Is it just me or does it seem like google is getting further and further away from what they are good at (excellent search results) and closer and closer to a Yahoo type service?
I am sure the money must be great for introducing services like these but aren't they canabalizing their value by introducing these new services while at the same time polluting their search results?
Actually it does. When you go out into public you forfiet many of your rights to privacy. This is why we have concepts like public and private.
A street corner where you are outside on property that is maintained by the taxpayers is public. Your living room is private.
I am not saying you lose all rights to privacy when you go outside but to say it is "an outrage" for someone to take your picture when you go outside is absurd.
The government has no legitimate interest in establishing my identity merely because I stand on a street corner. It is recording information about me and my location which I have not authorized, and which I may not, for a variety of legitimate reasons, want known.
It is called "public" for a reason. When you go out in "public" you give up a certian amount of privacy. That is the way the world works. Next thing you know you'll be telling me the Department of transportation shouldn't be videotaping the roads because those videos may capture somebody in a comprimising position. It's ridiculous.
If everybody consumed or invested their every dollar there would be no savings (I am differentiating between savings and investment here. The primary goal of savings is capital preservation and for investing it is capital appreciation [not textbook definitions])
If you spend $70 and loan the rest then yes, you as an individual have a MPC of one. Your society may or may not have an MPC of one.
When one considers that most of the capital is in someway controlled by the banks (or insurance companies) which are subject to federal regulation then you have to accept that they tend to keep about 10% of their depsoits "unspent" (not sure about the insurance companines.)
Also, the idea of a society with no savings seems rather counter intuitive doesn't it?
If I give you $100 and you save $30 and spend $70 then your MPC is.7 or 70%
So unless MPC = 1 (which it never does) the multiplier effect will not run the monetary supply to infinity. This measure is most affected by the amount of reserves the fed requires member banks to keep on hand, which is 10% of total deposits.
This would give us a rough multiplier effect of 1/(1-.9) = 10
That is to say if the federal reserve created a billion dollars by purchasing US bonds it would translate into about 10 billion dollars in the economy. Of course, it isn't that simple but you get the idea.
Not to nitpick too much but I would suggest that the release dates are the same in the US and Canada not because of geographical proximity but instead because of the huge amount of trade the two nations engage in (the largest amount of trade between any two nations I believe.)
This is related to location but entirely. But either way I think you are right about the growing convergence of media release schedules.
You have to hand it to the framers of the constitution.
It seems no matter how badly the executive branch and the legislative branch gum up the works with silly laws and larger than life egos the Judicial system keeps them in check.
There is no doubt you are guilty of trespassing. Unless you had probable cause to invade this man's home you are a criminal under the statue of law.
It is interesting that you choose the "And even if it is a crime, it is Ok because it was committed in the course of preventing a greater crime." defense.
If I remember correctly many people on the left are blaming the Bush administration for using that exact logic to defend some of the more controversial aspects of the Patriot act. Also, it has echos of Machivelli's "the end justifies the means"
Just because there is no physical backing for the dollar (like gold) doesn't mean it is meaningless.
Ultimately the dollar is backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Which derives its "faith and credit" from the ability to tax its citizens.
In other words, the dollar is backed by the brain power of the US citizens, their hardwork and their military.
This isn't the 19th century and the idea that money must be backed with a physical asset is a bit antiquated.
In this world you describe what would be the incentive to own stocks?
Stocks provide access to capital for corporations. Without access to equity capital they would only have debt avenues left. But then again, what incentive would the banks have to loan money? Profit?
I don't think nanotech is going to be the panacea some people would hope but if it eliminates scarcity then this "corporatocracy" you speak of would have no access to capital and would waste away.
BTW did we ever figure out why a freaking peice of paper and a pencil is no good?
Paper and Pencil: Auditable: Yes Easy to verify: Yes Hard to counterfiet: Yes Fast Tallycounts: No Time in use: Predates recorded history (almost)
Electronic voting: Audiable: depends Easy to verify: depends hard to counterfiet: no Fast Tallycounts: Yes Time in use: A couple of years
I don't understand what the insane rush to e-voting is all about. (not flamebait) I suspect it has something to do with the hissyfit that certian elements of the political spectrum threw when GWB "stole" the election.
Property Rights are result of scarcity. Modern economic theory (at least the theories most people are familiar with) is built upon the notion of property rights.
Economics is the study of how humans allocate limited resources to unlimited demands.
With molecular assemblers scarcity is all but eliminated. This would turn economic theory and property rights on its head. In short, a whole new economic system and associated property rights would have to be developed. Any speculation at this point is just that speculation.
That's easy enough to answer. It's the middle man that is losing out. Used book dealers will not be able to get the mark ups on some titles they used to get. Although I would bet that a majority of the purchasers of online book auctions are bookdealers so even their loss is mitigated.
My friend works in a used book store. He is also an obsessed bibliophile.
Anyway, he ran into some hard times and had to sell a lot of his books. They were mostly trash that he would never read anyway. He put them up on bookfinder.com and got on average about $75/box of books (about 50-70 book/box) with some books going for well over $100.
I remember thinking as he was doing that "Man the library could make a killing on this type of stuff" Too bad I never followed up on that I could have been a "consultant";)
Thank you so much for saying this. It is good to know I am not the only one that feels this way.
People are so very quick to put on blinders and assume that Diebold's CEO and friends are sitting in a darkened room planning on how best to trample the rights of US citizens.
The reality of the situation is probably that Diebold is trying its best to score this contract and are making some mistakes along the way. I doubt that the CEO of diebold is aware of the ire he has raised in this (slashdot) particular community and instead is listening to his legal council; who are very predictable in these areas.
Has diebold made some big mistakes? Yes, no doubt about it. Is it a conscious effort on Diebold's part to look like total asses? I doubt it.
But hey, its a draconian agenda right? What does that even mean?
Slashdot Mirror
I know this is slightly off topic but I'll say it anyway.
A majority of senate democrats voted for the war.
Wow! We must of. I even had "core competency" typed out but then remembered that this was slashdot and such business-y terms are frown upon.
You are a brave man and I salute you.
Is it just me or does it seem like google is getting further and further away from what they are good at (excellent search results) and closer and closer to a Yahoo type service?
I am sure the money must be great for introducing services like these but aren't they canabalizing their value by introducing these new services while at the same time polluting their search results?
I am pretty sure that many top secret government organizations have mapped the earth at a better resolution than 10 meters.
Or did you think the US bombed the chinense embassy on accident?
This one shouldn't be too hard to get around at all right? Can't you just append a couple of random bytes at the end of the file and change the hash?
John Bender: So it's social then. Pathetic and sad... but social.
Actually it does. When you go out into public you forfiet many of your rights to privacy. This is why we have concepts like public and private.
A street corner where you are outside on property that is maintained by the taxpayers is public. Your living room is private.
I am not saying you lose all rights to privacy when you go outside but to say it is "an outrage" for someone to take your picture when you go outside is absurd.
It is called "public" for a reason. When you go out in "public" you give up a certian amount of privacy. That is the way the world works. Next thing you know you'll be telling me the Department of transportation shouldn't be videotaping the roads because those videos may capture somebody in a comprimising position. It's ridiculous.
If everybody consumed or invested their every dollar there would be no savings (I am differentiating between savings and investment here. The primary goal of savings is capital preservation and for investing it is capital appreciation [not textbook definitions])
If you spend $70 and loan the rest then yes, you as an individual have a MPC of one. Your society may or may not have an MPC of one.
When one considers that most of the capital is in someway controlled by the banks (or insurance companies) which are subject to federal regulation then you have to accept that they tend to keep about 10% of their depsoits "unspent" (not sure about the insurance companines.)
Also, the idea of a society with no savings seems rather counter intuitive doesn't it?
The multiplier effect is
.7 or 70%
1/(1- mpc)
where mpc = marginal propensity to consume.
If I give you $100 and you save $30 and spend $70 then your MPC is
So unless MPC = 1 (which it never does) the multiplier effect will not run the monetary supply to infinity. This measure is most affected by the amount of reserves the fed requires member banks to keep on hand, which is 10% of total deposits.
This would give us a rough multiplier effect of 1/(1-.9) = 10
That is to say if the federal reserve created a billion dollars by purchasing US bonds it would translate into about 10 billion dollars in the economy. Of course, it isn't that simple but you get the idea.
Not to nitpick too much but I would suggest that the release dates are the same in the US and Canada not because of geographical proximity but instead because of the huge amount of trade the two nations engage in (the largest amount of trade between any two nations I believe.)
This is related to location but entirely. But either way I think you are right about the growing convergence of media release schedules.
You have to hand it to the framers of the constitution.
It seems no matter how badly the executive branch and the legislative branch gum up the works with silly laws and larger than life egos the Judicial system keeps them in check.
This person contributed nothing to the discussion.. Didn't I? 20+ comments say different.
It was a strange and most likely unworkable technology but I was looking forward to having a 3rd industry in the broadband game.
There is no doubt you are guilty of trespassing. Unless you had probable cause to invade this man's home you are a criminal under the statue of law.
It is interesting that you choose the "And even if it is a crime, it is Ok because it was committed in the course of preventing a greater crime." defense.
If I remember correctly many people on the left are blaming the Bush administration for using that exact logic to defend some of the more controversial aspects of the Patriot act. Also, it has echos of Machivelli's "the end justifies the means"
Just because there is no physical backing for the dollar (like gold) doesn't mean it is meaningless.
Ultimately the dollar is backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Which derives its "faith and credit" from the ability to tax its citizens.
In other words, the dollar is backed by the brain power of the US citizens, their hardwork and their military.
This isn't the 19th century and the idea that money must be backed with a physical asset is a bit antiquated.
In this world you describe what would be the incentive to own stocks?
Stocks provide access to capital for corporations. Without access to equity capital they would only have debt avenues left. But then again, what incentive would the banks have to loan money? Profit?
I don't think nanotech is going to be the panacea some people would hope but if it eliminates scarcity then this "corporatocracy" you speak of would have no access to capital and would waste away.
Certianly you are correct; but it seems to me there was a GREAT deal of sensationalism going on in the months that followed nov 2000.
It's funny, mostly the people whine that the government never moves fast enough, in this case it seems they moved a bit too fast.
Woohoo! That's my state!
BTW did we ever figure out why a freaking peice of paper and a pencil is no good?
Paper and Pencil:
Auditable: Yes
Easy to verify: Yes
Hard to counterfiet: Yes
Fast Tallycounts: No
Time in use: Predates recorded history (almost)
Electronic voting:
Audiable: depends
Easy to verify: depends
hard to counterfiet: no
Fast Tallycounts: Yes
Time in use: A couple of years
I don't understand what the insane rush to e-voting is all about. (not flamebait) I suspect it has something to do with the hissyfit that certian elements of the political spectrum threw when GWB "stole" the election.
Property Rights are result of scarcity. Modern economic theory (at least the theories most people are familiar with) is built upon the notion of property rights.
Economics is the study of how humans allocate limited resources to unlimited demands.
With molecular assemblers scarcity is all but eliminated. This would turn economic theory and property rights on its head. In short, a whole new economic system and associated property rights would have to be developed. Any speculation at this point is just that speculation.
That's easy enough to answer. It's the middle man that is losing out. Used book dealers will not be able to get the mark ups on some titles they used to get. Although I would bet that a majority of the purchasers of online book auctions are bookdealers so even their loss is mitigated.
My friend works in a used book store. He is also an obsessed bibliophile. Anyway, he ran into some hard times and had to sell a lot of his books. They were mostly trash that he would never read anyway. He put them up on bookfinder.com and got on average about $75/box of books (about 50-70 book/box) with some books going for well over $100. I remember thinking as he was doing that "Man the library could make a killing on this type of stuff" Too bad I never followed up on that I could have been a "consultant" ;)
Thank you so much for saying this. It is good to know I am not the only one that feels this way. People are so very quick to put on blinders and assume that Diebold's CEO and friends are sitting in a darkened room planning on how best to trample the rights of US citizens. The reality of the situation is probably that Diebold is trying its best to score this contract and are making some mistakes along the way. I doubt that the CEO of diebold is aware of the ire he has raised in this (slashdot) particular community and instead is listening to his legal council; who are very predictable in these areas. Has diebold made some big mistakes? Yes, no doubt about it. Is it a conscious effort on Diebold's part to look like total asses? I doubt it. But hey, its a draconian agenda right? What does that even mean?