After a lot of soul-searching, I've come to this opinion:
If you're complaining about high rental prices, you have to think about *why* they're high. They're high because people are willing to bid that much to live there. And they're willing to bid that much because they can make a salary there high enough to justify the move, even after such high rents. If rents seem high to you (I'm not singling you out here), that probably means you're taking up a unit that someone can make much more productive use than you.
I don't know, but I think the guy who came up with the name for "enigmail" (the encrypted email program) didn't realize how racist that sounds. e-nig-mail? COME ON!
To give a more helpful answer, energy *alone* couldn't do the trick -- remember, it fell significantly from 1980-1999 and only recently posted huge gains for a few years. ($11 barrel of oil in the late 90s, anyone?) So energy hasn't historically posted that kind of nominal return, and worse, has very high volatility:-/
Even if you're staking your bets on energy becoming more expensive due to some Peak Oil scenario (I'd consider that extremely ill-advised, but just for the sake of argument), that only guarantees exponential growth. It doesn't guarantee it will grow e.g 12% as opposed to 1% per year.
"Hey, we're contributing this code to the open source community." "Oh, cool, this is pretty useful, nice interface. "my mom likes it!" "Hm... are we sure about this?" "Oh, hush!" *wait, wait, wait* *most OSS projects now include the code from the MS contribution* "OMG!!!! That was actually copyrighted proprietary code!" *wins enormous judgment against anyone using it*
It seems very intuitive. For each bluffing algorithm (hand->bet correspondence), it seems there would be one that beats it, and then you'd have a sort of rock-paper-scissors cycle.
Perhaps if you randomly bluffed, with an x% chance of bluffing on a given hand, and the rest of the time bet on the true merit of the hand?
Re:They did not go up in price, the dollar went do
on
$60 Games Are Here To Stay
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Mostly because past history has shown that major losses have been covered by the government through future taxes. Yes, that explains why bond purchasers are sure they'll get the promised money back. It doesn't explain why they're so willing to lend at *negative* inflation-adjusted rates, and it was your claims about inflation that I was objecting to. In other words, you've explained the absence of a credit premium, but not an inflation premium.
Impossible because inflationary income causes people to invest unwisely, so inflation moves from market to market.... That doesn't matter. If you're correct about 12% inflation, you should be able to look at a time history of commodities and say, "okay, this basket, which represents a typical consumers weighting of purchases in their budget, appreciated at about 12%/year". And then I can hold that basket, which would appreciate 12% in the aggregate, regardless of which sector inflation hit. On the other hand, if you don't think there's such a basket that represents consumer spending AND appreciates at 12%, then you agree that consumer prices haven't inflated as you claim.
1) Why don't bond purchasers demand a higher premium (interest rate) for loaning money that's going to depreciate that fast -- and they *have* noticed that the government inflates the money supply by now.
2) Name the basket of commoditiy futures I can buy that predictably appreciates at the "true" 10-12% inflation rate you claim.
Look, it's very tempting to believe what you've claimed. And I'm the last one to defend government intervention. But your claims have real-world investment implications that are profitable to all of us here, if true, and you need to show how your ideas meet these simple tests. As far as I can tell, they don't.
Right -- those would be the arguments about the irrationality of people *choosing* to use it (and passing new laws with that dataset as a predicate would be choosing to use it) that I mentioned.
So that's what you're going to go with? "For the government to give people information is bad because they will use it irrationally"?
One interesting comparison someone pointed out to me is this: people think of Microsoft as a monopoly. But can you imagine them charging you for a "loading Windows sound" the way telecoms charge you for ringtones?
For the closedness and proprietarity of MS, they actually give you quite a bit of freedom with your machine... when compared to a cell phone.
First, the vast majority of doctors do not possess programming skills to create the database/program for computerized prescriptions My complaint was NOT that "every doctor has not written a database program to replace prescriptions"; it was that that doctors resist such a change to one.
I have not met a doctor who thinks he is completely infallible- although some have a "God complex" I haven't seen an unsecure operating system -- although I have seen Windows.
Second - doctors do rely on their "expertise," which does not mean ignoring "empirically validated methodologies" - do you think there is a conspiracy to actively participate in bad medicine when there is typically no benefit to it. I think that doctors do resist transparency in their occupation for fear of bringing failures to light and having to conform to methodologies that imply the irrelevance of (a large part) of their "expertise", absolutely. This is a human failing, in which doctors are far from alone -- but it is a failing. If you want an example, there's a case where following a rote algorithm in checking for a heart attack was right 98 percent of the time, while a doctor's expertise yielded 75-89% accuracy, yet was resisted. It was detailed in a Malcom Gladwell's Blink. (Google cache of summary)
, I don't think doctors are interested in competing against more physicians for the same job; who wants their job taken by someone for less? And who does? But I haven't seen computer programmers set up limits on how many people can become one each year on the (flimsy, self-serving) grounds that it's necessary to keep quality up.
Fourth, if you want us to watch commercials to find out the latest meds you will be disappointed No, I want you find out about new medicines through the proper channels. But any time you change your recommendation because the *patient* initiated a talk about the new drug, you are admitting failure to keep your knowledge current. And pharmas basically rely on that happening -- successfully. Think about it.
Still a problem. It gives the government the ability to censor content the government finds objectionable for anyone using the software.
No, it doesn't. It's merely giving a recommendation. Any censoring would have to be done on the receiver side. Objection to that kind of censoring is ultimately an argument about the irrationality of the people relying on it, since its standards don't match theirs closely enough, but they use it anyway.
I find this kind of funny because when I played, back in '03, one of the examples they gave you on how to write scripts, was a slot machine program.
But anyway, isn't it still possible to gamble online in the US? I see ads for, I think, 888.com all the time, or used to. How can that be legal but not this?
On the one hand, I get it. Since the Linden actually has a conversion rate with "real" money, the gambling is gambling for "real" money and there are all kinds of laws about that Yes, such as tax law. As I've argued before, there are serious consequencs to the convertibility of online game currencies. If it can qualify for gambling laws, it can qualify for ingame taxation.
I also remember that I started a "bank" in SL. No interest or investment or anything, you'd just store your money there for one day each week to trick the server into thinking you're poor and giving you an allowance. I wonder if they'll regulate that...
Might as well post this here. (To pre-empt the question, no I don't have kids.)
I can understand not wanting to filter the internet itself, but what about if the government just had a database of labels for sites, and one of those labels was "not-kid-appropriate"? It wouldn't put anything on the sites themselves, it would just have its own database matching websites to labels or lack thereof. Parents could then *choose* to use this database (with some kind of software) to filter their computers.
Would this be objectionable, from a civil liberties standpoint? Given that no one's required to use the database, and no site has to modify itself as a result of the database, except if it wants to change its label.
Oh really? So doctors have hastened the end of the hand-scrawl prescription so they can replace it with a computerized database that automatically checks for possible excessive dosage or condition interaction? So doctors quickly change to empirically validated methodologies that sidestep their "expertise" for a rote checklist? So doctors are interested in lifting the artificial limits on MDs granted? So doctors never wait until a patient "asks his doctor about NewMeda" to research it, and never change their treatment recommendation based on that? (You might want to have a word with pharma ad departments...)
I remember thinking about how to use the energy you could get from Dyson Sphere-ing a nearby star, back to earth in useful form. That is, move lots of energy, a long distance, on a "truck". Theoretically, since you can draw nuclear energy from uranium, you should be able to convert lower-numbered elements into uranium to store energy.
But that maybe be too much for energy absorption this far from the sun;-)
It's ridiculous to patent the components of something that self-reproduces. No patents for any subsystem of a self-replicating robot?
Let Monsanto sit on it until they come up with a fool-proof way of keeping their seeds limited to those who buy them. Let innovators divert some of the efforts to making up for non-cooperation from law enforcement.
I want millions, and I've written software that I'm sure would help Monsanto. Should I patent it then slip it into their company networks via a worm and sue them? Seems like a winning strategy. They have measures to keep unauthorized code out, but if you want to slip software in that gets them sued when they reuse it, try the GPL.
Schmeiser had recognized the cross-contamination the cross-contamination, knowingly collected and replanted the seeds from the cross-contaminated crop.
In other words, he didn't merely do what every farmer for the past 10,000 years has done, liar.
Secondly, he's freaking Canadian, and doesn't receive the kinds of subsidies you think he does.
Canada also has vast agricultural subsidies.
Fourthly, at the time of this battle he was ~70 years old. I guess he'd be better off ditching that farming crap, being a greeter at Wal-Mart is much more profitable and spiritually rewarding, anyway.
No one has the right to have the government ensure they can get their dream job. If you can't survive market competition, don't expect me to pay you so that your work is artificially profitable. That's the standard the IT world lives by. When your knowledge becomes obsolete, you replace it. If he didn't plan for his old age, why should he get massive subsidies so he can feel "independent" (beyond the statutory entitlements)?
If he's holding the land out of the hands of someone who can make better use of it, without suffering the financial loss the market allocates to people who do that, then yes, I hope he throws in the towel to go work at Walmart.
Right -- he just *happened* to *only* use the seeds from the *very same* set that was contaminated, for almost his *entire* crop. Just a pure coincidence, that's all.
Seriously, he needs to go get a read job -- one that doesn't require massive subsidies for his very existence, that make him feel "independent" (!).
Exactly. He criticizes buttons -- and releases a device that creates buttons on demand! Buttons are not the problem; the problem is failing to adhere to "right tool for the job". Instead we have "newest tool for the job" or "flashiest tool for the job".
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? What do Waco and Branch Dividians have to do with enigmail's racism?
I thing every investor would be happier with exponential returns on their investments, rather than a steady % growth.
Er, exponential growth *is* a steady percentage growth.
Ah, downtown real estate prices!
After a lot of soul-searching, I've come to this opinion:
If you're complaining about high rental prices, you have to think about *why* they're high. They're high because people are willing to bid that much to live there. And they're willing to bid that much because they can make a salary there high enough to justify the move, even after such high rents. If rents seem high to you (I'm not singling you out here), that probably means you're taking up a unit that someone can make much more productive use than you.
Move already!
Amateur. I predicted EVERY past event in history! Totally saw it coming.
:-/
I'm not so good at predicting events before they happen tho
I don't know, but I think the guy who came up with the name for "enigmail" (the encrypted email program) didn't realize how racist that sounds. e-nig-mail? COME ON!
To give a more helpful answer, energy *alone* couldn't do the trick -- remember, it fell significantly from 1980-1999 and only recently posted huge gains for a few years. ($11 barrel of oil in the late 90s, anyone?) So energy hasn't historically posted that kind of nominal return, and worse, has very high volatility :-/
Even if you're staking your bets on energy becoming more expensive due to some Peak Oil scenario (I'd consider that extremely ill-advised, but just for the sake of argument), that only guarantees exponential growth. It doesn't guarantee it will grow e.g 12% as opposed to 1% per year.
Speaking of which...
Remember that listening bug I wrote in SL? Well, guess what the couple I was bugging did...
Yes.
... are we sure about this?" "Oh, hush!"
"Hey, we're contributing this code to the open source community."
"Oh, cool, this is pretty useful, nice interface. "my mom likes it!" "Hm
*wait, wait, wait* *most OSS projects now include the code from the MS contribution* "OMG!!!! That was actually copyrighted proprietary code!"
*wins enormous judgment against anyone using it*
It seems very intuitive. For each bluffing algorithm (hand->bet correspondence), it seems there would be one that beats it, and then you'd have a sort of rock-paper-scissors cycle.
Perhaps if you randomly bluffed, with an x% chance of bluffing on a given hand, and the rest of the time bet on the true merit of the hand?
If what you're saying is true:
1) Why don't bond purchasers demand a higher premium (interest rate) for loaning money that's going to depreciate that fast -- and they *have* noticed that the government inflates the money supply by now.
2) Name the basket of commoditiy futures I can buy that predictably appreciates at the "true" 10-12% inflation rate you claim.
Look, it's very tempting to believe what you've claimed. And I'm the last one to defend government intervention. But your claims have real-world investment implications that are profitable to all of us here, if true, and you need to show how your ideas meet these simple tests. As far as I can tell, they don't.
Right -- those would be the arguments about the irrationality of people *choosing* to use it (and passing new laws with that dataset as a predicate would be choosing to use it) that I mentioned.
So that's what you're going to go with? "For the government to give people information is bad because they will use it irrationally"?
Remind me who's paternalistic again?
One interesting comparison someone pointed out to me is this: people think of Microsoft as a monopoly. But can you imagine them charging you for a "loading Windows sound" the way telecoms charge you for ringtones?
... when compared to a cell phone.
For the closedness and proprietarity of MS, they actually give you quite a bit of freedom with your machine
Still a problem. It gives the government the ability to censor content the government finds objectionable for anyone using the software.
No, it doesn't. It's merely giving a recommendation. Any censoring would have to be done on the receiver side. Objection to that kind of censoring is ultimately an argument about the irrationality of the people relying on it, since its standards don't match theirs closely enough, but they use it anyway.
But anyway, isn't it still possible to gamble online in the US? I see ads for, I think, 888.com all the time, or used to. How can that be legal but not this? On the one hand, I get it. Since the Linden actually has a conversion rate with "real" money, the gambling is gambling for "real" money and there are all kinds of laws about that Yes, such as tax law. As I've argued before, there are serious consequencs to the convertibility of online game currencies. If it can qualify for gambling laws, it can qualify for ingame taxation.
I also remember that I started a "bank" in SL. No interest or investment or anything, you'd just store your money there for one day each week to trick the server into thinking you're poor and giving you an allowance. I wonder if they'll regulate that...
Might as well post this here. (To pre-empt the question, no I don't have kids.)
I can understand not wanting to filter the internet itself, but what about if the government just had a database of labels for sites, and one of those labels was "not-kid-appropriate"? It wouldn't put anything on the sites themselves, it would just have its own database matching websites to labels or lack thereof. Parents could then *choose* to use this database (with some kind of software) to filter their computers.
Would this be objectionable, from a civil liberties standpoint? Given that no one's required to use the database, and no site has to modify itself as a result of the database, except if it wants to change its label.
Oh really? So doctors have hastened the end of the hand-scrawl prescription so they can replace it with a computerized database that automatically checks for possible excessive dosage or condition interaction? So doctors quickly change to empirically validated methodologies that sidestep their "expertise" for a rote checklist? So doctors are interested in lifting the artificial limits on MDs granted? So doctors never wait until a patient "asks his doctor about NewMeda" to research it, and never change their treatment recommendation based on that? (You might want to have a word with pharma ad departments ...)
I remember thinking about how to use the energy you could get from Dyson Sphere-ing a nearby star, back to earth in useful form. That is, move lots of energy, a long distance, on a "truck". Theoretically, since you can draw nuclear energy from uranium, you should be able to convert lower-numbered elements into uranium to store energy.
;-)
But that maybe be too much for energy absorption this far from the sun
Schmeiser had recognized the cross-contamination the cross-contamination, knowingly collected and replanted the seeds from the cross-contaminated crop.
In other words, he didn't merely do what every farmer for the past 10,000 years has done, liar.
Secondly, he's freaking Canadian, and doesn't receive the kinds of subsidies you think he does.
Canada also has vast agricultural subsidies.
Fourthly, at the time of this battle he was ~70 years old. I guess he'd be better off ditching that farming crap, being a greeter at Wal-Mart is much more profitable and spiritually rewarding, anyway.
No one has the right to have the government ensure they can get their dream job. If you can't survive market competition, don't expect me to pay you so that your work is artificially profitable. That's the standard the IT world lives by. When your knowledge becomes obsolete, you replace it. If he didn't plan for his old age, why should he get massive subsidies so he can feel "independent" (beyond the statutory entitlements)?
If he's holding the land out of the hands of someone who can make better use of it, without suffering the financial loss the market allocates to people who do that, then yes, I hope he throws in the towel to go work at Walmart.
Right -- he just *happened* to *only* use the seeds from the *very same* set that was contaminated, for almost his *entire* crop. Just a pure coincidence, that's all.
Seriously, he needs to go get a read job -- one that doesn't require massive subsidies for his very existence, that make him feel "independent" (!).
Because that doesn't neatly render the spacings like a "proper ellipse" (or whatever "..." is called), or as a single character.
Yeah, those ads that I turned off due to being a subscriber yet still see...
Right, right, "for accounting purposes". Shut up, you "anti-advertising" frauds.
Exactly. He criticizes buttons -- and releases a device that creates buttons on demand! Buttons are not the problem; the problem is failing to adhere to "right tool for the job". Instead we have "newest tool for the job" or "flashiest tool for the job".