Seriously, though, IAAA. There are plenty of people like me who belong to both sets. I'd even say that the proportion of nerds is just as high, if not higher, in analytical accountancy than it is in, say, web development. Weren't actuaries the prototypical nerd of the last century, and didn't they drive a lot of the computing advances of the time? Don't forget your roots, man.
"All these "fear the scarcity" news reports on vital materials are bunk -- you'll know when there is a shortage when the price skyrockets"
Agreed. Except, of course, when that shortage happens, you're up the creek without a paddle.
Anticipating future business conditions is important for long-term planning, and failure to do so is a big mistake.
"If they knew they were running out, they wouldn't sell it so cheaply."
That's not correct, unless 'they' can control the entire copper market. 'They' are competing with eachother, and it's the current market (along with gov't subsidies, restrictions, etc) that determine price. Also, the opportunity cost of waiting to sell (until copper really is scarce) might be greater than the increase in revenue.
"I study 5-10 mining reports a day and all I see is more and more oil, gold, carbon and copper being found."
Doesn't matter, if consumption grows faster than the supply.
I agree with you, though, in the sense that the market will find alternatives that are cheaper, when copper gets to be too expensive. Such as wireless.
NMR diesn't rquire crystallization, but it does require transfer of the protein to a non-native solution (which may affect tert structure). Not that crystallization doesn't do this also...
Plus, NMR results or more vague than X-Ray crystallography, and can only be used with small proteins, whereas crystallography works for even very large proteins (provided you can get them crystallized).
"Just as if they planned to specifically target that Maybe they were keeping warm in the exhaust. Or naturally hanging out over an area where food is more likely to pop up.
Not just bird-related... Cthulhu Karts racing game? Sweet.
Now I can understand that my racing is futile, and that my struggles to finish first mean nothing in the universe at large as powers beyond my comprehension accidentally crush the entire raceway just prior to completion of the final race.
Besides, I've always wanted to see the Raceway at R'lyeh.
A dialogue between CmdrTaco (or other editors) and the Slashdot public is a two-way street. It's great that it seems we'll be getting at least a semi-regular forum for discussion.
FWIW, it looks to me like this article is partly about what affects CmdrTaco's formatting/editing of accepted submissions. It's also about what issues he believes are important for us to be discussing in the comments (e.g., NOT gramar/spelling).
The article is also a guide for people who are submitting articles... what to do and what not to do.
Finally, I think it's unreasonable for Rob or anyone else to have to deal with the "heavy" issues all the time. As was pointed out last week, such a discussion takes a huge amount of time for him, therby limiting what time is spent on daily operations.
So, I say, be happy with what you get, and trust that other issues will be addressed when there is time.
"RE4 was much more innovative in my opinion. It completely eschewed existing game grammar (clear room, collect treasure, advance) in favor of 'run like hell or you die in a really scary way'."
Innovative? That's rogue-likes in a nutshell. I'd like to see more of it in 3D games though...
Not only that, but the list of 'talents' is not composed of talents, except for wit. 'Publisher' is not a talent. 'Politician' is not a talent.
Also, NPR doesn't say anything. How's this for a rewrite:
Franklin was a man of diverse talents, as evidenced by his success as: publisher, inventor, ambassador, politician. He possessed great wit with some human frailities.
He 'posted' anonymously because freedom of speech didn't exist, because of humility, and because he was aware that some ideas would have greater impact if they were not seen as being from him.
By the way, it's still possible to publish anonymously. It's illegal to slander, anonymously or not, which was true then as it is now.
"Also as to what Mark Cuban said: Don't we already
Why not just meter usage? Why discriminate at the content level, when they could just charge customers according to how much pipe they are using?
Offer various plans, like cell phone companies do. Exceed your planwidth, pay extra.
Why should grandma, who uses email once a week but otherwise doesn't use bandwidth, subsidize heavy users?
The title of that paper is pretty extreme, but you know what? He makes his point well and backs it up.
Just because you disagree with one of his position papers doesn't make the rest of his work any less valid. Rather than dismissing his entire work, why don't you address the science behind his opinions? Why don't you point out some counter-examples, or discuss why you think he's wrong?
At different broadcast power, of course. Radio tags used on animals usually have an internal battery, whereas RFID tags use the incoming signal for power.
Also, animal radio tags are always on, RFID is activated by incoming signal.
Though, my sens of irony is telling me that I just missed the whole point of your post:)
I agree, and didn't posit that those were the only possible outcomes.
Theory you describe is what I was talking about when I said that more realistic claims would be less acceptable to the mainstream. Either people would identify with his views, and become more polarized that way, or would disagree with him, and jump the other way -- resulting in the center (the more realistic claims) having few adherents.
" (of course, 2/3 of the time it's better to switch but most people can't figure out the logic so it's a bit of a moot point)"
Uh, no. The only information you have is: There are two doors left. One of which is bad, one of which is good. 50% of the time it's better to switch. P(good) = 1/2.
The Recycling Center in Redding, CT has free item dropoff/pickup (BTW, this is where people take their cans/bottles etc). My sister-in-law has gotten some real finds there, and also left valuable items that she no longer has use for (Baby furniture, etc).
So, this exists in meatspace as well as online.
My point is that savvy people with a real need for stuff can do really well on Freecycle, it's not just for "people with too much time, too much stuff, and too much storage space.
"Money is merely a storage of your past labor to be used for someone else's future labor. It is a very basic idea."
I disagree... money represents goods, not labor. While labor can be used to produce goods, and in that repsect, money represents labor, goods can also be used to produce more goods. That is where the equating money with labor breaks down.
"Some banks will hold 100% reserves in gold, others will hold 100% reserves in oil or oxen or prostitute farms."
What you have then, is banking (and thus currency) controlled by corporations. Microsoft prints their own money, Citicapital prints their own money, etc. The only rule is that companies (banks) can only produce as much currency as they have assets -- the 100% backing. Since the value of assets changes, the best way to do this is to have their money be equal to a fraction of their assets. So, basically, you'd have the only currency be stock certificates? And only for for companies that hold an inventory of commodities? I can't really wrap my head around this quickly, it would have some enourmous implications that I have to think about. Off the top of my head though, I see terrible political consequences, since (1) those commodities would not be put to use and (2) greater control of society by private companies.
"A gold standard would allow inflation as it should be allowed -- if a product drops in production, inflation should happen temporarily to allow people to put their assets in finding new ways to create that product and overcome the temporary shortage."
Except inflation is about a product dropping in production. It's about total currency supply growing faster (or shrinking slower) than marketable production. Production levels are influenced by external factors (say, drought), and if production of food decreases, production of other things decreases, too. What you have is net decrease in absolute production, with currency (gold) staying constant == inflation. This will decrease production again, by reducing purchase of other goods (and therefore production of other goods) since other goods are now priced higher. This results in more inflation &c, until production bottoms out and begins to climb again. The effects of this could be disastrous, like a collaps of the banking system before production climbs again.
"Plus we wouldn't lose money to the elite by funding wars through inflationary mechanisms, and taxation would be "more fair" as there wouldn't be the hidden tax of inflation."
Instead, we'd lose money to the corporate elite, rather than the political elite (though they are strangely becoming the same thing). Also, inflation has nothing to do with fair/unfair taxes. Inflation is not a hidden tax, since govt is not receiving money 'lost' to inflation. Furthermore, the government guarantees deposits with all reputable banks, and the typical RoR at those banks is higher than inflation (over time).
It's nice to have a d20 system that provides what some players and GMs are looking for, but most great GMs I've played with (and I've tried to aspire to) have made roll-your-own solutions.
It doesn't matter what system you play with. The setting, the gameplay, the amount of die rolls -- it just depends on the GM.
All the DnD games I DMed were low-magic. Getting a +1 sword was a Big Deal (tm). And typically, items with beneficial effects also had drawbacks -- i.e., that +1 sword drew a lot of not-so-positive attention from NPCs. Playing magic-users or clerics was discourage (though not that big a deal, since I required 'natural' die rolls for stats -- it was a rare cleric who was wise enough / pious enough to cast a lot of healing spells)
My point is that while differing rules systems can provide better frameworks for a good game, it's up to the GM and the players to make a good game. It really helps if the GM and the Players are all very honest when they discuss what kind of world it's going to be.
Slashdot Mirror
I am an accountant, you insensitive clod!
Seriously, though, IAAA. There are plenty of people like me who belong to both sets. I'd even say that the proportion of nerds is just as high, if not higher, in analytical accountancy than it is in, say, web development. Weren't actuaries the prototypical nerd of the last century, and didn't they drive a lot of the computing advances of the time? Don't forget your roots, man.
I thnk you're right on all counts, except maybe your last point (generalization may preclude being 'tops' in either method).
:)
I suspect that the submitter:
(1) Isn't up on the subject, and
(2) Didn't bother to do some background research before submitting.
Still, I'm glad the article was submitted and posted
Wow. Considering that the practical limit 5 years ago was around 35 kDa IIRC, that's impressive.
"All these "fear the scarcity" news reports on vital materials are bunk -- you'll know when there is a shortage when the price skyrockets"
Agreed. Except, of course, when that shortage happens, you're up the creek without a paddle.
Anticipating future business conditions is important for long-term planning, and failure to do so is a big mistake.
"If they knew they were running out, they wouldn't sell it so cheaply."
That's not correct, unless 'they' can control the entire copper market. 'They' are competing with eachother, and it's the current market (along with gov't subsidies, restrictions, etc) that determine price. Also, the opportunity cost of waiting to sell (until copper really is scarce) might be greater than the increase in revenue.
"I study 5-10 mining reports a day and all I see is more and more oil, gold, carbon and copper being found."
Doesn't matter, if consumption grows faster than the supply.
I agree with you, though, in the sense that the market will find alternatives that are cheaper, when copper gets to be too expensive. Such as wireless.
NMR diesn't rquire crystallization, but it does require transfer of the protein to a non-native solution (which may affect tert structure). Not that crystallization doesn't do this also...
Plus, NMR results or more vague than X-Ray crystallography, and can only be used with small proteins, whereas crystallography works for even very large proteins (provided you can get them crystallized).
Did you check the submitter link? rel=nofollow. Maybe if you'd read the commments by Taco in last weeks /.metaarticle, you'd see why.
"Just as if they planned to specifically target that Maybe they were keeping warm in the exhaust. Or naturally hanging out over an area where food is more likely to pop up.
Not just bird-related... Cthulhu Karts racing game? Sweet.
Now I can understand that my racing is futile, and that my struggles to finish first mean nothing in the universe at large as powers beyond my comprehension accidentally crush the entire raceway just prior to completion of the final race.
Besides, I've always wanted to see the Raceway at R'lyeh.
A dialogue between CmdrTaco (or other editors) and the Slashdot public is a two-way street. It's great that it seems we'll be getting at least a semi-regular forum for discussion.
FWIW, it looks to me like this article is partly about what affects CmdrTaco's formatting/editing of accepted submissions. It's also about what issues he believes are important for us to be discussing in the comments (e.g., NOT gramar/spelling).
The article is also a guide for people who are submitting articles... what to do and what not to do.
Finally, I think it's unreasonable for Rob or anyone else to have to deal with the "heavy" issues all the time. As was pointed out last week, such a discussion takes a huge amount of time for him, therby limiting what time is spent on daily operations.
So, I say, be happy with what you get, and trust that other issues will be addressed when there is time.
You're right, it's a civil tort, not a criminal act -- which it was then and is now :)
Thanks for the correction
"RE4 was much more innovative in my opinion. It completely eschewed existing game grammar (clear room, collect treasure, advance) in favor of 'run like hell or you die in a really scary way'."
Innovative? That's rogue-likes in a nutshell. I'd like to see more of it in 3D games though...
Addressed in that discussion, by Taco, here.
Not unmentioned. Directly addressed.
Not only that, but the list of 'talents' is not composed of talents, except for wit. 'Publisher' is not a talent. 'Politician' is not a talent.
Also, NPR doesn't say anything. How's this for a rewrite:
Franklin was a man of diverse talents, as evidenced by his success as: publisher, inventor, ambassador, politician. He possessed great wit with some human frailities.
He 'posted' anonymously because freedom of speech didn't exist, because of humility, and because he was aware that some ideas would have greater impact if they were not seen as being from him.
By the way, it's still possible to publish anonymously. It's illegal to slander, anonymously or not, which was true then as it is now.
"Philly's PR people actually have a trademarked phrase - "Philly's Got BENergy!" Ugh"
Which has Franklin spinning in his grave.
Gotta say, though, I love the Franklin Institute. Loved it as a kid, love it as an adult.
No, a rouge state. It's like a mascara state, or a lipstick state, except with cheekier diplomacy.
"Also as to what Mark Cuban said: Don't we already Why not just meter usage? Why discriminate at the content level, when they could just charge customers according to how much pipe they are using?
Offer various plans, like cell phone companies do. Exceed your planwidth, pay extra.
Why should grandma, who uses email once a week but otherwise doesn't use bandwidth, subsidize heavy users?
The title of that paper is pretty extreme, but you know what? He makes his point well and backs it up.
Just because you disagree with one of his position papers doesn't make the rest of his work any less valid. Rather than dismissing his entire work, why don't you address the science behind his opinions? Why don't you point out some counter-examples, or discuss why you think he's wrong?
Ooops. Forgot about conditional probability. Serves me right for coming to work (well, going to the office to slashdot) on a holiday.
At different broadcast power, of course. Radio tags used on animals usually have an internal battery, whereas RFID tags use the incoming signal for power.
:)
Also, animal radio tags are always on, RFID is activated by incoming signal.
Though, my sens of irony is telling me that I just missed the whole point of your post
I agree, and didn't posit that those were the only possible outcomes.
Theory you describe is what I was talking about when I said that more realistic claims would be less acceptable to the mainstream. Either people would identify with his views, and become more polarized that way, or would disagree with him, and jump the other way -- resulting in the center (the more realistic claims) having few adherents.
" (of course, 2/3 of the time it's better to switch but most people can't figure out the logic so it's a bit of a moot point)"
Uh, no. The only information you have is: There are two doors left. One of which is bad, one of which is good. 50% of the time it's better to switch. P(good) = 1/2.
The Recycling Center in Redding, CT has free item dropoff/pickup (BTW, this is where people take their cans/bottles etc). My sister-in-law has gotten some real finds there, and also left valuable items that she no longer has use for (Baby furniture, etc).
So, this exists in meatspace as well as online.
My point is that savvy people with a real need for stuff can do really well on Freecycle, it's not just for "people with too much time, too much stuff, and too much storage space.
"Money is merely a storage of your past labor to be used for someone else's future labor. It is a very basic idea."
I disagree... money represents goods, not labor. While labor can be used to produce goods, and in that repsect, money represents labor, goods can also be used to produce more goods. That is where the equating money with labor breaks down.
"Some banks will hold 100% reserves in gold, others will hold 100% reserves in oil or oxen or prostitute farms."
What you have then, is banking (and thus currency) controlled by corporations. Microsoft prints their own money, Citicapital prints their own money, etc. The only rule is that companies (banks) can only produce as much currency as they have assets -- the 100% backing. Since the value of assets changes, the best way to do this is to have their money be equal to a fraction of their assets. So, basically, you'd have the only currency be stock certificates? And only for for companies that hold an inventory of commodities? I can't really wrap my head around this quickly, it would have some enourmous implications that I have to think about. Off the top of my head though, I see terrible political consequences, since (1) those commodities would not be put to use and (2) greater control of society by private companies.
"A gold standard would allow inflation as it should be allowed -- if a product drops in production, inflation should happen temporarily to allow people to put their assets in finding new ways to create that product and overcome the temporary shortage."
Except inflation is about a product dropping in production. It's about total currency supply growing faster (or shrinking slower) than marketable production. Production levels are influenced by external factors (say, drought), and if production of food decreases, production of other things decreases, too. What you have is net decrease in absolute production, with currency (gold) staying constant == inflation. This will decrease production again, by reducing purchase of other goods (and therefore production of other goods) since other goods are now priced higher. This results in more inflation &c, until production bottoms out and begins to climb again. The effects of this could be disastrous, like a collaps of the banking system before production climbs again.
"Plus we wouldn't lose money to the elite by funding wars through inflationary mechanisms, and taxation would be "more fair" as there wouldn't be the hidden tax of inflation."
Instead, we'd lose money to the corporate elite, rather than the political elite (though they are strangely becoming the same thing). Also, inflation has nothing to do with fair/unfair taxes. Inflation is not a hidden tax, since govt is not receiving money 'lost' to inflation. Furthermore, the government guarantees deposits with all reputable banks, and the typical RoR at those banks is higher than inflation (over time).
It's nice to have a d20 system that provides what some players and GMs are looking for, but most great GMs I've played with (and I've tried to aspire to) have made roll-your-own solutions.
It doesn't matter what system you play with. The setting, the gameplay, the amount of die rolls -- it just depends on the GM.
All the DnD games I DMed were low-magic. Getting a +1 sword was a Big Deal (tm). And typically, items with beneficial effects also had drawbacks -- i.e., that +1 sword drew a lot of not-so-positive attention from NPCs. Playing magic-users or clerics was discourage (though not that big a deal, since I required 'natural' die rolls for stats -- it was a rare cleric who was wise enough / pious enough to cast a lot of healing spells)
My point is that while differing rules systems can provide better frameworks for a good game, it's up to the GM and the players to make a good game. It really helps if the GM and the Players are all very honest when they discuss what kind of world it's going to be.