Can't you "hack" a paper election by slipping in extra ballots, or deliberately miscounting? The problem is people, not computers. Computers just make transparency harder. It can be done, though. The gains in efficiency would be worth it; especially considering that as the population grows exponentially, counting paper votes will become exponentially harder.
when some asshole is talking on the phone while I'm waiting in line.
What, we should all just wait in miserable silence, like you? Put our lives on hold because we're disrupting your perfect universe of quiet solitude? Maybe you want to waste time in line, but we don't. So get fucked.
Not everybody has the same ideas about what constitutes the best economic system. That's like, fucking political science 101. There is no "they" that makes the rules across the board; world leaders and societies everywhere choose who to listen to. As in any other science, there are crackpots and there are people who know what they're talking about.
Just because some people listen to the crackpots doesn't mean that there is no such thing as "economics."
And stop thinking of gov't and academia worldwide as one homogeneous entity, "they." That is the grossest sort of oversimplification.
Oh, go dick yourself. No scientist knows the full and complete truth about what he studies. Why do you think we have confidence intervals in statistics?
Sure, you're right, a Sorceress could use a sword. But that's besides the original poster's point that an open-ended character progression system would be more engaging.
Get back to me when a Sorceress can put talent points into Barbarian War Cries.
Uh, you obviously have no grasp on the "state of privacy" in the United States whatsoever. Your transmissions are protected under the 4th amendment, just like your snail mail. It's been that way ever since the supreme court case Katz v. United States in 1967.
Yeah, I'm going to withhold judgment until there's actually a bill on the table. Assuming that he has already covered all the minutiae in his "bread and circus" campaign speeches to the public is probably assuming a bit much. Those speeches are frequently given to the least common denominator.
Lose our minds completely? You're talking to an agnostic nihilist with an amoral outlook. Your lofty "morals" are just systems of social contracts that you uphold in order to gain the benefits of reciprocation.
"Bad" and "good" are meaningless words that represent entirely human concepts.
I think you need to get a grip. But obviously we can only agree to disagree.
He thinks that businesses are going to continue paying for their employees' benefits when they can save a bunch and tell them instead to go on Obama's "Congress plan."
I don't know the details of his plan, but if the healthcare is only extended to those under a certain level of income (like most welfare assistance), that won't exactly work for the white-collar world, or even the sectors of the blue-collar world that are still high paying.
I certainly hope that you don't really think in "good guy, bad guy" terms. People get into the armies of various nations all for very similar, very human reasons... much like yourself.
Not that I mind if we drop explosives on opposing factions. But let's call them what they are, eh? We don't have any moral high ground here.
You have a point in that using leverage to purchase assets in the hope of generating equity profit is a risky game. After all of this thinking now I'm not exactly sure how I feel about it.
In the 1930's, when the stock market crashed, one of the biggest financial sector fuck-ups that brought us the great depression was that tons of Americans were using bank loans as leverage for stock market investment. Prices went tumbling and the banks had lots of write-downs because of it...
In any case, at least congress is spending some money domestically, instead of throwing it into foreign wars and supporting gasoline path-dependency... ugh.
Real estate prices commonly fluctuate because of market inefficiencies that are unique to real estate... for example, while the supply is relatively fixed (in terms of buildings and developments), demand fluctuates depending on many factors, and it can fluctuate more rapidly. This can lead to things such as, say, the devaluation of rental properties when demand for housing in a particular area is low.
Given that part of the decrease in prices is due to a loss of investor confidence, and that we are also entering a global recession (part of the normal business cycle), I wouldn't be surprised if the values of the mortgage backed securities eventually rise again.
And even if the borrowers default, the government (that's us, the taxpayers) will still gain control of the land. Since real estate is a finite commodity that tends to appreciate in value in the long-term, in the end, the government is likely to profit from it's purchase. And if that brings us some economic stability in the meantime, it just means that the recession is more likely to end neatly.
Overpaying for those mortgage backed securities is important for the homeowners of America because it essentially puts a temporary freeze on home prices. The sub-prime mortgage fallout (which is directly from the banks' own idiocy) has totally destroyed investor confidence, and as home prices tumble, many people will be forced into bankruptcy as their homes are no longer worth the value of the mortgage they originally took out to pay for it.
It's giving money away, sure -- giving money away to every American homeowner.
The bank managers deserve to be punished for the sub-prime fuck up, for sure, but that doesn't mean that our financial markets still don't need a rescuing.
So research what you have an opinion on before you have an opinion on it, or you'll act like Washington does most of the time, and fuck up our entire economy out of ignorance.
I think 700 billion will be a drop in the bucket. What will the DOJ find at the DTCC when they try to account for all the shares that are credited to, but missing, from clients brokerage accounts? How will Congress and Hanky Panky explain all those missing shares? Or will they not explain it (again) and ask for $700 billion (again)?
You betray your own ignorance of the technical aspects of the bailout. Do you even know what the U.S. Government purchased from the banks for $700 billion? They didn't just give money away. They bought something. Hint: It had to do with mortgages.
What we need to do is relax immigration restrictions and relax the minimum wage. We need to make more economic incentives to "join America," so that maybe we can get a little closer to ending all of the world's bullshit nationalist philosophies.
You flunked because you don't seem to realize that sample data is never perfect; you can't just take a random sample and assume it is 100% representative of the entire population. It always deviates slightly from the entire population's true mean.
It's entirely possible that another random sample could result in, say, an average score of 200 for the computer and an average score of 199 for the two-person reviewers.
Would you make the conclusion that, based on that sample, the computer is "better" than the reviewers? Or would you say "hey, those numbers are really fucking close," and chalk up the difference to random sample variance?
Haven't you ever heard of "confidence intervals?"
A difference of 1 in the mean is not statistically relevant. As far as fucking science is concerned, the study supports the hypothesis that the computer is on par with the human reviewers.
Slashdot Mirror
Cue Walter Sobchak's rant about freedom of speech in diners.
Can't you "hack" a paper election by slipping in extra ballots, or deliberately miscounting? The problem is people, not computers. Computers just make transparency harder. It can be done, though. The gains in efficiency would be worth it; especially considering that as the population grows exponentially, counting paper votes will become exponentially harder.
when some asshole is talking on the phone while I'm waiting in line.
What, we should all just wait in miserable silence, like you? Put our lives on hold because we're disrupting your perfect universe of quiet solitude? Maybe you want to waste time in line, but we don't. So get fucked.
Who is "they?" And what economy is "our economy?"
Not everybody has the same ideas about what constitutes the best economic system. That's like, fucking political science 101. There is no "they" that makes the rules across the board; world leaders and societies everywhere choose who to listen to. As in any other science, there are crackpots and there are people who know what they're talking about.
Just because some people listen to the crackpots doesn't mean that there is no such thing as "economics."
And stop thinking of gov't and academia worldwide as one homogeneous entity, "they." That is the grossest sort of oversimplification.
10/10, I lol'd
Oh, go dick yourself. No scientist knows the full and complete truth about what he studies. Why do you think we have confidence intervals in statistics?
Fuck you, you ignorant hick.
You're putting words in my mouth. I know nothing about it. And that's coming from a devout agnostic.
However, I have heard some speculation that Fossett allowed someone else to fly his plane, and may have left without checking weather conditions.
But that's neither here nor there. I just wanted to address the objection that was taken to the saying. It has merit.
So basically somebody should come in and mod us all offtopic.
Current Scientific Method Problematic? For like 2 seconds or so my jaw fell off my face.
In college? Yes.
Yeah, the runewords were always awesome. "Leaf" was a must-have for a low-level fire sorc.
It's still besides the point though.
Sure, you're right, a Sorceress could use a sword. But that's besides the original poster's point that an open-ended character progression system would be more engaging.
Get back to me when a Sorceress can put talent points into Barbarian War Cries.
God, if only I had them! I rofl'd.
Uh, you obviously have no grasp on the "state of privacy" in the United States whatsoever. Your transmissions are protected under the 4th amendment, just like your snail mail. It's been that way ever since the supreme court case Katz v. United States in 1967.
Yeah, I'm going to withhold judgment until there's actually a bill on the table. Assuming that he has already covered all the minutiae in his "bread and circus" campaign speeches to the public is probably assuming a bit much. Those speeches are frequently given to the least common denominator.
Lose our minds completely? You're talking to an agnostic nihilist with an amoral outlook. Your lofty "morals" are just systems of social contracts that you uphold in order to gain the benefits of reciprocation.
"Bad" and "good" are meaningless words that represent entirely human concepts.
I think you need to get a grip. But obviously we can only agree to disagree.
He thinks that businesses are going to continue paying for their employees' benefits when they can save a bunch and tell them instead to go on Obama's "Congress plan."
I don't know the details of his plan, but if the healthcare is only extended to those under a certain level of income (like most welfare assistance), that won't exactly work for the white-collar world, or even the sectors of the blue-collar world that are still high paying.
dropping explosives on the bad guys
I certainly hope that you don't really think in "good guy, bad guy" terms. People get into the armies of various nations all for very similar, very human reasons ... much like yourself.
Not that I mind if we drop explosives on opposing factions. But let's call them what they are, eh? We don't have any moral high ground here.
You have a point in that using leverage to purchase assets in the hope of generating equity profit is a risky game. After all of this thinking now I'm not exactly sure how I feel about it.
In the 1930's, when the stock market crashed, one of the biggest financial sector fuck-ups that brought us the great depression was that tons of Americans were using bank loans as leverage for stock market investment. Prices went tumbling and the banks had lots of write-downs because of it ...
In any case, at least congress is spending some money domestically, instead of throwing it into foreign wars and supporting gasoline path-dependency ... ugh.
Real estate prices commonly fluctuate because of market inefficiencies that are unique to real estate ... for example, while the supply is relatively fixed (in terms of buildings and developments), demand fluctuates depending on many factors, and it can fluctuate more rapidly. This can lead to things such as, say, the devaluation of rental properties when demand for housing in a particular area is low.
Given that part of the decrease in prices is due to a loss of investor confidence, and that we are also entering a global recession (part of the normal business cycle), I wouldn't be surprised if the values of the mortgage backed securities eventually rise again.
And even if the borrowers default, the government (that's us, the taxpayers) will still gain control of the land. Since real estate is a finite commodity that tends to appreciate in value in the long-term, in the end, the government is likely to profit from it's purchase. And if that brings us some economic stability in the meantime, it just means that the recession is more likely to end neatly.
Overpaying for those mortgage backed securities is important for the homeowners of America because it essentially puts a temporary freeze on home prices. The sub-prime mortgage fallout (which is directly from the banks' own idiocy) has totally destroyed investor confidence, and as home prices tumble, many people will be forced into bankruptcy as their homes are no longer worth the value of the mortgage they originally took out to pay for it.
It's giving money away, sure -- giving money away to every American homeowner.
The bank managers deserve to be punished for the sub-prime fuck up, for sure, but that doesn't mean that our financial markets still don't need a rescuing.
So research what you have an opinion on before you have an opinion on it, or you'll act like Washington does most of the time, and fuck up our entire economy out of ignorance.
I think 700 billion will be a drop in the bucket. What will the DOJ find at the DTCC when they try to account for all the shares that are credited to, but missing, from clients brokerage accounts? How will Congress and Hanky Panky explain all those missing shares? Or will they not explain it (again) and ask for $700 billion (again)?
You betray your own ignorance of the technical aspects of the bailout. Do you even know what the U.S. Government purchased from the banks for $700 billion? They didn't just give money away. They bought something. Hint: It had to do with mortgages.
Sorry, I'm greedy.
Lightsaber duel to decide who gets to reproduce?
What we need to do is relax immigration restrictions and relax the minimum wage. We need to make more economic incentives to "join America," so that maybe we can get a little closer to ending all of the world's bullshit nationalist philosophies.
You flunked because you don't seem to realize that sample data is never perfect; you can't just take a random sample and assume it is 100% representative of the entire population. It always deviates slightly from the entire population's true mean.
It's entirely possible that another random sample could result in, say, an average score of 200 for the computer and an average score of 199 for the two-person reviewers.
Would you make the conclusion that, based on that sample, the computer is "better" than the reviewers? Or would you say "hey, those numbers are really fucking close," and chalk up the difference to random sample variance?
Haven't you ever heard of "confidence intervals?"
A difference of 1 in the mean is not statistically relevant. As far as fucking science is concerned, the study supports the hypothesis that the computer is on par with the human reviewers.
Go back to school or stay out of the laboratory.