Real bonds are currently considered almost as good an investment as US Treasuries. So much so that Brazil was talking about issuing euro-real bonds (bonds issued in Europe but denominated in reals a la euro-dollar bonds). By cutting USD out of the transaction chain, it does automatically reduce the value of the dollar which would have otherwise been gained through the time-drag.
I remember reading it when it just came out. I remember which cubicle I was sitting in when it just came out. As for belated slashdot posts? how much do you wanna bet this showed up because of a sorting order combined with a y2k bug somewhere in slashdot code? Oh, and since it's 1999, I can post as a non-AC without feeling like a hypocrite.
If the land is yours, you have or at least must have the right to do whatever you want with it, to it, etc. People budding their noses into how other people use their own land are obnoxious trolls whose opinion should not count and would not count in any decent society. Oh, and since trolling is the order of the day slashdot (slashdot died today with an official post containing the word "fail"), humans>trees. But whatever troll on. This whole "fail" fiasco is enough for me. I am adding slashdot to the firewall filter.
I am skirting nothing. I am simply identifying the correct problems instead of attempting to create bigger problems in order to solve smaller problems (something that you are most certainly proposing).
In case actual harm was done, you might be able to pierce the corporate veil in a law suit. Corporate charter is meant to protect against suits based on non-performance on contracts. It's not really meant to protect against collection of damages due to harm to third parties. So if executives collected huge compensation and the polluter went belly up, you should be able to sue the executives.
I mean the kind of system where anyone release PCB into water supply be exposed to a law suit from anyone using that water because the financial value of the water became reduced.
You haven't established that it's a false dichotomy. Please, delay claiming that it is until you have. I don't think using Soviet Union is as much an extreme as you might think. It's the longest known experiment with government regulating industry. And it servers as a good example of what that kinds of system eventually becomes. It's the limit-as-time-approaches-infinity scenario of the philosophy that is based on allowing for the possibility that absolute power does not corrupt absolutely.
They don't own the neighbors property. As soon as your pollution lowers property value of your neighbors they should be able to easily recover that value through a law suit. That's a huge disincentive to pollute. If you pollute government-owned property, the government should be just as easily able to recover the value lost in a law suit. But we don't have a legal system that allows this without lengthy and (therefore pointless) litigation and appeal process.
No system is perfect. The hydro power plant in question was built under Soviet Union. Do you suppose they had no government regulation in the Soviet Union? The question is always which system works better in most cases. No system will work in all cases.
Not if you have a legal system that supports property rights. You know the kind of legal system we are supposed to have but don't. In that kind of system the threat of a law suit keeps everyone honest. In out system chances of losing a suit and being actually held responsible for the damage are a joke.
It's a false analogy because this is a mechanism for designing intelligent being from scratch. My point was that just as in everything else, man-made things will be better than natural things and they will get designed much, much faster. The technology allows for arranging DNA in a pre-designed sequence. Which is the first step to treating creation of new organisms as a programming task. No, that's not what the chips are designed to do, but it is the side-effect of having this technology available now.
that's a false analogy. it presumes that design that is intelligent (by the virtue of being done by humans) is as inefficient as the design based on (often random) restrictions posed by natural conditions and natural adaptation to those conditions renewed by an occasional random mutation.
the government is finally embracing 10-year-old technology. before you know it, they'll abandon fax machines. you have to be innovative from a technological point of view before you can be called innovative.
Right. Besides the aqueducts, medicine, roads, and irrigation, the bully has given us nothing!
Right on, comrades of the United Front of Judea!
Except, of course, the water companies are private and the century of regulation is the only reason they are as inefficient as they are. US Interstate Highway system is the reason that the private train industry went bankrupt and is now constantly on the brink of demise. And the tight AMA controls is the reason for the shortage of doctors.... The line from the life of Brian might be a good argument to defend imperialism, but it's hardly a good argument to defend a strong government regulation that your slight of hand attempted here.
This is known as Leibniz notation.
Newton's notation was to put a dot over a variable to indicate that a derivative with respect to time was taken. But, yes, I do understand that you were talking about the relationship rather than the notation in which it was expressed.
If I remember the book correctly, Cliff Stoll's committee member asked "could you be more specific" a few times; forcing him into more lengthy and involved details every time.
The last crusade was in 1270. Printing press was invented in 1440.
Of course, reality is never as simple as we're making it out to be, and it was a combination of many things that brought Europe into the Renaissance.
The "official" beginning of Renaissance is with Aquinas' argument proving the existence of God. The fact that reason could be used to prove God's existence was taken as evidence that reason was above God. Aquinas died in 1274.
cause and effect: capitalism is result of information exchange. honest exchange (which is what an exchange enumeration token enables) is impossible if exchange of information is limited.
The middle ages were stagnant BECAUSE their economy was not based on scientifical and techonological evolution, the contrary in fact.
I don't think you are really disagreeing, unless you are, again, disagreeing about cause and effect. In which case, I'd point out that to test what is cause and what is effect in any gedanken experiment, it helps to ponder what happens if you eliminate one of the factors. Eliminate Arabic numerals. Do you still get Renaissance? I doubt it. Eliminate printing press, do you still get it? Probably not. Eliminate Aquinas' argument. Do you still get natural philosophers? Sooner or later you will.
The middle ages were actually a period of technological development, contrary to popular opinion.
No, not contrary to public opinion. There is always SOME development that happens, even during stagnation, as long as competition exists. What enabling technologies do is provide a shortcut (a cheat if you will) for something that was already done but was requiring a great deal of resources. Even if there is a very heavy barrier to entry, some will pay the price and they will be responsible for limited incremental development. What the Arabic numerals did was reduce that barrier by a great deal. And their use was revolutionary (as opposed to evolutionary) change.
Slashdot Mirror
Real bonds are currently considered almost as good an investment as US Treasuries. So much so that Brazil was talking about issuing euro-real bonds (bonds issued in Europe but denominated in reals a la euro-dollar bonds). By cutting USD out of the transaction chain, it does automatically reduce the value of the dollar which would have otherwise been gained through the time-drag.
and belated slashdot comments
I remember reading it when it just came out. I remember which cubicle I was sitting in when it just came out. As for belated slashdot posts? how much do you wanna bet this showed up because of a sorting order combined with a y2k bug somewhere in slashdot code? Oh, and since it's 1999, I can post as a non-AC without feeling like a hypocrite.
If the land is yours, you have or at least must have the right to do whatever you want with it, to it, etc. People budding their noses into how other people use their own land are obnoxious trolls whose opinion should not count and would not count in any decent society. Oh, and since trolling is the order of the day slashdot (slashdot died today with an official post containing the word "fail"), humans>trees. But whatever troll on. This whole "fail" fiasco is enough for me. I am adding slashdot to the firewall filter.
I am skirting nothing. I am simply identifying the correct problems instead of attempting to create bigger problems in order to solve smaller problems (something that you are most certainly proposing).
In case actual harm was done, you might be able to pierce the corporate veil in a law suit. Corporate charter is meant to protect against suits based on non-performance on contracts. It's not really meant to protect against collection of damages due to harm to third parties. So if executives collected huge compensation and the polluter went belly up, you should be able to sue the executives.
I mean the kind of system where anyone release PCB into water supply be exposed to a law suit from anyone using that water because the financial value of the water became reduced.
You haven't established that it's a false dichotomy. Please, delay claiming that it is until you have. I don't think using Soviet Union is as much an extreme as you might think. It's the longest known experiment with government regulating industry. And it servers as a good example of what that kinds of system eventually becomes. It's the limit-as-time-approaches-infinity scenario of the philosophy that is based on allowing for the possibility that absolute power does not corrupt absolutely.
what could possibly go wrong
this is the call of every fear monger. welcome to the club.
They don't own the neighbors property. As soon as your pollution lowers property value of your neighbors they should be able to easily recover that value through a law suit. That's a huge disincentive to pollute. If you pollute government-owned property, the government should be just as easily able to recover the value lost in a law suit. But we don't have a legal system that allows this without lengthy and (therefore pointless) litigation and appeal process.
No system is perfect. The hydro power plant in question was built under Soviet Union. Do you suppose they had no government regulation in the Soviet Union? The question is always which system works better in most cases. No system will work in all cases.
Not if you have a legal system that supports property rights. You know the kind of legal system we are supposed to have but don't. In that kind of system the threat of a law suit keeps everyone honest. In out system chances of losing a suit and being actually held responsible for the damage are a joke.
It's a false analogy because this is a mechanism for designing intelligent being from scratch. My point was that just as in everything else, man-made things will be better than natural things and they will get designed much, much faster. The technology allows for arranging DNA in a pre-designed sequence. Which is the first step to treating creation of new organisms as a programming task. No, that's not what the chips are designed to do, but it is the side-effect of having this technology available now.
seems like it's the unlawful-arrest excuse of choice nowadays.
that's a false analogy. it presumes that design that is intelligent (by the virtue of being done by humans) is as inefficient as the design based on (often random) restrictions posed by natural conditions and natural adaptation to those conditions renewed by an occasional random mutation.
the government is finally embracing 10-year-old technology. before you know it, they'll abandon fax machines. you have to be innovative from a technological point of view before you can be called innovative.
yeah, yeah... sleight of hand.
Right. Besides the aqueducts, medicine, roads, and irrigation, the bully has given us nothing!
Right on, comrades of the United Front of Judea!
Except, of course, the water companies are private and the century of regulation is the only reason they are as inefficient as they are. US Interstate Highway system is the reason that the private train industry went bankrupt and is now constantly on the brink of demise. And the tight AMA controls is the reason for the shortage of doctors.... The line from the life of Brian might be a good argument to defend imperialism, but it's hardly a good argument to defend a strong government regulation that your slight of hand attempted here.
F = dP/dt
This is known as Leibniz notation. Newton's notation was to put a dot over a variable to indicate that a derivative with respect to time was taken. But, yes, I do understand that you were talking about the relationship rather than the notation in which it was expressed.
Actually, when I read about anyone who was educated in 1800-1950, I feel like a complete ignoramus.
If I remember the book correctly, Cliff Stoll's committee member asked "could you be more specific" a few times; forcing him into more lengthy and involved details every time.
American Indians never discovered a wheel, by the way.
Really? Then how do you explain the roulette tables?
through pure luck /pun
Of course, reality is never as simple as we're making it out to be, and it was a combination of many things that brought Europe into the Renaissance.
The "official" beginning of Renaissance is with Aquinas' argument proving the existence of God. The fact that reason could be used to prove God's existence was taken as evidence that reason was above God. Aquinas died in 1274.
The middle ages were stagnant BECAUSE their economy was not based on scientifical and techonological evolution, the contrary in fact.
I don't think you are really disagreeing, unless you are, again, disagreeing about cause and effect. In which case, I'd point out that to test what is cause and what is effect in any gedanken experiment, it helps to ponder what happens if you eliminate one of the factors. Eliminate Arabic numerals. Do you still get Renaissance? I doubt it. Eliminate printing press, do you still get it? Probably not. Eliminate Aquinas' argument. Do you still get natural philosophers? Sooner or later you will.
The middle ages were actually a period of technological development, contrary to popular opinion.
No, not contrary to public opinion. There is always SOME development that happens, even during stagnation, as long as competition exists. What enabling technologies do is provide a shortcut (a cheat if you will) for something that was already done but was requiring a great deal of resources. Even if there is a very heavy barrier to entry, some will pay the price and they will be responsible for limited incremental development. What the Arabic numerals did was reduce that barrier by a great deal. And their use was revolutionary (as opposed to evolutionary) change.