Yes, obviously. The point I was making is that I have a balance between ridiculous shut-in paranoia and having a life, and I don't see why the latest thing to be scared about even though its kill rates are smaller than most other things should change that.
I don't really agree. I am complacent because I always try to live healthily. If I get H1N1 and if I die from it, that sucks, but what else am I supposed to do? What is the point in worrying about it?
> Those charts you linked aren't about the housing bubble.
Yes they are. The graphics are being used to support an article that is about the recent up-tick, but I'm talking about the trend from the 80s until the crash.
> If anything it supports the bubble GP was talking about because people were > spending more when the times were good (high confidence) and they're saving > now because times are tough (low confidence).
No, that doesn't make any sense. You state low/high confidence like it's some dark corner of the human psyche. I do not go from saving 12% of my income to -0.5% of my income because I'm more confident in the economy.
His/her theory does not explain why Americans started burning through their savings. You are trying to suggest that the savings rate is a reaction to the economy. That is nonsense. The savings rate is a driver of the economy and the economy must react to it. There are only two kinds of money: money spent now and money spent later (savings). The kinds of activities that are optimal when the savings rate is at 12% is different than the kinds of activities that are optimal when the savings rate is at -0.5%. The savings rate is a driver of the economy, not a reaction. Thus, it needs to be accounted for in the theory.
Brilliant call, my friend. The government protects people from ruining their lives by taking away their freedom, throwing them in jail, and leaving them forever branded a convicted felon.
Let me ask you this... how many smart people are convicted of marijuana possession? And how worse off is society because they're busy in court, and paying fines, and sitting in jail instead of being productive?
You should know better than to use the drug 'war' as evidence for an argument outside of a PTA meeting.
I will open a computer repair shop and when you bring your box in, I will sign a confidentiality agreement as well as an agreement promising not to do such snooping.
Are you familiar with the difference between basic research vs applied research? You cannot possibly know the benefits this research will lead to. Basic research answers questions that you didn't even know enough about to understand why you would want to ask.
That said, true basic research is an idealistic notion. Research always has to have at least a tenuous connection to reality and things that may prove beneficial in the applied realm. This certainly fits that bill, though. Your threshold for applicability is too high and would stunt our scientific growth.
> Still, its very clear why he chose to represent her - the publicity on this > high profile case could make him and give his career a hell of a head start.
(Human) Systems work only when people's interests are aligned.
> Are the teaching methods really that tightly-coupled with the books?
Yes, absolutely. You're basically asking whether the presentation of information in the book is tightly coupled with the book.
It sounds like you're saying that the overall teaching approach is bigger than the book, and of course you're right, but that's not what I'm talking about... I'm talking only about the book, which is one part of the overall teaching approach (but certainly must align with it).
I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that commercial plane production benefits from economies of scale? To some degree, sure, but I don't think you can really call it mass production in the same way that we talk about it with other transportation methods.
Ok, then you're just not making any sense. Inelastic demand means the tax goes to consumers. I thought you were saying the demand was highly elastic because your whole comment was suggesting that the tax would be paid by MS, which is just wrong.
Generally, contractors are subject to the same security standards. This is true for highly sensitive orgs like NASA as well as less sensitive orgs like departments of public welfare.
Furthermore, how would they even *do* #3? MS could increase operations in their non-US offices and turn their US offices into zombies, if they so wanted. The only thing the US government could really do is ban the sale of MS products (including support) in the US. It would never happen. The economy would tank as most companies have to restructure all their infrastructure, including custom software written in MS technologies.
> 1. U.S. Federal Government switches to Apple (Still US company)
You're dreaming.
> 2. U.S. Fed Govt switches to an NSA version of Linux
You're dreaming.
> 3. And most likely: U.S. Fed Govt declares "National Security" and > "Eminent Domain" (or the business equivalent), and prevent MS from > moving because MS Windows is used in top levels of Government, > warships, nuclear power plants...
This would set a horrible precedent and companies would start increasing their prices many times over any time they are dealing with the federal government, in order to compensate for the risk of effective nationalization.
> The Administration should VERY publicly call them out and recommend > government offices immediately develop a schedule for converting as > much of the IT infrastructure as possible away from MS software.
Way to completely miss the point. If you think MS is the only one thinking of moving operations out of the US if this passes, you're living in a fantasy land.
Um. No. Consumers ultimately pay all taxes. There is no such thing as a corporation except on paper. That tax you "pass back" to your company ends up increasing prices for services and goods your company produces, which eventually get consumed by... consumers.
Similarly, I like to call out people who whine about jobs being "sent overseas" but stare blankly when large, smart companies point out how the US tax system makes it impossible to stay competitive without sending operations out of the country.
Slashdot Mirror
> It doesn't appear that you have this "balance". Otherwise, you wouldn't
> be concerned.
??? I'm not concerned in the least. Not sure where you got that idea...
You are being disingenuous and fully understand my explanation by hyperbole, or you're just not thinking.
Yes, obviously. The point I was making is that I have a balance between ridiculous shut-in paranoia and having a life, and I don't see why the latest thing to be scared about even though its kill rates are smaller than most other things should change that.
There are many things I can do to protect myself against snake bites, too. So what?
I don't really agree. I am complacent because I always try to live healthily. If I get H1N1 and if I die from it, that sucks, but what else am I supposed to do? What is the point in worrying about it?
> Those charts you linked aren't about the housing bubble.
Yes they are. The graphics are being used to support an article that is about the recent up-tick, but I'm talking about the trend from the 80s until the crash.
> If anything it supports the bubble GP was talking about because people were
> spending more when the times were good (high confidence) and they're saving
> now because times are tough (low confidence).
No, that doesn't make any sense. You state low/high confidence like it's some dark corner of the human psyche. I do not go from saving 12% of my income to -0.5% of my income because I'm more confident in the economy.
His/her theory does not explain why Americans started burning through their savings. You are trying to suggest that the savings rate is a reaction to the economy. That is nonsense. The savings rate is a driver of the economy and the economy must react to it. There are only two kinds of money: money spent now and money spent later (savings). The kinds of activities that are optimal when the savings rate is at 12% is different than the kinds of activities that are optimal when the savings rate is at -0.5%. The savings rate is a driver of the economy, not a reaction. Thus, it needs to be accounted for in the theory.
Brilliant call, my friend. The government protects people from ruining their lives by taking away their freedom, throwing them in jail, and leaving them forever branded a convicted felon.
Let me ask you this... how many smart people are convicted of marijuana possession? And how worse off is society because they're busy in court, and paying fines, and sitting in jail instead of being productive?
You should know better than to use the drug 'war' as evidence for an argument outside of a PTA meeting.
Please. The government isn't outlawing gambling. They're outlawing unlicensed, untaxed gambling.
> Take a look at any housing bubble chart you'd like. When did the spike
> start? About the same time the deregulation fantasy took effect
O I C! And how does that explain this:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/06/05/business/0606-biz-webCHARTS.gif
I will open a computer repair shop and when you bring your box in, I will sign a confidentiality agreement as well as an agreement promising not to do such snooping.
> This sort of thing isn't nearly as black and white as it is made to seem.
And yet you present it so black-and-white:
> ... people who create [child porn] should be castrated, and people who
> DESIRE it need to be put into an asylum for psychological treatment.
6570 days old: high five!
6569 days old: castration and asylum!
Are you familiar with the difference between basic research vs applied research? You cannot possibly know the benefits this research will lead to. Basic research answers questions that you didn't even know enough about to understand why you would want to ask.
That said, true basic research is an idealistic notion. Research always has to have at least a tenuous connection to reality and things that may prove beneficial in the applied realm. This certainly fits that bill, though. Your threshold for applicability is too high and would stunt our scientific growth.
> Still, its very clear why he chose to represent her - the publicity on this
> high profile case could make him and give his career a hell of a head start.
(Human) Systems work only when people's interests are aligned.
> Are the teaching methods really that tightly-coupled with the books?
Yes, absolutely. You're basically asking whether the presentation of information in the book is tightly coupled with the book.
It sounds like you're saying that the overall teaching approach is bigger than the book, and of course you're right, but that's not what I'm talking about... I'm talking only about the book, which is one part of the overall teaching approach (but certainly must align with it).
> Classical mechanics, optics, Newton's laws, etc. haven't changed in
> hundreds of years either.
teaching methods have
I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that commercial plane production benefits from economies of scale? To some degree, sure, but I don't think you can really call it mass production in the same way that we talk about it with other transportation methods.
Ok, then you're just not making any sense. Inelastic demand means the tax goes to consumers. I thought you were saying the demand was highly elastic because your whole comment was suggesting that the tax would be paid by MS, which is just wrong.
Generally, contractors are subject to the same security standards. This is true for highly sensitive orgs like NASA as well as less sensitive orgs like departments of public welfare.
If you think MS is the only one thinking about this, you're dreaming.
Furthermore, how would they even *do* #3? MS could increase operations in their non-US offices and turn their US offices into zombies, if they so wanted. The only thing the US government could really do is ban the sale of MS products (including support) in the US. It would never happen. The economy would tank as most companies have to restructure all their infrastructure, including custom software written in MS technologies.
> 1. U.S. Federal Government switches to Apple (Still US company)
You're dreaming.
> 2. U.S. Fed Govt switches to an NSA version of Linux
You're dreaming.
> 3. And most likely: U.S. Fed Govt declares "National Security" and
> "Eminent Domain" (or the business equivalent), and prevent MS from
> moving because MS Windows is used in top levels of Government,
> warships, nuclear power plants...
This would set a horrible precedent and companies would start increasing their prices many times over any time they are dealing with the federal government, in order to compensate for the risk of effective nationalization.
Wow, a company's owners working in their best interest. What has the world come to?!
> The Administration should VERY publicly call them out and recommend
> government offices immediately develop a schedule for converting as
> much of the IT infrastructure as possible away from MS software.
Way to completely miss the point. If you think MS is the only one thinking of moving operations out of the US if this passes, you're living in a fantasy land.
Um. No. Consumers ultimately pay all taxes. There is no such thing as a corporation except on paper. That tax you "pass back" to your company ends up increasing prices for services and goods your company produces, which eventually get consumed by... consumers.
Way to call him out.
Similarly, I like to call out people who whine about jobs being "sent overseas" but stare blankly when large, smart companies point out how the US tax system makes it impossible to stay competitive without sending operations out of the country.