Wasn't one of the reasons Amazon used to kick wikileaks the fact that they were getting DDoSed? And that it hurted their business?

So a DDoS directed at a site in EC2 is disruptive enough to kick them out, but a massive DDoS directed at Amazon is nothing special.

I think Anonymous at least proved that the real reason Amazon kicked wikileaks had nothing to do with DDoS.

+1 interesting Wish i had mod points...

You're right, they can't. But the video shows 2 rings in 3d. And those rings don't close on one of the dimensions.

In 2d, a circle is closed, spanning the 2 dimensions. In 3d, a ring is closed in 2 dimensions, but isn't "closed" in the other, so you can use the 4th dimension to link 2 rings.

So, to get an example similar to the video in 2d you might think of 2 (infinite) lines that you have to move past each other. Adding a 3rd dimension makes this trivial.

On the other hand, a circle in 2d is a sphere in 3d, so trying to link 2 circles in 2d is equivalent to trying to link 2 spheres in 3d, which isn't what the video shows.

PS. My manifold knowledge is very rusty, so what i'm saying might be totally wrong. It makes sense to me though.

If the Fed engages in "open market operations" and buys newly issued T-Bills directly from the US Treasury then it absolutely does create new money. The Fed buys the IOUs from the US Treasury, writes the balance into the accounts of the Federal Government (the Federal Reserve keeps the accounts of the United States Government) and poof new money is created (an increased account balance in an electronic database).

The Fed doesn't buy T-Bills directly from the US Treasury. That's a deadly sin in monetary economics. That would be monetising debt, which any Central Bank is (explicitly or implicitly) forbidden.
What the Fed actually does is buy (junk?) assets from banks, who in turn, buy T-Bills from the US Treasury.
If you can't spot the difference you don't know how finance and politics work :)

Actually, i think you're hoping a bit too much :)

I fail to see the link between a "weaker dollar" and higher prices in the EU. Actually, it should work the other way - a weaker dollar should lead to *lower* prices in the EU, in Euros. Anyway, i never understood the pricing of some companies - MS, Apple, Sony - as they seem to assume that 1$ = 1 = 0.75£ or something. Economically this just doesn't make sense. The prices should reflect the costs, which in these companies are in different currencies. The prices should then be ajusted to reflect the division of the costs in these currencies, and some hedging should be done to counteract exchange rate risk. Just assuming a fixed exchange rate (one which is wrong...) just doesn't make sense to me. I would love to see the justification for this, including why the prices in EU and Britain always seem to be higher than in the US or Japan.