If he made a fortune, it means _he_ was able to predict it, well enough to profit for it.
If he were able to predict it, then he would have made a net profit over the long haul. From what I heard, he was betting on a crash for a long time now, and apparently he lost a lot before it happened. It is unclear whether he even made enough off the crisis to get back into the black. Of course when he's interviewed on national television, he doesn't bother talking about the losses. Sort of like a gambler who likes to tell you about his most recent jackpot, but not about all the losing nights at the casino.
Maybe, the school systems are going about it all wrong. Instead of having "blockers," poke "holes."
This is an interesting idea, and I'm sure some must do it that way already. The problem with this approach is that the students are then spoon-fed their sources. Giving them an assignment with a pre-approved list of sites takes away the part where they have to actually dig for information.
I think as a practical matter, the "blockers" approach provides the best cost/benefit ratio. That doesn't mean it's perfect. But as GP put it (in one of the best posts I've ever seen on slashdot), the students are in school to work on their learning, not to watch sports, investigate alternative lifestyles, or do anything else like that.
When my daughter reaches that age, I'll be happy to explain the diverse nature of people in the world. In the meantime, I don't want to hear that this is what constitutes school work.
This is the same in many other disciplines. In economics, for example, this kind of story is non-news.
For the past 10+ years, even most "old fashioned" journals allow you to post your paper, as long as you post some blurb acknowledging that you passed copyright to the publisher. That arrangement worked out just fine. As an academic, who cares who has the copyright; just give me the paper!
Even for journals that did not offer this, authors would blatantly post their paper anyway. Yet I never once heard of a publisher going to an economist and asking them to alter their personal web page. (Yeah, yeah, insert "nobody reads the paper anyway" joke here.)
More recently, the field of economics has seen open-access e-journals popping up everywhere. The writing is on the wall, as to the future of access.
Finally, our school is in negotiations to make all publications open-access. This isn't just some faculty declaration; we're working on actually doing it. I imagine other schools are doing the same. So like I said, this is non-news to an insider.
So how about we all get together and decide on a system of rules to govern the decision makers in the group? Some collection of articles or something that would limit their ability to do anything but serve the members of the group, and leave all possible remaining power and rights with the actual group members? We could even make some sort of rules that would punish them if they got caught taking bribes or intentionally harming the group. You think something like that would do it?
Why yes, I think you're on to something. Of course we could never have the foresight to consider all possible rules we'll ever need, so one of the rules should be that we are allowed to modify the rules in the future. I can't see that leading to any problems.
But surely their sex lives are perfectly fair game for a bit of bragging?
No flame intended, but I can't resist observing this. GP misused the word "literally", but you responded with another figurative use of the word screw! Unfortunately, while your post was amusing, my post is about as funny as a guy literally screwing his associates.
Yeah, I was wondering if I was the only one. Suddenly, a New York train station, Majel Barrett, and cell phones all converged in my mind. It was a happy place.
Yes, I probably should not have used that term. I will point out that he has been betting (and not just his own money) on this downturn for quite a long time, to the degree that many people think he is actually a lifetime loser on this bet. It's sort of like a pro poker player bragging about his gross lifetime tournament winnings without telling you how many tournaments he's entered (and lost). Of course no pro would ever do that, would they?:-/
"I have nothing against economists:... But beware: they can be plain wrong, yet frame things in a way to make you feel stupid arguing with them. So make sure you do not give any of them risk-management responsibilities."
Well, I have nothing against medical doctors:... But beware: they can be plain wrong, yet frame things in a way to make you feel stupid arguing with them. So make sure you do not give any of them medical responsibilities.
I also have nothing against IT professionals:... But beware: they can be plain wrong, yet frame things in a way to make you feel stupid arguing with them. So make sure you do not give any of them technology-management responsibilities.
Pardon my ignorance, but exactly what other format should one use if one wants to use forms?
In my place of work, a large group of individuals each needs to fill out an annual form. It contains some short-answer questions, and a few that requires a few paragraphs to answer. In the past, they have used... wait for it... Word. Yes, I was forced to boot up Word once a year, to fill out this form. You should see the completely disastrous document that results.
For that reason, I always wished our administrators would have figured out pdf forms. You don't "edit" them, as you say; you fill them in. While there are many complaints to make about Adobe, I don't see the problem with pdf forms. Am I missing something?
Because the public still owns the right to the airwaves. The TV companies are leasing the public's property, as negotiated by the government.
Great! Where's my free cell phone service?
it's hardly unreasonable for the government to give some small amount of the profit made back to the public to mitigate the impact of the change.
"Government give back to the public"? The government is the public. This is precisely the GP's point: Whatever we (a.k.a. the government) spend on ourselves now, we have to make up for later (future generations).
Slashdot Mirror
Disclaimer: this is actually my area of research.
We'll try to believe you anyway.
If he made a fortune, it means _he_ was able to predict it, well enough to profit for it.
If he were able to predict it, then he would have made a net profit over the long haul. From what I heard, he was betting on a crash for a long time now, and apparently he lost a lot before it happened. It is unclear whether he even made enough off the crisis to get back into the black. Of course when he's interviewed on national television, he doesn't bother talking about the losses. Sort of like a gambler who likes to tell you about his most recent jackpot, but not about all the losing nights at the casino.
Maybe, the school systems are going about it all wrong. Instead of having "blockers," poke "holes."
This is an interesting idea, and I'm sure some must do it that way already. The problem with this approach is that the students are then spoon-fed their sources. Giving them an assignment with a pre-approved list of sites takes away the part where they have to actually dig for information.
I think as a practical matter, the "blockers" approach provides the best cost/benefit ratio. That doesn't mean it's perfect. But as GP put it (in one of the best posts I've ever seen on slashdot), the students are in school to work on their learning, not to watch sports, investigate alternative lifestyles, or do anything else like that.
When my daughter reaches that age, I'll be happy to explain the diverse nature of people in the world. In the meantime, I don't want to hear that this is what constitutes school work.
On a scale of 1-10 there is still a huge, huge gap between TMI and Chernobyl. The two can't be compared at all.
Well, I'm betting the difference is at most 9.
So it's a bit iffy, but overall, I'd say a good judgement
There's nothing iffy about a default judgment. If you don't show up (or don't follow some other required procedure), you lose.
But I do agree with the rest of your post.
pinkie? C'mon, gimme a hint.
I agree. Let's abandon realism for our own good.
This is the same in many other disciplines. In economics, for example, this kind of story is non-news.
For the past 10+ years, even most "old fashioned" journals allow you to post your paper, as long as you post some blurb acknowledging that you passed copyright to the publisher. That arrangement worked out just fine. As an academic, who cares who has the copyright; just give me the paper!
Even for journals that did not offer this, authors would blatantly post their paper anyway. Yet I never once heard of a publisher going to an economist and asking them to alter their personal web page. (Yeah, yeah, insert "nobody reads the paper anyway" joke here.)
More recently, the field of economics has seen open-access e-journals popping up everywhere. The writing is on the wall, as to the future of access.
Finally, our school is in negotiations to make all publications open-access. This isn't just some faculty declaration; we're working on actually doing it. I imagine other schools are doing the same. So like I said, this is non-news to an insider.
So how about we all get together and decide on a system of rules to govern the decision makers in the group? Some collection of articles or something that would limit their ability to do anything but serve the members of the group, and leave all possible remaining power and rights with the actual group members? We could even make some sort of rules that would punish them if they got caught taking bribes or intentionally harming the group. You think something like that would do it?
Why yes, I think you're on to something. Of course we could never have the foresight to consider all possible rules we'll ever need, so one of the rules should be that we are allowed to modify the rules in the future. I can't see that leading to any problems.
Well, if you get enough parents together, it shouldn't be such a load.
Except that "enough parents" constitutes a group. Groups attract those with an agenda. And you're back to GP's square one.
Drop the question mark. It was textbook hypocrisy.
Actually it was more like a punch in the gut, it so came out of nowhere. Sad.
they were literally screwing associates.
But surely their sex lives are perfectly fair game for a bit of bragging?
No flame intended, but I can't resist observing this. GP misused the word "literally", but you responded with another figurative use of the word screw! Unfortunately, while your post was amusing, my post is about as funny as a guy literally screwing his associates.
Shouting fire has two common purposes
Claiming that someone equated "leaving buildings unblurred" with "yelling fire" has two common purposes:
1. To explain that someone actually equated "leaving buildings unblurred" with "yelling fire"
2. Sensationalism.
RTFA, then figure out which it is in this case.
Yeah, I was wondering if I was the only one. Suddenly, a New York train station, Majel Barrett, and cell phones all converged in my mind. It was a happy place.
Maybe I should go outside for awhile.
I hadn't.
Now I merely wish I hadn't.
Yes, I probably should not have used that term. I will point out that he has been betting (and not just his own money) on this downturn for quite a long time, to the degree that many people think he is actually a lifetime loser on this bet. It's sort of like a pro poker player bragging about his gross lifetime tournament winnings without telling you how many tournaments he's entered (and lost). Of course no pro would ever do that, would they? :-/
"I have nothing against economists: ... But beware: they can be plain wrong, yet frame things in a way to make you feel stupid arguing with them. So make sure you do not give any of them risk-management responsibilities."
Well, I have nothing against medical doctors: ... But beware: they can be plain wrong, yet frame things in a way to make you feel stupid arguing with them. So make sure you do not give any of them medical responsibilities.
I also have nothing against IT professionals: ... But beware: they can be plain wrong, yet frame things in a way to make you feel stupid arguing with them. So make sure you do not give any of them technology-management responsibilities.
Need I continue?
No, just you're.
Pardon my ignorance, but exactly what other format should one use if one wants to use forms?
In my place of work, a large group of individuals each needs to fill out an annual form. It contains some short-answer questions, and a few that requires a few paragraphs to answer. In the past, they have used... wait for it... Word. Yes, I was forced to boot up Word once a year, to fill out this form. You should see the completely disastrous document that results.
For that reason, I always wished our administrators would have figured out pdf forms. You don't "edit" them, as you say; you fill them in. While there are many complaints to make about Adobe, I don't see the problem with pdf forms. Am I missing something?
And I, for one, will welcome our new Borg overlords.
Could it be that *gasp* Windows is actually easy to use than ?
Freudian slips don't get any better than that.
(with a little filter to ignore spelling fixes).
That idea is very good!
That idea is very goad!
That idea is very toad!
That idea is very tad!
That idea is very bad!
Sorry for the typos, but I think I finally got it :)
Because the public still owns the right to the airwaves. The TV companies are leasing the public's property, as negotiated by the government.
Great! Where's my free cell phone service?
it's hardly unreasonable for the government to give some small amount of the profit made back to the public to mitigate the impact of the change.
"Government give back to the public"? The government is the public. This is precisely the GP's point: Whatever we (a.k.a. the government) spend on ourselves now, we have to make up for later (future generations).
I can't think of a good reason why future generations of this country are going to pay for our television today.
Votes. This is simply yet another wealth transfer.
Most amusing was, after they cut back to the SuperBowl, you hear Madden saying "He went to the perfect guy, in the perfect situation."