Artificial scarcity makes Time-Warner more money right now. Plus they might be able to pull off some huge win copyright lawsuits. They'll wait for someone else to create a successful business model before they change.
What do you think the last mile people have to do with this? Cable companies have no love of bundling. They have to do it or they lose large swathes of content. If you're like me and won't pay for a cable subscription just to watch Game of Thrones blame Time-Warner, owners of HBO, and the people that ensure you are paying a cable company for all their other channels before you get HBO.
Reality distortion field? I'd have to say it's the rest of us in the distortion fields. We don't have enough information to understand the system, yet many of the people on this topic have decided they know who to blame for the crash. I've come to accept that reality distortion fields are a necessary part of belonging to the human race. The few of us that can get past them are likely to hold power over the rest of us. Using reality to one's advantage is of course the ultimate power.
No need to blame the banks. It was a systemic problem that was not created exclusively by the banks (Ratings agencies told them the risk was low), by finance (derivatives are actually an excellent financial tool when used intelligently), by government (government backed credit has been used since time immemorial, some for good some for bad, regarding both intention and result), by salesmen (the micro-economics were sound), by buyers (again with the micro-economics), or by the ratings agencies. I don't have a comment for the last one, as they (much more than the SEC or any government agency) are the watchdog for these situations. If there was any misdeed, it was that the finance guys felt good about creating crazy derivatives while the ratings guys felt good about rating them.
Yes, some people in this huge equation were malicious. They can be found in each and every corner. And they would have gotten away with it except for the crash. Justice for any who committed crimes, but blame none if not the whole for the crash.
Or, with a different twisted view, derivatives were thought to be helpful by those who have done an otherwise fantastic job of dealing with the complex nightmare of the finance world. That they turned out to cause a catastrophe is more about our collective failure to understand the problem and heed the advice of the few against the resounding successes the stock market gave all of us. We were awash in wealth from the lowly home-owner with a mortgage only sustained by constant economic grow to the financier receiving another multi-million dollar bonus. Only those who had no need for continued success could view the situation with cold logic and real understanding, but they were telling us something we didn't want to hear.
Also from wikipedia - In economics, more precisely in contract theory, signalling (or signaling: see American and British English differences) is the idea that one party (termed the agent) credibly conveys some information about itself to another party (the principal).
For me, you are signaling that the science of human interaction scares you. It scares most people. It probably scares me in ways that I don't recognize.
I think we need to be more specific. It's not the complexity of the system (or else there is no interesting science), it's the inability to test hypotheses that makes economics a dubious science. But the same is true for many other disciplines (climate science, astrophysics, social sciences, etc). For me, the difference is that economics is mostly the science of human interaction, which much like biology turns political before most people have even heard the science. It is unfortunate to see it turn political so quickly on Slashdot, the place where science should always be heard first.
How is this a new thing in the 20th century? Even America is ran by a few super-elites. So they prefer economic exploitation to civil war. That's thousands of years of super-elite evolution that not all super-elites in the world have mastered. For instance, we have 4 year plans rather than 5 year plans. Ours are codified by law rather than specific initiatives of the super-elites.
Why play this as an us vs them? I'm getting tired of Straussian revisionism.
My brothers friends would parade around the house shouting nigger in a neighborhood that has never had a tanned resident. That and most internet hate speech are cries for attention, not racism. This article though is the genuine thing. I personally have rarely encountered the real deal. So I completely believe and agree with the AC.
Huh? You were so close to the truth and then what? Of course both postulations are correct. We are tribal, overt teaching or no. That white kids taught to beware blacks fight black kids taught to beware whites is exactly as is expected.
Yes idealist niceties are a good starting point, but as a white man who still doesn't know what to say to black, urban, poor men (3 things I was not raised to be or around), nothing beats actual real world experiences. Keeping a blunt on hand at all times did seem to help, as it does in many situations.
Considering your post comes after many posts about the legal system's bias against minorities, I'll give you the benefit of doubt and suggest you not present those figures ever again. This advice can only help your credibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Artificial scarcity makes Time-Warner more money right now. Plus they might be able to pull off some huge win copyright lawsuits. They'll wait for someone else to create a successful business model before they change.
What do you think the last mile people have to do with this? Cable companies have no love of bundling. They have to do it or they lose large swathes of content. If you're like me and won't pay for a cable subscription just to watch Game of Thrones blame Time-Warner, owners of HBO, and the people that ensure you are paying a cable company for all their other channels before you get HBO.
As the GP pointed, he's time-shifting. Nothing illegal here.
Let absurdity reign through the rule of law.
The math has as many contradictions as any mainstream religion. Complex systems are complex systems, no matter the starting point.
What, you're trying to add some intelligence to this thread?
I want him to show that empathy is somehow a new trait...that'd be some finely tune BS.
No need to feed the trolls.
Reality distortion field? I'd have to say it's the rest of us in the distortion fields. We don't have enough information to understand the system, yet many of the people on this topic have decided they know who to blame for the crash. I've come to accept that reality distortion fields are a necessary part of belonging to the human race. The few of us that can get past them are likely to hold power over the rest of us. Using reality to one's advantage is of course the ultimate power.
Reread the GP. Your comment isn't helping.
No need to blame the banks. It was a systemic problem that was not created exclusively by the banks (Ratings agencies told them the risk was low), by finance (derivatives are actually an excellent financial tool when used intelligently), by government (government backed credit has been used since time immemorial, some for good some for bad, regarding both intention and result), by salesmen (the micro-economics were sound), by buyers (again with the micro-economics), or by the ratings agencies. I don't have a comment for the last one, as they (much more than the SEC or any government agency) are the watchdog for these situations. If there was any misdeed, it was that the finance guys felt good about creating crazy derivatives while the ratings guys felt good about rating them. Yes, some people in this huge equation were malicious. They can be found in each and every corner. And they would have gotten away with it except for the crash. Justice for any who committed crimes, but blame none if not the whole for the crash.
Or, with a different twisted view, derivatives were thought to be helpful by those who have done an otherwise fantastic job of dealing with the complex nightmare of the finance world. That they turned out to cause a catastrophe is more about our collective failure to understand the problem and heed the advice of the few against the resounding successes the stock market gave all of us. We were awash in wealth from the lowly home-owner with a mortgage only sustained by constant economic grow to the financier receiving another multi-million dollar bonus. Only those who had no need for continued success could view the situation with cold logic and real understanding, but they were telling us something we didn't want to hear.
Also from wikipedia - In economics, more precisely in contract theory, signalling (or signaling: see American and British English differences) is the idea that one party (termed the agent) credibly conveys some information about itself to another party (the principal). For me, you are signaling that the science of human interaction scares you. It scares most people. It probably scares me in ways that I don't recognize.
I think we need to be more specific. It's not the complexity of the system (or else there is no interesting science), it's the inability to test hypotheses that makes economics a dubious science. But the same is true for many other disciplines (climate science, astrophysics, social sciences, etc). For me, the difference is that economics is mostly the science of human interaction, which much like biology turns political before most people have even heard the science. It is unfortunate to see it turn political so quickly on Slashdot, the place where science should always be heard first.
How is this a new thing in the 20th century? Even America is ran by a few super-elites. So they prefer economic exploitation to civil war. That's thousands of years of super-elite evolution that not all super-elites in the world have mastered. For instance, we have 4 year plans rather than 5 year plans. Ours are codified by law rather than specific initiatives of the super-elites.
Why play this as an us vs them? I'm getting tired of Straussian revisionism.
Now there is the genetic defect we could all have removed.
I'm sorry that you see racism where none exists. I suggest learning about tribalism, it may open your eyes.
Preferring people like you is not racism. That's called tribalism, which only has to do with race in so much as tribes are rarely multiracial.
My brothers friends would parade around the house shouting nigger in a neighborhood that has never had a tanned resident. That and most internet hate speech are cries for attention, not racism. This article though is the genuine thing. I personally have rarely encountered the real deal. So I completely believe and agree with the AC.
Huh? You were so close to the truth and then what? Of course both postulations are correct. We are tribal, overt teaching or no. That white kids taught to beware blacks fight black kids taught to beware whites is exactly as is expected.
Fact: Rainbows come in all the colors.
Yes idealist niceties are a good starting point, but as a white man who still doesn't know what to say to black, urban, poor men (3 things I was not raised to be or around), nothing beats actual real world experiences. Keeping a blunt on hand at all times did seem to help, as it does in many situations.
Considering your post comes after many posts about the legal system's bias against minorities, I'll give you the benefit of doubt and suggest you not present those figures ever again. This advice can only help your credibility.
No, because women are not as extreme as men. Let's not get misogynistic when the thread is already crawling with racism.
Lol. Because any other response borders on depressing.