I remember when we got a T1 line at the school of business at my university. That was freaking fast baby and worth the $5,000 or so it cost a month (not sure on the price... I heard it second hand). Now 1.5Mbps is considered slow for residential (though I'd like the symetrical speeds over what cable provides). I cannot even imagine gigabit at home. What would that be for? When you want to get streaming netflix videoes on every TV in your house plus every fridge, oven and toaster?
I tend to doubt the numbers, but have nothing to base it on but my gut feel and conversations with people I know. I personally have access to "High Broadband", but am perfectly happy with my average 5Mbps as my typical use case doesn't involve a lot of video download. I'd much rather have symetrical 2Mbps for backing up purposes. 10Mbps would have very little benefit for me, and certainly not another $360/yr benefit.
You do realize that we do not have a direct election based on majority, right? And I won't be voiting for either candidate, so please don't claim I am looking at it through rose colored glasses.
If you want to put some money up on the election, I am certainly willing.
The link is interesting, but the underlying analysis shows that both sources predict the same outcomes in each state. The difference appears to be that Nate Silver doesn't simply use a "winner takes all" model, he weights the votes based on probabilities of winning states. I didn't see any explanation of the methodology in my two minute visit, but doing a state by state comparison of maps showed that each one was predicted the same in each model. Nate's might be a bit more realistic because the more states you have predicted to go your way, the more likely you are to get upset in one of them.
Eleven states supply half of our country's electoral votes: California, Texas, NY, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey. If you can keep it close in these eleven states, you have a chance of the other 39 + DC helping you get victory. Romney would need to somehow win over Florida, North Carolina, Virginia AND hold onto a couple "Big 11" states with a narrow Republican edge. The odds of Romney turning around any one of the three states is small. All three would take some Presidential scandal.
Bottom line is Nate's more conservative approach still has Romney getting crushed.
The numbers are even worse for the Republicans (347-191) accoring to Tannenbaum's "Rasmussen fee" page. Here he filters out Fox's polling company which has questionable polling practices. This polling group has consistently polled in favor of Republicans. From electoral-vote.com: "Silver analyzed 105 polls released by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, for Senate and gubernatorial races in numerous states across the country. The bottom line is that on average, Rasmussen's polls were off by 5.8% with a bias of 3.9% in favor of the Republican candidates."
It is a long way to November, but barring a revelation that Obama was involved in Michael Vick's dogfighting ring, this is going to be an easy win for Obama.
As a manager, our tests are a bit more strenuous reflecting the importance of the synergies of many diverse skills. The dynamic test includes email with a certain threshold of cc’s to disinterested parties. We get bonus points for lunches out and extra points on top of that for lunches paid for by vendors. A second part of the exam includes writing unintelligible memos and unfollowable policies. Tests are administered through the cloud, using value-added third-party vendors. Oh yeah, more bonus points for using management speak words.
Why are you baffled by this? Is I own object x, and I know that suddenly someone is interested in it for 50% more than I currently can sell it for, then the price goes up. The only reason it hasn't jumped more is because this isn't a firm bid, but simply interest. The market is factoring in how credible this interest is and what the odds are of it coming to pass. Simply markets trying to price a security in a volatile situation.
No, it is you. Type 1 for 1920, you will get 10.90 in 2010 dollars. This isn't difficult. I've tries to figure out how you get your numbers but I cannot back into it.
As an FYI, I have two undergrads in finance and a grad degree, and outside of the calculators I can do the math myself based on CPI numbers.. It isn't exactly hard math.
If our economy grew by a factor of 6 only with a population growth of 3x, then we'd be only about twice as rich as our great grand fathers. You cannot possibly believe that without being horribly ignorant of history. House sizes are mammoth compared to that generation. We have electricity in every home. Even the poorest in this country have access to food, running water, electricity, a public school system and library system. And please tell me what the i7 equipped PC in your sig would cost in 1920. Cars were relatively the same cost in terms of median salary, but you gor something that looked like this http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/20scars/1924-chevy-utility-coupe.jpg
The fact is we are more wealthy than those from 90 years ago and dramatically so. To not see this requires an absolute ignorance of history.
And you bring up another good point that I didn't want to touch on. First, the economy has grown by a factor of 15 but this only tells part of the story. While some goods are more expensive than they were 90 years ago, we have goods and services that could only be imagined of 90 years ago. A university education? out of the reach of all but the elites in the 20s. Internet access? Air conditioning? Transplants? Even electricity wasn't near universal in 1920.
So you are correct in pointing out that a single number doesn't paint the picture of how much our economy has grown.
In 1920, our GDP was 88 billion not 100 billion as your post indicates. Rounding isn't appropriate when it would lead to a 14% difference in numbers In 2010, our GDP was 14,527 billion. In terms of 1920 dollars, we must divide by 10.9 to get 1,332.66 billion not 400 billion as your post indicates.
In real terms, our economy has grown by a factor of 15, or almost four doublings in 90 years. That is incredible, and to my knowledge unprecedented in the istory of the world to have that type of growth.
On one hand, I am glad to see how much private sector interest there is in space exploration and tourism. Ultimately, it will be commericialization and profit opportunity that propels mankind to the stars.
OTOH, the reason we are seeing so much of it now is that the US has given up its leadership position in science. I'm not saying we aren't still on the top of the heap, but while Republicans and Democrats argue about whether we should drive ourselves into debt funding the military or social programs, science funding has suffered. When 50% of GDP growth since WW2 has come directly from science, this short-sighted non-funding view will cripple us.
Ultimately, there are projects where profits cannot be privatized. In these instances, government funding is the only way to go. But this doesn't get votes, so we are stuck.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm envious. Those upload speeds would be awsome. Curious... how much does each level cost?
I remember when we got a T1 line at the school of business at my university. That was freaking fast baby and worth the $5,000 or so it cost a month (not sure on the price... I heard it second hand). Now 1.5Mbps is considered slow for residential (though I'd like the symetrical speeds over what cable provides). I cannot even imagine gigabit at home. What would that be for? When you want to get streaming netflix videoes on every TV in your house plus every fridge, oven and toaster?
I tend to doubt the numbers, but have nothing to base it on but my gut feel and conversations with people I know. I personally have access to "High Broadband", but am perfectly happy with my average 5Mbps as my typical use case doesn't involve a lot of video download. I'd much rather have symetrical 2Mbps for backing up purposes. 10Mbps would have very little benefit for me, and certainly not another $360/yr benefit.
YMMV and probably does.
Um... the Rasmussen polls have shown to be off the mark in the Diebold era already, so I'm not sure your logic follows.
You do realize that we do not have a direct election based on majority, right? And I won't be voiting for either candidate, so please don't claim I am looking at it through rose colored glasses.
If you want to put some money up on the election, I am certainly willing.
The link is interesting, but the underlying analysis shows that both sources predict the same outcomes in each state. The difference appears to be that Nate Silver doesn't simply use a "winner takes all" model, he weights the votes based on probabilities of winning states. I didn't see any explanation of the methodology in my two minute visit, but doing a state by state comparison of maps showed that each one was predicted the same in each model. Nate's might be a bit more realistic because the more states you have predicted to go your way, the more likely you are to get upset in one of them.
Eleven states supply half of our country's electoral votes: California, Texas, NY, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey. If you can keep it close in these eleven states, you have a chance of the other 39 + DC helping you get victory. Romney would need to somehow win over Florida, North Carolina, Virginia AND hold onto a couple "Big 11" states with a narrow Republican edge. The odds of Romney turning around any one of the three states is small. All three would take some Presidential scandal.
Bottom line is Nate's more conservative approach still has Romney getting crushed.
The numbers are even worse for the Republicans (347-191) accoring to Tannenbaum's "Rasmussen fee" page. Here he filters out Fox's polling company which has questionable polling practices. This polling group has consistently polled in favor of Republicans. From electoral-vote.com: "Silver analyzed 105 polls released by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, for Senate and gubernatorial races in numerous states across the country. The bottom line is that on average, Rasmussen's polls were off by 5.8% with a bias of 3.9% in favor of the Republican candidates."
It is a long way to November, but barring a revelation that Obama was involved in Michael Vick's dogfighting ring, this is going to be an easy win for Obama.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Aug08-noras.html
As a manager, our tests are a bit more strenuous reflecting the importance of the synergies of many diverse skills. The dynamic test includes email with a certain threshold of cc’s to disinterested parties. We get bonus points for lunches out and extra points on top of that for lunches paid for by vendors. A second part of the exam includes writing unintelligible memos and unfollowable policies. Tests are administered through the cloud, using value-added third-party vendors. Oh yeah, more bonus points for using management speak words.
I'm world champion, baby.
As you indicate, it would really be hard to pump and dump in his position. So, I think your second assertion is the correct one.
So, you are suggesting that the founder is engaging in a scam? I'm confused...
Why are you baffled by this? Is I own object x, and I know that suddenly someone is interested in it for 50% more than I currently can sell it for, then the price goes up. The only reason it hasn't jumped more is because this isn't a firm bid, but simply interest. The market is factoring in how credible this interest is and what the odds are of it coming to pass. Simply markets trying to price a security in a volatile situation.
No, it is you. Type 1 for 1920, you will get 10.90 in 2010 dollars. This isn't difficult. I've tries to figure out how you get your numbers but I cannot back into it.
As an FYI, I have two undergrads in finance and a grad degree, and outside of the calculators I can do the math myself based on CPI numbers.. It isn't exactly hard math.
More citations for the inflation from the top hits on Google.
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm/
http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Calculators/Inflation_Rate_Calculator.asp
So, please cite your source.
My 10.9 is absolutely accurate. Source: http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm/
If our economy grew by a factor of 6 only with a population growth of 3x, then we'd be only about twice as rich as our great grand fathers. You cannot possibly believe that without being horribly ignorant of history. House sizes are mammoth compared to that generation. We have electricity in every home. Even the poorest in this country have access to food, running water, electricity, a public school system and library system. And please tell me what the i7 equipped PC in your sig would cost in 1920. Cars were relatively the same cost in terms of median salary, but you gor something that looked like this http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/20scars/1924-chevy-utility-coupe.jpg
The fact is we are more wealthy than those from 90 years ago and dramatically so. To not see this requires an absolute ignorance of history.
And you bring up another good point that I didn't want to touch on. First, the economy has grown by a factor of 15 but this only tells part of the story. While some goods are more expensive than they were 90 years ago, we have goods and services that could only be imagined of 90 years ago. A university education? out of the reach of all but the elites in the 20s. Internet access? Air conditioning? Transplants? Even electricity wasn't near universal in 1920.
So you are correct in pointing out that a single number doesn't paint the picture of how much our economy has grown.
See my corrected numbers -- it is more like a 15x growth in the economy over that time period.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1920_2010USb_13s1li011mcn__US_Gross_Domestic_Product_GDP_History
I verified numbers and found the following
In 1920, our GDP was 88 billion not 100 billion as your post indicates. Rounding isn't appropriate when it would lead to a 14% difference in numbers
In 2010, our GDP was 14,527 billion. In terms of 1920 dollars, we must divide by 10.9 to get 1,332.66 billion not 400 billion as your post indicates.
In real terms, our economy has grown by a factor of 15, or almost four doublings in 90 years. That is incredible, and to my knowledge unprecedented in the istory of the world to have that type of growth.
I can't answer that. The info I got came from a radio program (NPR?), that gave the 50% number.
On one hand, I am glad to see how much private sector interest there is in space exploration and tourism. Ultimately, it will be commericialization and profit opportunity that propels mankind to the stars.
OTOH, the reason we are seeing so much of it now is that the US has given up its leadership position in science. I'm not saying we aren't still on the top of the heap, but while Republicans and Democrats argue about whether we should drive ourselves into debt funding the military or social programs, science funding has suffered. When 50% of GDP growth since WW2 has come directly from science, this short-sighted non-funding view will cripple us.
Ultimately, there are projects where profits cannot be privatized. In these instances, government funding is the only way to go. But this doesn't get votes, so we are stuck.
Cynically Yours,
MyLongNickName
No, you don't pay a fee each month. Not sure where you are getting that.
If you are so sure it will drop, make a furtune by shorting the stock.
To get first post. Perhaps I should have paid more?
No, AC, the synopsis is written poorly.
Thanks for the correction.
An interesting concept. I can imagine corporate sponsors handling the hosting of the servers for video feeds...