflate citation counts beyond what would normally be expected, mainly by forcing even marginal use to result in a citation when often it wouldn't merit one (I don't cite, say, the manual for the Dell computer I use).
Citations are generally a matter of academic integrity (giving credit where it's due), and assistance to the reader (pointing out sources for statements that are argued for or proved elsewhere, and further reading). I rather dislike attempts to interfere in that judgment process.
Generally of course I do cite the paper for software I use, though it depends somewhat on the journal style (some journals prefer footnotes for software instead of normal references, unless the software's paper is something other than a manual, e.g. also proved some new result that you rely on).
It's a complicated public/private structure, and basically anything less than a book-length explanation of it oversimplifies in one way or another. It's the de facto U.S. central bank, and the main federal agency regulating banking, but also has significant private components. Its funding sources are technically ownership and fees by various private banks, but restricted in such ways that it's de facto more like government regulation and bank taxes than ownership and fees between private entities. Its board of governors are appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. It's also effectively an operational arm of the U.S. Treasury for everything from tax collection to paper-money supply to treasury-bond issuance and interest payments.
More to the point, its solvency is implicitly guaranteed by the U.S. government, much like that of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were (and those two quasi-private entities were actually de facto considerably more private than the Fed is).
If party A is using a service provided by party B that you think is immoral, what's the right way to go about stopping it? Well, at both ends. You try to convince party A not to use the service, and you try to convince party B not to provide it.
In this case, you're right, these countries shouldn't allow unsafe waste-processing, and shouldn't allow importing of waste unless it can be safely processed. That's one place to put pressure. However it's also perfectly legitimate to put pressure at the other end: US companies shouldn't be exporting waste except to safe processing facilities.
A household income of $101,000 puts you in the top 15% of households---i.e. 85% make less.
The people actually in the middle---even at the upper end of middle, say, 80th percentile---fall within Stanford's free tuition program.
Although only administrators can actually delete articles, contested deletions are decided on the basis of a discussion/vote that anyone with at least a semi-established account, admin or not, can participate in. Some of the more aggressive pro-deletion nominators/voters aren't actually admins at all, in fact.
Traditionally, the liberal view on science has been one of a fair amount of skepticism. Especially from the mid 20th century, this was largely a reaction to a whole bunch of junk science that had somehow gotten into the mainstream, from phrenology to racial science, leading to a rethinking of the relationships between science as a fallible sociological process and science as a truth-uncovering process.
Now that things have become politicized in the sense of two hot-button "liberal" issues being supported by science. with "conservatives" happening to be on the "anti-science" side on those two issues, it leads to an odd reversal. I hear things from political liberals about accepting scientific conclusions as dogmatic and un-questionable (except perhaps by people with PhDs and specialized training in the specific area), which until quite recently would've been seen as a highly reactionary and conservative viewpoint. And I hear conservatives talking about things like respecting "different truths" that come from different cultural traditions that until quite recently would've been more likely to come from a left-wing post-colonial theory academic than a right-wing politician.