I have to reply to this with the same response I just gave below:
"I addressed that point. What you are saying is an argument against FED being the underwriter of ALL borrowing. It's NOT an argument against these specific loans. My point is that this is being heralded as something out of the ordinary that FED did, but, in fact, it was FED doing what FED does. Whether or not FED should be the entity which is responsible for the levels of issued currency is a DIFFERENT argument.
I addressed that point. What you are saying is an argument against FED being the underwriter of ALL borrowing. It's NOT an argument against these specific loans. My point is that this is being heralded as something out of the ordinary that FED did, but, in fact, it was FED doing what FED does. Whether or not FED should be the entity which is responsible for the levels of issued currency is a DIFFERENT argument.
It calls the money which FED lent "public money." But it wasn't money lent out of the US Treasury. It was money lent by the FED itself. The fact that the loans were branded as "emergency" just made them shorter term and lower interest loans (shorter term loans would always have to be lower interest). FED's main reason for operation is to be the underwriter of all banking. It lends money to banks which then re-lend it in smaller denominations. I am still not seeing why there is this large scale attempt to create an impression that this was tax-payer money which was lent. It was money lent out of FED's reserves. One could argue that those reserves are in-name only. But that's an argument against all the loans that FED makes rather than just these specific loans.
Monopoly is not against the law at all. Having a monopoly is not a crime. Using a monopoly to keep competition out of the market place or out of other market places is a violation of anti-trust laws. That's not a crime (since its not part of the criminal code), but it is against the law. So if Google admitted to placing its own services higher in search result, they might be in hot water on that particular one (that would fall under using monopoly to keep competition out of other markets).
just not the developers' kids. it's the problem of developers who are kids. they get hired in may. write some prototype in 1 month and then spend 3-4 months trying to extend it just to find out that writing "just code" doesn't scale too well.
So Google is against H1 visas now? Oh, wait, indentured servitude is not actual slavery. Of course, they don't have to take the job in the first place. Just like all the immigrants who were enticed to come to the country at the end of 19th century and become indentured servants weren't slaves. They had to SIGN UP. So they "had a choice."
This does show that the pressure to overstate certainty of the results is more common in academia than is otherwise claimed. This is not limited to psychology. Human beings respond to incentives. And lack of requirement to publish data acts as an incentive to overstate certainty.
You joke, but the fact that they are servicing 1.2 trillion for the price of 15 billion mean that they serviced a loan and only made 1.25% on it. That's actually a pretty razor thin margin. Most businesses would not be even considering taking out loans if they knew they could only make 1.25% after all the expenses on the loan.
seems to be to go to the investors. contacting the authorities doesn't seem warranted since the company is being irresponsible rather than criminal. if you hack yourself, you'll end up at risk of getting a large sentence and being on probation for most of your life even if you do get release early. the only "good samaritan" thing to do is to go to let the investors know that their investment is being mismanaged.
sweat shop conditions are fully to be blamed on H1 visas. you are not only competing with people from other countries (where education maybe free) on wages. you are also competing with indebted servants (aka h1 holders) on work conditions.
that's nonsense. at-will employment is what happens when one does NOT have a contract. if you have a contract and a company violates it, they are in bridge.
Absurd. Absolutely absurd. They are not required to pay above minimal wage. And yet because of the market conditions they do pay above minimal wage. How such a comment could have been rated up is absolutely beyond any reason.
Liberman has a long history of chastising public institutions which he thinks are acting irresponsibly. He was known for chastising Hollywood for glorifying sex and violence. He doesn't try to introduce laws which would change that. He just uses his pulpit to shake his head at some people (rather than wag his finger).
Nah. The only time people ask you to discuss your thesis it is to see how well you can introduce a new subject to the un-initiated. Most math and hard sciences PhD's are too esoteric to be of importance. Even people applying to postdoc positions are very often switching specializations.
Not at the fore front. Your experience is only important if you plan to do the same thing you have been doing. But if your work is less repetitive and more ground breaking, how much of your time you spent printing license plates doesn't matter a whole lot.
I know it's hard [googleityoulazyfuck.com] to live in the information age [cia.gov] and even harder to use a calculator and even harder when big numbers are involved, but there you go.
I know, right?! I always require that my audience prove my arguments for me. It's very frustrating to find some dimwits who think that just because I feel like recalling some facts from the soup of my memory, it's on me to document my claims. *I* said it. So *they* must Google it before they even qualify to speak to me again. </sarcasm>
The effects of CO2 can be studied in lab conditions. The effects of any one factors are nowhere near as important to the whole picture as the question whether the entire conglomeration of effects creates an irreversible warming trend. Time-local trends are mostly irrelevant in a study of long-term effects. The world has been both warmer and colder. Which means there are natural factors which create warming and cooling cycles (on the scale of hundredth of thousands of years). What kicks in the natural cooling cycle? Are there effects which cause buffering of warming and cooling trends? Any study of a few variables presented as creating long-term world-wide trends is very dubious.
The problem is that there is huge amounts of money on both sides. "Green" technology is inefficient and requires large government subsidies. The subsidies have been shown to be heavily correlated to political influence (eg, 10% of all green tech subsidy applications were approved while 67% of those approved had board members who were top Obama fund raisers).
He didn't ask for it to be banned. He asked for it to be labeled. Oh, and he didn't introduce a law. He asked Google to exercise its free speech in order to provide a public service.
The right to speak is not a right to speak and not be judged for it. You have a right to be an ass. But if you exercise that right, don't expect not to be treated like an ass.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to reply to this with the same response I just gave below:
"I addressed that point. What you are saying is an argument against FED being the underwriter of ALL borrowing. It's NOT an argument against these specific loans. My point is that this is being heralded as something out of the ordinary that FED did, but, in fact, it was FED doing what FED does. Whether or not FED should be the entity which is responsible for the levels of issued currency is a DIFFERENT argument.
I addressed that point. What you are saying is an argument against FED being the underwriter of ALL borrowing. It's NOT an argument against these specific loans. My point is that this is being heralded as something out of the ordinary that FED did, but, in fact, it was FED doing what FED does. Whether or not FED should be the entity which is responsible for the levels of issued currency is a DIFFERENT argument.
It calls the money which FED lent "public money." But it wasn't money lent out of the US Treasury. It was money lent by the FED itself. The fact that the loans were branded as "emergency" just made them shorter term and lower interest loans (shorter term loans would always have to be lower interest). FED's main reason for operation is to be the underwriter of all banking. It lends money to banks which then re-lend it in smaller denominations. I am still not seeing why there is this large scale attempt to create an impression that this was tax-payer money which was lent. It was money lent out of FED's reserves. One could argue that those reserves are in-name only. But that's an argument against all the loans that FED makes rather than just these specific loans.
Monopoly is not against the law at all. Having a monopoly is not a crime. Using a monopoly to keep competition out of the market place or out of other market places is a violation of anti-trust laws. That's not a crime (since its not part of the criminal code), but it is against the law. So if Google admitted to placing its own services higher in search result, they might be in hot water on that particular one (that would fall under using monopoly to keep competition out of other markets).
just not the developers' kids. it's the problem of developers who are kids. they get hired in may. write some prototype in 1 month and then spend 3-4 months trying to extend it just to find out that writing "just code" doesn't scale too well.
So Google is against H1 visas now? Oh, wait, indentured servitude is not actual slavery. Of course, they don't have to take the job in the first place. Just like all the immigrants who were enticed to come to the country at the end of 19th century and become indentured servants weren't slaves. They had to SIGN UP. So they "had a choice."
This does show that the pressure to overstate certainty of the results is more common in academia than is otherwise claimed. This is not limited to psychology. Human beings respond to incentives. And lack of requirement to publish data acts as an incentive to overstate certainty.
You joke, but the fact that they are servicing 1.2 trillion for the price of 15 billion mean that they serviced a loan and only made 1.25% on it. That's actually a pretty razor thin margin. Most businesses would not be even considering taking out loans if they knew they could only make 1.25% after all the expenses on the loan.
buh. ty.
seems to be to go to the investors. contacting the authorities doesn't seem warranted since the company is being irresponsible rather than criminal. if you hack yourself, you'll end up at risk of getting a large sentence and being on probation for most of your life even if you do get release early. the only "good samaritan" thing to do is to go to let the investors know that their investment is being mismanaged.
sweat shop conditions are fully to be blamed on H1 visas. you are not only competing with people from other countries (where education maybe free) on wages. you are also competing with indebted servants (aka h1 holders) on work conditions.
that's nonsense. at-will employment is what happens when one does NOT have a contract. if you have a contract and a company violates it, they are in bridge.
And yet they all get paid above minimal wage. Free market made is the only explanation.
Absurd. Absolutely absurd. They are not required to pay above minimal wage. And yet because of the market conditions they do pay above minimal wage. How such a comment could have been rated up is absolutely beyond any reason.
will they be limited to 35 hours of work per week each?
Liberman has a long history of chastising public institutions which he thinks are acting irresponsibly. He was known for chastising Hollywood for glorifying sex and violence. He doesn't try to introduce laws which would change that. He just uses his pulpit to shake his head at some people (rather than wag his finger).
Nah. The only time people ask you to discuss your thesis it is to see how well you can introduce a new subject to the un-initiated. Most math and hard sciences PhD's are too esoteric to be of importance. Even people applying to postdoc positions are very often switching specializations.
Not at the fore front. Your experience is only important if you plan to do the same thing you have been doing. But if your work is less repetitive and more ground breaking, how much of your time you spent printing license plates doesn't matter a whole lot.
I know it's hard [googleityoulazyfuck.com] to live in the information age [cia.gov] and even harder to use a calculator and even harder when big numbers are involved, but there you go.
I know, right?! I always require that my audience prove my arguments for me. It's very frustrating to find some dimwits who think that just because I feel like recalling some facts from the soup of my memory, it's on me to document my claims. *I* said it. So *they* must Google it before they even qualify to speak to me again. </sarcasm>
The effects of CO2 can be studied in lab conditions. The effects of any one factors are nowhere near as important to the whole picture as the question whether the entire conglomeration of effects creates an irreversible warming trend. Time-local trends are mostly irrelevant in a study of long-term effects. The world has been both warmer and colder. Which means there are natural factors which create warming and cooling cycles (on the scale of hundredth of thousands of years). What kicks in the natural cooling cycle? Are there effects which cause buffering of warming and cooling trends? Any study of a few variables presented as creating long-term world-wide trends is very dubious.
The problem is that there is huge amounts of money on both sides. "Green" technology is inefficient and requires large government subsidies. The subsidies have been shown to be heavily correlated to political influence (eg, 10% of all green tech subsidy applications were approved while 67% of those approved had board members who were top Obama fund raisers).
He didn't ask for it to be banned. He asked for it to be labeled. Oh, and he didn't introduce a law. He asked Google to exercise its free speech in order to provide a public service.
So? Obama is our President. Just saying....
The right to speak is not a right to speak and not be judged for it. You have a right to be an ass. But if you exercise that right, don't expect not to be treated like an ass.
No, he hasn't. He is fiscally liberal and socially conservative. He wouldn't fit in the modern Republican party by a long shot.