As an Ivy Leaguer, I have to ask. What the hell does having an Ivy league pedigree have the do with anything? If you are enrolled in one, then you need to get over yourself and your narcisism and realize that the overwhelming majority of very smart people in this country do not and did not attend one of those institutions. There simply are not enough slots and too many well-connected, not-so-smart people out there.
Let's see:
280MM Americans.
Assume the average American is 40, then we can estimate the typical class size at 7MM students.
The 7 Ivies have maybe ~70k american undergrad students combined. So that's about one slot for every 400 american students. Do you really think that the typical Ivy student is in the top.25% of all american students in intelligence? From experience I'd say, closer to top 10%. But that would mean that for every 1 Ivy student there are 80 non-Ivy students in america who are just as smart. Got it, 80 to 1, think about that. No matter how much you move my figures around you aren't going to end up anywhere near 1 to 1. For graduate students its a little closer, because there are maybe 3x as many grad students at Ivies as undergrads and from my experience they are more like top 5% of population in Ivy grad school (at least in my program.) Still that leavs a ratio of more than 10 to 1.
As much as I have benefited from the Ivy myth, I wish that people would get a clue.
If you had bothered to read the article. You would discover that there is no reporting mistake. All of this is very clearly spelled out in the article.
I can see a couple of problems. Consider the current situation. In economic terms, there is currently a large barrier to entry for suing a company. There are also potentially large rewards for winning due to our moderately out of control tort system. As an agent in the economy I will sue a company if the expectation value of my winnings is greater than the cost to play (the legal fees plus the expectation value of the losses from a countersuit). Add to this the fact that the lawyers are willing to sue pro bono if 1/3 the expectation value of winning is greater than their internal costs. All of this balances out to give us our current highly litigious society.
Now imagine what happens if we lower the cost of bringing a law suit to just the expectation value of the loss from any countersuit. It is hard for me to see how this would not lead to a more litigious society with even more lawyers earning even more. And I think this would be a bad thing.
You might think that the ability to countersue would bring balance. But, in order to mount a proper countersuit a company would have to evenly match their team against your defense (while paying for your defense) this would quickly bleed companies dry. Also, the worst the countersuit could do is force me into bankruptcy which essentially caps my potential losses to my current net worth. So the expectation value of losses will generally be considerably smaller than the expectation value of the winnings.
Wouldn't it have been cheaper to buy a few law firms?
The short answer is that SCO cannot legally buy a law firm. In the US, law firms are regulated and a special class of partnerships. They generally cannot be bought by a corporation. This is to prevent conflict of interests between the parent corporation and the law firm's clients. It is also to protect the lawyer-client confidentiality rules. This is a very good thing.
I have not found any good links to back this up but is has been a topic of conversation that I have had with friends who are lawyers on multiple occasions. I assume they knew what they were talking about, and any error in what I have said is due to my lack of listening skills.
Precisely, and as with all commodities there are considerable fortunes to be made from transportation, storage, servicing, etc. That is where the real margins are.
You're little find and replace is cute, but that's it.
Thank you for the left-handed compliment. It is so rare that one gets a compliment on this board; particularly when things go off topic. So in turn, may I say that you display a better than average knowledge of economics.
You don't have to be anti-consumer to be pro-business, which was my entire point and the fata flaw of your rebuttal.
You made no such statement. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, if you will do the same in turn by believing me when I say that this was precisely the intention of my rebuttal. It would appear we are both too shallow for the other's subtleties. Bummer.
True. BTW, I like a straw man argument just as much as the next guy, but you entirely missed my point. The "angry left" will always find something they don't like about Bush. Just as the "compassionate right" will always find something they can't stand about Clinton. Of course, what with both of them being so sleezy, there is plenty of fuel for the fire at both camps.
It's really easy to see any pro-business move as bad for ordinary citizens, but it's also really easy for the average, or even above-average citizen to fail to notice that many taxes are imposed on businesses to hide them from voters. After you do that for a while it becomes tremendously expensive to do business, and companies start moving their labor offshore, or just plain going out of business (sound familliar?).
There's noting wrong with being pro-business. Businesses pay your salary! Corporations are a key part of our economy. You have to pick one. Do you want economic recovery and reduced unemployment, or do you want an administration and congress that is not pro-business? You can't have it both ways. You can try, but you'll be headed for that financial disaster you're talking about. Keep that in mind when you vote.
Or put another way.
It's really easy to see any pro-consumer move as bad for ordinary corporations, but it's also really easy for the average, or even above-average corporation to fail to notice that many taxes are imposed on consumers to hide them from corporate lobbyists. After you do that for a while it becomes tremendously expensive to live in America, and consumers start moving to other markets, or just plain going bankrupt (sound familliar? If not, see note #1).
There's nothing wrong with being pro-consumer. Consumers buy your goods! Consumers are a key part of our economy (see note #2). You have to pick one. Do you want economic recovery and reduced unemployment, or do you want an administration and congress that is not pro-consumer? You can't have it both ways. You can try, but you'll be headed for that financial disaster you're talking about. Keep that in mind when you vote.
Notes:
1) 2001 and 2002 had the highest number personal bankruptcies in the last 20 years. While business bankruptcies were the third and fourth lowest for the same period. BTW, take a good look at the change in the ratio of personal to business filings over the last 20 years.
2) Consumer spending represent 70% of all private sector consumption. Business spending is only 30%. This is why consumer confidence is so very important to our economic health.
Let's assume that is true. Let's also assume the average tax rate (no, not marginal) for the top 10% is 30%. Then by raising the average tax rate of the top 10% of the country by a mere 3%, we could eliminate taxes on the entire bottom 90%. Sounds good to me. Stop whining about the top 10% they aren't going anywhere; their customer's are mostly here.
...military was cut down to a force smaller than that of pre-perl harbor. I like having big guns protecting me.
Yes, that would be terrible. It would be just like before Pearl Harbor, when we were powerless to stop the crazed Mexican and Canadian hoardes from invading us, shooting our women and raping our horses. Fortunately we have the patriot producers of Blazing Saddles to thank for giving us a permanent reminder so that we may "never forget" those dark days.
However this is only applicable at the small community level. As you say, large scale communism is completely infeasible. Any small scale communism would eventually be overwhelmed by communities that chose a capitalist path, unless specifically protected by law (see, Amish.)
I should know better than to feed a troll, but f'it. I've done analyst work in this industry. Ask any industry analyst and they will tell you basically the same thing. This has nothing to do with hitting the sales ceiling and everything to do with industry's seasonal sales cycle, and the industry's generational sales cycle. I focused on the latter as it is more relevent in the long term. If you are going to knock someone elses comments, at least have the balls to show your identity.
"your mythical statistical world with 2 variables". I'm glad you weighed in from the real world where statistics (actually I had refered only to OED's), time and sales do not exist but are merely mythical. Time for your medications.
If you change the words around a little, it sounds just like the hobby computing industry complaining about Microsoft's Basic license.
"this won't. i've worked as a programmer, and knowing the mentality of programmers, it won't happen that way. they won't buy into it. if they do, the majority if them will have broken it within a few weeks. it's not worth it to the company to try to sue each and every one of them. not to mention programmers do a lot of their work under the table.
the only part of the license that is wrong is the fact that you can't make an improvement to the software with the software and sell the improved software. most experienced programmers could make the same software,... it just might take a little longer. there's no reason for such a license. i hope the company understands that they're not going to make it in the software world."
Consider that:
1) PSX has ~100 million units since it was released.
2) PS2 has sold ~50 million units since its release.
3) Growth curves typically see a decline in growth past the halfway point.
From this we may conclude:
A) PS2 has not yet saturated their market.
B) PS2 unit sales are probably just past their halfway point.
True, economics is not zero sum. But it is a finite sum game, where the sum may increase and decrease depending on a large variety of factors. One of those factors is the efficiency of the marketplace. Defense contract is a notoriously inefficient marketplace, one in which literally trillions of dollars have been lost track of over the last decade. Might those same dollars not have been better spent in more efficient markets, ones which would have likewise had more siginificant feedback into growing the economy rather than just the personal bank accounts of a few well connected individuals.
Let's suppose that half of the touniment bots are using the random choice strategy and the others are suboptimal. Aren't the odds overwhelmingly in favor of one fo the random bots winning the tourni? How is it ever an advantage to not use the random strategy?
I suppose, but in that case one is better off sticking with the standards as defined by authoritative modern sources such as Merriam Webster's dictionary or the Oxford English Dictionary or Bartleby or "The Complete Works of Shakespeare", etc., etc., etc.
I intended no specific offense to you; "hypocrisy" can be such a loaded word. My intent was merely to point out the technical.
Allow me to better elucidated why his second query could have been true. Although it is conventional to quote with italics in this forum, if the author had intended specifically to enhance the prior hypocrisy by quoting with italics then he would have been correctly using irony as a literary device. Admittedly, without specifically pointing this out he likely would have been the only one privy to his intentions.
Regarding "forte", if the French would only add an accent to the end they would save us yanks a bit of trouble. Naturally, they are far too impetuous towards us to consider any such petition.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
As an Ivy Leaguer, I have to ask. What the hell does having an Ivy league pedigree have the do with anything? If you are enrolled in one, then you need to get over yourself and your narcisism and realize that the overwhelming majority of very smart people in this country do not and did not attend one of those institutions. There simply are not enough slots and too many well-connected, not-so-smart people out there.
.25% of all american students in intelligence? From experience I'd say, closer to top 10%. But that would mean that for every 1 Ivy student there are 80 non-Ivy students in america who are just as smart. Got it, 80 to 1, think about that. No matter how much you move my figures around you aren't going to end up anywhere near 1 to 1. For graduate students its a little closer, because there are maybe 3x as many grad students at Ivies as undergrads and from my experience they are more like top 5% of population in Ivy grad school (at least in my program.) Still that leavs a ratio of more than 10 to 1.
Let's see:
280MM Americans.
Assume the average American is 40, then we can estimate the typical class size at 7MM students. The 7 Ivies have maybe ~70k american undergrad students combined. So that's about one slot for every 400 american students. Do you really think that the typical Ivy student is in the top
As much as I have benefited from the Ivy myth, I wish that people would get a clue.
You, sir, are the worst kind of fool.
BTW, you do know where Feynman recieved his Ph.D., don't you? Here's a little hint, it starts with a 'P' not an 'M'.
Hey, Mods, this guy should be (-1:troll).
If you had bothered to read the article. You would discover that there is no reporting mistake. All of this is very clearly spelled out in the article.
But I'm gonna play devil's on this
I mean "devil's advocate"... arghh. This is why he never hires me. no attention to detail.
Neat idea. But I'm gonna play devil's on this.
I can see a couple of problems. Consider the current situation. In economic terms, there is currently a large barrier to entry for suing a company. There are also potentially large rewards for winning due to our moderately out of control tort system. As an agent in the economy I will sue a company if the expectation value of my winnings is greater than the cost to play (the legal fees plus the expectation value of the losses from a countersuit). Add to this the fact that the lawyers are willing to sue pro bono if 1/3 the expectation value of winning is greater than their internal costs. All of this balances out to give us our current highly litigious society.
Now imagine what happens if we lower the cost of bringing a law suit to just the expectation value of the loss from any countersuit. It is hard for me to see how this would not lead to a more litigious society with even more lawyers earning even more. And I think this would be a bad thing.
You might think that the ability to countersue would bring balance. But, in order to mount a proper countersuit a company would have to evenly match their team against your defense (while paying for your defense) this would quickly bleed companies dry. Also, the worst the countersuit could do is force me into bankruptcy which essentially caps my potential losses to my current net worth. So the expectation value of losses will generally be considerably smaller than the expectation value of the winnings.
Ultimately, the lawers would be the real winners.
Wouldn't it have been cheaper to buy a few law firms?
The short answer is that SCO cannot legally buy a law firm. In the US, law firms are regulated and a special class of partnerships. They generally cannot be bought by a corporation. This is to prevent conflict of interests between the parent corporation and the law firm's clients. It is also to protect the lawyer-client confidentiality rules. This is a very good thing.
I have not found any good links to back this up but is has been a topic of conversation that I have had with friends who are lawyers on multiple occasions. I assume they knew what they were talking about, and any error in what I have said is due to my lack of listening skills.
Oil is a commodity
Precisely, and as with all commodities there are considerable fortunes to be made from transportation, storage, servicing, etc. That is where the real margins are.
You're little find and replace is cute, but that's it.
Thank you for the left-handed compliment. It is so rare that one gets a compliment on this board; particularly when things go off topic. So in turn, may I say that you display a better than average knowledge of economics.
You don't have to be anti-consumer to be pro-business, which was my entire point and the fata flaw of your rebuttal.
You made no such statement. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, if you will do the same in turn by believing me when I say that this was precisely the intention of my rebuttal. It would appear we are both too shallow for the other's subtleties. Bummer.
old Iraqi regime is, well... indefensable.
True. BTW, I like a straw man argument just as much as the next guy, but you entirely missed my point. The "angry left" will always find something they don't like about Bush. Just as the "compassionate right" will always find something they can't stand about Clinton. Of course, what with both of them being so sleezy, there is plenty of fuel for the fire at both camps.
It's really easy to see any pro-business move as bad for ordinary citizens, but it's also really easy for the average, or even above-average citizen to fail to notice that many taxes are imposed on businesses to hide them from voters. After you do that for a while it becomes tremendously expensive to do business, and companies start moving their labor offshore, or just plain going out of business (sound familliar?).
There's noting wrong with being pro-business. Businesses pay your salary! Corporations are a key part of our economy. You have to pick one. Do you want economic recovery and reduced unemployment, or do you want an administration and congress that is not pro-business? You can't have it both ways. You can try, but you'll be headed for that financial disaster you're talking about. Keep that in mind when you vote.
Or put another way.
It's really easy to see any pro-consumer move as bad for ordinary corporations, but it's also really easy for the average, or even above-average corporation to fail to notice that many taxes are imposed on consumers to hide them from corporate lobbyists. After you do that for a while it becomes tremendously expensive to live in America, and consumers start moving to other markets, or just plain going bankrupt (sound familliar? If not, see note #1). There's nothing wrong with being pro-consumer. Consumers buy your goods! Consumers are a key part of our economy (see note #2). You have to pick one. Do you want economic recovery and reduced unemployment, or do you want an administration and congress that is not pro-consumer? You can't have it both ways. You can try, but you'll be headed for that financial disaster you're talking about. Keep that in mind when you vote.
Notes:
1) 2001 and 2002 had the highest number personal bankruptcies in the last 20 years. While business bankruptcies were the third and fourth lowest for the same period. BTW, take a good look at the change in the ratio of personal to business filings over the last 20 years.
2) Consumer spending represent 70% of all private sector consumption. Business spending is only 30%. This is why consumer confidence is so very important to our economic health.
Another angry left rant.
Another compassionate right compliment.
If the economy keeps improving, what will the angry left bitch about then?
You aren't much up on the angry left are you?
The top 10% pay 90% of the taxes.
...military was cut down to a force smaller than that of pre-perl harbor. I like having big guns protecting me.
Let's assume that is true. Let's also assume the average tax rate (no, not marginal) for the top 10% is 30%. Then by raising the average tax rate of the top 10% of the country by a mere 3%, we could eliminate taxes on the entire bottom 90%. Sounds good to me. Stop whining about the top 10% they aren't going anywhere; their customer's are mostly here.
Yes, that would be terrible. It would be just like before Pearl Harbor, when we were powerless to stop the crazed Mexican and Canadian hoardes from invading us, shooting our women and raping our horses. Fortunately we have the patriot producers of Blazing Saddles to thank for giving us a permanent reminder so that we may "never forget" those dark days.
Oh and one other thing. This Bud's for you.
Heh, 280 million Americans can't be wrong.
Another article bought and paid for by the Dairy Councel. Just my 2 cents
1) Guilt
2) Council of Elders
However this is only applicable at the small community level. As you say, large scale communism is completely infeasible. Any small scale communism would eventually be overwhelmed by communities that chose a capitalist path, unless specifically protected by law (see, Amish.)
I should know better than to feed a troll, but f'it. I've done analyst work in this industry. Ask any industry analyst and they will tell you basically the same thing. This has nothing to do with hitting the sales ceiling and everything to do with industry's seasonal sales cycle, and the industry's generational sales cycle. I focused on the latter as it is more relevent in the long term. If you are going to knock someone elses comments, at least have the balls to show your identity.
"your mythical statistical world with 2 variables". I'm glad you weighed in from the real world where statistics (actually I had refered only to OED's), time and sales do not exist but are merely mythical. Time for your medications.
If you change the words around a little, it sounds just like the hobby computing industry complaining about Microsoft's Basic license.
... it just might take a little longer. there's no reason for such a license. i hope the company understands that they're not going to make it in the software world."
"this won't. i've worked as a programmer, and knowing the mentality of programmers, it won't happen that way. they won't buy into it. if they do, the majority if them will have broken it within a few weeks. it's not worth it to the company to try to sue each and every one of them. not to mention programmers do a lot of their work under the table.
the only part of the license that is wrong is the fact that you can't make an improvement to the software with the software and sell the improved software. most experienced programmers could make the same software,
Food for thought, eh.
Consider that:
1) PSX has ~100 million units since it was released.
2) PS2 has sold ~50 million units since its release.
3) Growth curves typically see a decline in growth past the halfway point.
From this we may conclude:
A) PS2 has not yet saturated their market.
B) PS2 unit sales are probably just past their halfway point.
You probably meant CFA as that would be far more relevent... but you knew that, right?
True, economics is not zero sum. But it is a finite sum game, where the sum may increase and decrease depending on a large variety of factors. One of those factors is the efficiency of the marketplace. Defense contract is a notoriously inefficient marketplace, one in which literally trillions of dollars have been lost track of over the last decade. Might those same dollars not have been better spent in more efficient markets, ones which would have likewise had more siginificant feedback into growing the economy rather than just the personal bank accounts of a few well connected individuals.
I must be missing something.
Let's suppose that half of the touniment bots are using the random choice strategy and the others are suboptimal. Aren't the odds overwhelmingly in favor of one fo the random bots winning the tourni? How is it ever an advantage to not use the random strategy?
Depends where you look though doesn't it
I suppose, but in that case one is better off sticking with the standards as defined by authoritative modern sources such as Merriam Webster's dictionary or the Oxford English Dictionary or Bartleby or "The Complete Works of Shakespeare", etc., etc., etc.
Shakespear(no 'e')
Friend, you might want to look that up.
I intended no specific offense to you; "hypocrisy" can be such a loaded word. My intent was merely to point out the technical.
;-)
Allow me to better elucidated why his second query could have been true. Although it is conventional to quote with italics in this forum, if the author had intended specifically to enhance the prior hypocrisy by quoting with italics then he would have been correctly using irony as a literary device. Admittedly, without specifically pointing this out he likely would have been the only one privy to his intentions.
Regarding "forte", if the French would only add an accent to the end they would save us yanks a bit of trouble. Naturally, they are far too impetuous towards us to consider any such petition.