The link in previous post doesn't have a lot of specifics, but I suspect that the UK debt is largely held by individual investors and banks. Also, whatever the UK has for a central bank probably needs to sit on some large and liquid dollar investments in order to help regulate the monetary supply and keep the currency stable.
At first I thought that the OP wanted to continue exponential growth by moving people into space. However, there's no place in the solar system that can sustain human life with anywhere near the efficiency of Earth. The resources in terms of energy to move a large portion of the population into space would be enormous, and I don't see how this endeavor could possibly be self-sustaining. It seems that the space option would only aggravate the problem. Then I though that perhaps the OP is suggesting a kind of Logan's Run type approach--we could use space as a means of disposing of excess population. However, there are other solutions for the Logan's Run strategy with far greater energy efficiency and without the problem of generating copious space junk in LEO.
That's more-or-less how I see it. On the security side, no matter how good the encryption and overall infrastructure, you always need to worry about the dumbass in the middle attack, i.e., social networking. In the case or organized crime, they are vulnerable to the same tactics that are used to dismantle "brick and mortar" crime organizations. Do some good detective work, catch someone in the organization who knows enough and is ready to rat everyone else out for some leniency, and you can take the botnet down along with the bad guys.
I have heard this idea before. It assumes that all the climate researchers are somehow in collusion on a vast conspiracy. The problem with your idea is that the top tier universities are full of egotistical bastards who would gladly screw their peers in order to demonstrate that they are smarter than everyone else. These professors tend to do pretty well with grant money and anything that enhances their fame just ensures that the money keeps coming, even though this may be at the expense of others.
Most climatologists who support global warming are employed by public sector or non-profit universities and rely on research grants from the federal government. How is this in any way equivalent to taking money from Big Oil and Coal?
Is the king allowed to use self-depricating humor? If not, would a show on NPR centered on discussions about cars be illegal in Thailand if hosted by the king?
When the stock market crashed in October of 1929, Herbert Hoover was in office. Other than the notable exception of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, his response to the Great Depression was for the most part to do nothing and let the economy take care of itself. He refused to run a budget deficit, and didn't use federal money to stimulate the economy. In fact, he was such a deficit hawk that he ended up raising taxes in order to keep the budget balanced with declining revenues.
FDR was inaugurated March 4, 1933, and by this time the economy was a complete basket case. This was over three years and three months after the market crash of 1929, so your suggestion that FDR's policies turned a small correction into the Great Depression is simply wrong. The US was already three years into the depression, and Hoover's relative inaction, which for the most part would have made today's Ann Rand acolytes happy, clearly didn't allow the economy to heal itself as you suggest.
Right, I'm not impressed with the courts interpretation of novel. One click patent, anyone?
The problem starts with the US Patent Office. Even if the case is a slam dunk in the courts, you can plan on blowing at least $1 fighting the patent. If you're a small business that effectively shuts you out. What we really need for reform is to raise the bar.
I have no idea what you're talking about. "Political science?" Bayesian statistics is used in physics all the time. I use it myself, and I'm a physicist. It's the only form of statistics that allows you to talk about the probability of hypotheses, which is of obvious interest to scientists. I think it's bizarre to be told that, as a scientist, I'm not "supposed" to be interested in that. And I can't imagine why you don't think it makes sense to account for uncertainty in which model is correct when estimating cosmological variables. We are, after all, uncertain about that!
My problem is The FA was short on details, so I'm assuming that they have mutually exclusive models that predict values that differ by a few orders of magnitude. If I were running a casino and I were taking bets on the true size of the universe, I could use an analysis based on Bayesian statistics to set my odds, but that doesn't mean that I should consider this number a true age of the universe. Sure, you can through up our hands and say it's Cosmology so we're uncertain about everything, but that doesn't make this good science. I would much rather see the numbers from the different models plotted on a log scale with marker sizes varying with the relative uncertainty or credibility of the models along with limits from any hard data that we actually have.
An example that I'm a wee bit more familiar with (although I'm not an expert) is the neutron electric dipole moment (nEDM). If the standard model is correct, it's really tiny. If other competitors and variations of the standard model are correct, it can be larger by many orders of magnitude. I could do a similar analysis on models for the nEDM and use this value if I were taking bets on the nEDM. But to say that I know the value of the nEDM would be bogus. I only know that it's less than a certain value as determined by actual experiments.
I still don't buy this Bayesian model approach. It sounds more like political science than real science. Scientists are supposed to (1) make observations (2) generate a model that explains the previous observations (3) use that model to predict the results of new observations. (4) tweak the model and repeat steps 3 & 4 (5) stop when either a multitude of observations yield no inconsistencies, or you run out of funding.
Of course, I understand that with cosmology, testing the model is somewhat difficult and usually involves waiting for a new big science project or new space telescope, but that doesn't mean that we should pretend that this Bayesian meta-model approach makes any sense.
In that case it's a damn shame that the seminal paper on Proton Enhanced Nuclear Induction Spectroscopy was actually published in Chemical Physics Letters. This is probably because they never bothered submitting it to Science. As we all know, PNAS = Papers Not Accepted by Science
Think of all the tax dollars you're saving. Remember, the nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I’m from the government and I’m here to help."
Yes, that's the problem with winning that contest. There is a twist. Every time you go out in public Rodger Daltrey and Pete Townshend follow you around singing that damn song. At first you think it's pretty cool, but after a couple of weeks you want to kick their asses and smash Pete's guitar. Then you realize that you will never get a chance to smash the f***'in guitar because Pete always beats you to it and that's when you're really pissed.
Slashdot Mirror
The link in previous post doesn't have a lot of specifics, but I suspect that the UK debt is largely held by individual investors and banks. Also, whatever the UK has for a central bank probably needs to sit on some large and liquid dollar investments in order to help regulate the monetary supply and keep the currency stable.
At first I thought that the OP wanted to continue exponential growth by moving people into space. However, there's no place in the solar system that can sustain human life with anywhere near the efficiency of Earth. The resources in terms of energy to move a large portion of the population into space would be enormous, and I don't see how this endeavor could possibly be self-sustaining. It seems that the space option would only aggravate the problem. Then I though that perhaps the OP is suggesting a kind of Logan's Run type approach--we could use space as a means of disposing of excess population. However, there are other solutions for the Logan's Run strategy with far greater energy efficiency and without the problem of generating copious space junk in LEO.
The next time I get a cold, I can replace all my lost phlegm with no fear of the dreaded phlegm rejection syndrome.
That's more-or-less how I see it. On the security side, no matter how good the encryption and overall infrastructure, you always need to worry about the dumbass in the middle attack, i.e., social networking. In the case or organized crime, they are vulnerable to the same tactics that are used to dismantle "brick and mortar" crime organizations. Do some good detective work, catch someone in the organization who knows enough and is ready to rat everyone else out for some leniency, and you can take the botnet down along with the bad guys.
I have heard this idea before. It assumes that all the climate researchers are somehow in collusion on a vast conspiracy. The problem with your idea is that the top tier universities are full of egotistical bastards who would gladly screw their peers in order to demonstrate that they are smarter than everyone else. These professors tend to do pretty well with grant money and anything that enhances their fame just ensures that the money keeps coming, even though this may be at the expense of others.
Most climatologists who support global warming are employed by public sector or non-profit universities and rely on research grants from the federal government. How is this in any way equivalent to taking money from Big Oil and Coal?
Or better yet, combine the two...
Osamazilla, rising from his burial in the radioactive sea to demolish Tokyo.
I always figured the Android market share was due to AT&T...
Posted from my iPhone
Is the king allowed to use self-depricating humor? If not, would a show on NPR centered on discussions about cars be illegal in Thailand if hosted by the king?
When the stock market crashed in October of 1929, Herbert Hoover was in office. Other than the notable exception of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, his response to the Great Depression was for the most part to do nothing and let the economy take care of itself. He refused to run a budget deficit, and didn't use federal money to stimulate the economy. In fact, he was such a deficit hawk that he ended up raising taxes in order to keep the budget balanced with declining revenues.
FDR was inaugurated March 4, 1933, and by this time the economy was a complete basket case. This was over three years and three months after the market crash of 1929, so your suggestion that FDR's policies turned a small correction into the Great Depression is simply wrong. The US was already three years into the depression, and Hoover's relative inaction, which for the most part would have made today's Ann Rand acolytes happy, clearly didn't allow the economy to heal itself as you suggest.
The official line in Washington D.C. is that there's a new Cold War brewing
The official line from Fox News is that there's a new Cold War brewing
I believe that the GP is referring to supercritical fluids.
So does this journal have a negative impact factor?
It must be socialism!
You mean Pris doing her programmed job or Pris on the run?
And to add insult to injury, Bell Labs no longer exists.
Right, I'm not impressed with the courts interpretation of novel. One click patent, anyone?
The problem starts with the US Patent Office. Even if the case is a slam dunk in the courts, you can plan on blowing at least $1 fighting the patent. If you're a small business that effectively shuts you out. What we really need for reform is to raise the bar.
I have no idea what you're talking about. "Political science?" Bayesian statistics is used in physics all the time. I use it myself, and I'm a physicist. It's the only form of statistics that allows you to talk about the probability of hypotheses, which is of obvious interest to scientists. I think it's bizarre to be told that, as a scientist, I'm not "supposed" to be interested in that. And I can't imagine why you don't think it makes sense to account for uncertainty in which model is correct when estimating cosmological variables. We are, after all, uncertain about that!
My problem is The FA was short on details, so I'm assuming that they have mutually exclusive models that predict values that differ by a few orders of magnitude. If I were running a casino and I were taking bets on the true size of the universe, I could use an analysis based on Bayesian statistics to set my odds, but that doesn't mean that I should consider this number a true age of the universe. Sure, you can through up our hands and say it's Cosmology so we're uncertain about everything, but that doesn't make this good science. I would much rather see the numbers from the different models plotted on a log scale with marker sizes varying with the relative uncertainty or credibility of the models along with limits from any hard data that we actually have.
An example that I'm a wee bit more familiar with (although I'm not an expert) is the neutron electric dipole moment (nEDM). If the standard model is correct, it's really tiny. If other competitors and variations of the standard model are correct, it can be larger by many orders of magnitude. I could do a similar analysis on models for the nEDM and use this value if I were taking bets on the nEDM. But to say that I know the value of the nEDM would be bogus. I only know that it's less than a certain value as determined by actual experiments.
I still don't buy this Bayesian model approach. It sounds more like political science than real science. Scientists are supposed to
(1) make observations
(2) generate a model that explains the previous observations
(3) use that model to predict the results of new observations.
(4) tweak the model and repeat steps 3 & 4
(5) stop when either a multitude of observations yield no inconsistencies, or you run out of funding.
Of course, I understand that with cosmology, testing the model is somewhat difficult and usually involves waiting for a new big science project or new space telescope, but that doesn't mean that we should pretend that this Bayesian meta-model approach makes any sense.
It's a tin foil hat with an Apple premium.
In that case it's a damn shame that the seminal paper on Proton Enhanced Nuclear Induction Spectroscopy was actually published in Chemical Physics Letters. This is probably because they never bothered submitting it to Science. As we all know, PNAS = Papers Not Accepted by Science
I don't get it. Could you provide a car analogy?
Think of all the tax dollars you're saving. Remember, the nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I’m from the government and I’m here to help."
I thought it was called "Fox News"
Yes, that's the problem with winning that contest. There is a twist. Every time you go out in public Rodger Daltrey and Pete Townshend follow you around singing that damn song. At first you think it's pretty cool, but after a couple of weeks you want to kick their asses and smash Pete's guitar. Then you realize that you will never get a chance to smash the f***'in guitar because Pete always beats you to it and that's when you're really pissed.