I know locally in the US midwest the junk yards are buying scrap steel + iron for $200 US per US ton. Based on this, the 10,000 british ton ship at $200 / ton is worth $2.2 million USD to a dealer who will put a lot of labor into tearing it down. Torn down into just scrap, I would say the ship is worth about $8.8 million.
In fact, the two cases are not interchangeable. Suppose the problem is dressed up a little: you have two cars that you use on a regular basis (this is not negotiable), but only enough money to replace one of them. One car gets 33MPG, and the other gets 10MPG. If you replace the 33MPG car, you can get a 50MPG vehicle. If you replace the 10MPG, you can get a 20MPG vehicle. Which would save more gas, replacing the 33MPG car or the 10MPG car?
The correct answer is neither unless 1) the question is "which would save you more gas?" or 2) you plan to scrap one of your two cars instead of reselling them or trading them in.
Assuming both of your current cars work today, by reselling one you increase the supply of used cars which allows one additional carless person to able to purchase a car, and total gas consumption is now the sum of your two cars plus that of your new car. You can however impress your green friends by bragging about how you improved your mpg and "how much gas you're saving."
The key in this case is that increased trading speed reduces the BID-ASK spread and reduces the amount of money being "skimmed off the top of the market."
The billions being skimmed today (per a given quantity of trades) are less than the billions skimmed before.
Day traders produce exactly two things: personal wealth, and market instability. They add nothing to the GDP, and are basically leeches. Imagine if everyone quit their jobs and became day traders. Nobody would be producing any goods and the economy would collapse instantly. The leeches would have nothing on which to feed.
If by "market instability" you mean increased liquidity which increases 1) the amount of capital our society puts to work (we're more willing to invest in businesses when we're confident in the ability to liquidate the investment in the future at the time of our choosing) and 2) the ability of the market to efficiently allocate capital (lowers the transaction cost of moving capital from poor investments to good investments), I agree.
Additionally some day traders increase the speed of price discovery penalizing speculators, which further increases the efficient allocation of capital (increasing production)within the market.
As a thought experiment - Imagine if we all became Doctors, nobody would be producing any goods and the economy would collapse instantly.
When you're talking about numbers like that then there is definitely a responsibility somewhere to try to prevent it happening again.
Wouldn't it be great if that responsibility was enforced so that the people responsible for the technology that sold stock on unconfirmed news lost a ton of money... oh wait...
Can we please kill the 24/7/265 phrasing? Where do you people live that there are 365 weeks in a year?
Not to mention leap years! 24/7/365 implies 1 day of downtime every 4 years.
Bah, Digg's not THAT good at math. I asked a few of them to add up the following random hex numbers and half the site freaked out: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
You know... sitting on a couch, eating Pringles, and playing video games has never caused wars or anything. The world would be a better place if people followed CowboyNeal's fine example.
In that case, "...lets play Global Thermonuclear War!"
One of the core conceits of the US is that opportunities for advancement are equal for all. While we have (arguably) done a good job of eliminating gender, race and religion as barriers to advancement within our society, socio-economic class at birth is still a large determinant of financial well-being in adulthood.
This is this is true the world over for a variety of reasons, however my belief is that one key reason the problem persists in the US is because it is so uncomfortable for us to discuss class, since considering the topic immediately gives lie to the core American value that "all men are created equal." I believe that if class can be discussed more openly , our society will benefit by becoming more of a meritocracy, more productive, and generally a better place to live.
My humor, which you obviously caught, was meant to highlight the inequity between the opportunities available for the rich and the poor and jumpstart discussion, rather than to draw a hard and fast line between public and private schools. (And now to actually answer your questions...)
Is there really such a big difference between public [state funded] and private schools?
1) While the best schools are private and the worst schools are public, school quality is typically much more directly based on the affluence of the population it serves. For example, a public school in an affluent area would very likely be of higher quality than a private school in a poor area. Private schools serving affluent populations are generally considered the best education available.
Are there public universities in the USA?
2) There are absolutely public universities in the US. With some notable exceptions public universities are typically large institutions run by the states and provide significant cost savings over private universities. As an example the annual tuition for the public university in my state is approximately US$12,000 whereas a top private university in the US will run approximately US$40,000 a year. While there are some fantastic opportunities to get a top notch education at a public university in the US, many people with the means to pay the additional cost of a private university choose private over public.
>Really? I suppose this should be different in different countries, and mabye you're talking about USA, since Slashdot is hosted there (I think).
Slashdot is in fact based in the USA. For that reason people less than 18 years of age (minors) can not not enter into the contest related contract. The reason has nothing to do with their age per se, but rather is due to the terrible American (state run) public school systems - many people 18 and younger can not yet sign their own names!
I've always been a little confused with that- is it the sharks that are expensive, or is it training the sharks to use the lasers?
It's absolutely training the sharks that is the major expense... On average, trainers lose an eyeball a week due to laser related injuries. (If you were in a tank with a shark wouldn't you look directly at it?) Keeping a single freaking shark with a laser on its head properly trained requires approximately 26 trainers a year! At $75K a year per trainer, a generous pension plan, plus some unbelievable medical and insurance bills, the costs add up quickly.
AMD can do no wrong! I heard from a reliable source that the new chips will not only have 16 cores, but will cure cancer, do your dishes, and run under 40F!
Paying more money to teachers makes the NEA happy which is always good for your reelection bid.
I think you mean the American Federation of Teachers (AFT
). Believe it or not, teacher's unions have typically opposed
bonuses based on above average performance. The thinking is that every dollar of bonus paid to top teachers takes away from the teachers who are below average or average, but who make up a voting majority within the union.
Unfortunately, for all their rhetoric, the NFT as an organization is more interested in lining their pockets than in improving education in the US. Because of their selfishness, common sense remedies to the appalling state of the American public school system such as pay for performance are politically untenable.
How does paying specific teachers more really solve the problem?
This potentially a huge step towards improving the quality of American public schools - and presumably the eventual quality or quantity of our Science and Math graduates.
Paying teachers for performance rather than just for showing up represents a major departure from the current American system of continuing to employ tenured teachers (at low wages) irrespective of their effectiveness. Adding pay for AP teachers should increase the competition for those teaching positions and help ensure that America's best and brightest (public school students) are taught by the best (public school teachers).
Slashdot Mirror
+1
I know locally in the US midwest the junk yards are buying scrap steel + iron for $200 US per US ton. Based on this, the 10,000 british ton ship at $200 / ton is worth $2.2 million USD to a dealer who will put a lot of labor into tearing it down. Torn down into just scrap, I would say the ship is worth about $8.8 million.
Good luck getting a carrier to the US midwest!
Ahh... The Dundee Society strikes again!
The correct answer is neither unless 1) the question is "which would save you more gas?" or 2) you plan to scrap one of your two cars instead of reselling them or trading them in.
Assuming both of your current cars work today, by reselling one you increase the supply of used cars which allows one additional carless person to able to purchase a car, and total gas consumption is now the sum of your two cars plus that of your new car. You can however impress your green friends by bragging about how you improved your mpg and "how much gas you're saving."
In the US, dialing 211 has the same impact as dialing 911 to make easier for visitors from other countries.
The billions being skimmed today (per a given quantity of trades) are less than the billions skimmed before.
This is why shorts are so important - the help with price discovery by identifying upside speculation and betting against the speculators.
Day traders produce exactly two things: personal wealth, and market instability. They add nothing to the GDP, and are basically leeches. Imagine if everyone quit their jobs and became day traders. Nobody would be producing any goods and the economy would collapse instantly. The leeches would have nothing on which to feed.
If by "market instability" you mean increased liquidity which increases 1) the amount of capital our society puts to work (we're more willing to invest in businesses when we're confident in the ability to liquidate the investment in the future at the time of our choosing) and 2) the ability of the market to efficiently allocate capital (lowers the transaction cost of moving capital from poor investments to good investments), I agree. Additionally some day traders increase the speed of price discovery penalizing speculators, which further increases the efficient allocation of capital (increasing production)within the market.
As a thought experiment - Imagine if we all became Doctors, nobody would be producing any goods and the economy would collapse instantly.
Wouldn't it be great if that responsibility was enforced so that the people responsible for the technology that sold stock on unconfirmed news lost a ton of money... oh wait...
Can we please kill the 24/7/265 phrasing? Where do you people live that there are 365 weeks in a year?
Not to mention leap years! 24/7/365 implies 1 day of downtime every 4 years.
"You could dedicate yourself near 100% academics but that would be a waist..."
On the other hand, going to a couple of classes every once in a while is recommended as a mind is a terrible thing to waist.
Bah, Digg's not THAT good at math. I asked a few of them to add up the following random hex numbers and half the site freaked out:
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
31F
There's not anyone named Nice White in the article summary either. (Or the article for that matter.)
You know... sitting on a couch, eating Pringles, and playing video games has never caused wars or anything. The world would be a better place if people followed CowboyNeal's fine example.
In that case, "...lets play Global Thermonuclear War!"
Nah, You're a square. :)
This is this is true the world over for a variety of reasons, however my belief is that one key reason the problem persists in the US is because it is so uncomfortable for us to discuss class, since considering the topic immediately gives lie to the core American value that "all men are created equal." I believe that if class can be discussed more openly , our society will benefit by becoming more of a meritocracy, more productive, and generally a better place to live.
My humor, which you obviously caught, was meant to highlight the inequity between the opportunities available for the rich and the poor and jumpstart discussion, rather than to draw a hard and fast line between public and private schools. (And now to actually answer your questions...)
Is there really such a big difference between public [state funded] and private schools?
1) While the best schools are private and the worst schools are public, school quality is typically much more directly based on the affluence of the population it serves. For example, a public school in an affluent area would very likely be of higher quality than a private school in a poor area. Private schools serving affluent populations are generally considered the best education available.
Are there public universities in the USA?
2) There are absolutely public universities in the US. With some notable exceptions public universities are typically large institutions run by the states and provide significant cost savings over private universities. As an example the annual tuition for the public university in my state is approximately US$12,000 whereas a top private university in the US will run approximately US$40,000 a year. While there are some fantastic opportunities to get a top notch education at a public university in the US, many people with the means to pay the additional cost of a private university choose private over public.
>Really? I suppose this should be different in different countries, and mabye you're talking about USA, since Slashdot is hosted there (I think).
Slashdot is in fact based in the USA. For that reason people less than 18 years of age (minors) can not not enter into the contest related contract. The reason has nothing to do with their age per se, but rather is due to the terrible American (state run) public school systems - many people 18 and younger can not yet sign their own names!
-1 Dupe.
Allah-eluiah
It's absolutely training the sharks that is the major expense... On average, trainers lose an eyeball a week due to laser related injuries. (If you were in a tank with a shark wouldn't you look directly at it?) Keeping a single freaking shark with a laser on its head properly trained requires approximately 26 trainers a year! At $75K a year per trainer, a generous pension plan, plus some unbelievable medical and insurance bills, the costs add up quickly.
Don't pet the shark with your remaining hand!
Arbitrage
It turns out AMDs can in fact help cure cancer:
http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-diseases.html#Canc er
I think you mean the American Federation of Teachers (AFT ). Believe it or not, teacher's unions have typically opposed bonuses based on above average performance. The thinking is that every dollar of bonus paid to top teachers takes away from the teachers who are below average or average, but who make up a voting majority within the union.
Unfortunately, for all their rhetoric, the NFT as an organization is more interested in lining their pockets than in improving education in the US. Because of their selfishness, common sense remedies to the appalling state of the American public school system such as pay for performance are politically untenable.
This potentially a huge step towards improving the quality of American public schools - and presumably the eventual quality or quantity of our Science and Math graduates.
Paying teachers for performance rather than just for showing up represents a major departure from the current American system of continuing to employ tenured teachers (at low wages) irrespective of their effectiveness. Adding pay for AP teachers should increase the competition for those teaching positions and help ensure that America's best and brightest (public school students) are taught by the best (public school teachers).
Try searching google including the term " site:wikipedia.org "