|
|
A robot or computer does not feel anything unless you've programmed him to simulate such a thing.
And what exactly do you think a human being is? It's a robot with a computer brain that has been programmed to simulate 'feeling' things.
If you knew anything about how exchanges work John, you'd know that withdrawal limits are typically imposed by the banks themselves and/or AML rules. Not your entirely unfounded theories about them being fractional reserve. Mt Gox has made many references over the years to having to negotiate with banks to up the amount of money they're allowed to transfer per day. Just one more reason why the banking system sucks. There are typically no withdraw limits on the Bitcoin side once AML verification and good security are set up.
I'm surprised the House admits to the existence of Mars and the Moon as separate bodies in space rather than being lights in a crystal sphere around the Earth.
> BRIC is set to replace the dollar.
Yeah, right. A bunch of emerging market countries have no possibility of replacing the dollar. Brazil, Russia and India are far too small and unstable, and China's has a managed exchange rate.
The only other alternatives are the Euro and the Yen. Well forget the Yen, there are not enough of them. The Euro is the only other thing that has a chance, except it does not have a sovereign backing.
And what exactly have Bush/Obama done to Assange?
That's not the impression I get at all. This story suggests at least one of the accusers is unhappy with the lack of action.
Even in prison you are actually allowed to go outside. Presumably he prefers an internet connection to being able to see the sun? What he's got now is hardly better than it he was extradited to the USA and thrown in jail, except he doesn't get to be a martyr or fight a decent trial this way.
> There was no Congressional authorization for Libya.
Eh? What is this then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
Consoles are focused on lowest possible cost of their hardware, since they sell to consumers at a loss, or at the best a slim profit. They need their suppliers to give them hardware for bottom dollar. That means you don't get much profit per unit.
Now that doesn't mean AMD is getting screwed, I'm sure they are making money per unit sold, but make no mistake: The reason they got the contracts is they could offer the lowest price and that means a thin profit. So 10 million chips sold in the console is less profit than 10 million sold in a desktop or server or the like.
It is not the grand prize of hardware contracts.
On another note I find it hilarious how fanboys relish in the concept of a competitor doing badly, as if we all wouldn't be more screwed if there was a single company. Personally, I like nVidia GPUs, they work better in my experience. However I'm real, real glad AMD is around. Why? Well if they weren't nVidia could, and would, charge more than they already do, and they wouldn't release new tech as fast.
So if you are an AMD fanboy wishing the death of Intel and nVidia, what you are really saying is "Gee I hope AMD will be able to overcharge me for lower end technology when they have nobody to push them!"
How is that a failure?
Under that legal regime, if you don't lose a dollar, you can't charge your customers $1.06 to cover it with a little profit.
If Bell Labs spends (for example) a hundred million and makes nothing, AT&T would have charged the ratepayers a hundred six million and made six million dollars. But when Bell Labs spent (again for example) a hundred million and made a hundred and one million licensing their inventions, AT&T doesn't get to charge its customers an extra hundred six million and only makes one million dollars, not six million.
And they get to cry all the way to the bank.
Of course it soon made enough that they were farther ahead of the amount Bell would have made by soaking the customers. But the original plan was a "failure".
I wish I could "fail" that way, even on a somewhat smaller scale. B-)
> Therefore, markets are all inefficient _on all timeframes_.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
The efficient market hypothesis is perhaps the most studied financial analysis of equity markets ever done.
A LOT of important work, like Black-Scholes is based on it.
The fact that markets are efficient cause exactly the opposite of what you claim. Since all public information is already accounted in the price, successful trading becomes very difficult, and success relies either on use of non-public information or random chance.
The prime originator of it is University of Chicago Professor Fama who was the first recipient of three major prizes for research in Finance; the 2005 Deutsche Bank Prize in Financial Economics, the 2007 Morgan Stanley American Finance Association Award for Excellence in Finance, and the 2009 Onassis Prize in Finance. His other awards include the 1982 Belgian National Science Prize (Chaire Francqui), and the 2006 Nicholas Molodovsky Award from the CFA Institute for his work in portfolio theory and asset pricing.
He's been nominated for the Nobel Memorial in economics several times. There is little doubt he will eventually win it.
Easier way to avoid such things, look for people who use the word "sheeple", then disregard everything else they say.
Replying to them and making it twice as visible that the word was used, does not further your cause. It does, however, let you show us that you're so much better and holier than them.
I don't like or agree with every term that everyone uses all the time myself. I just don't bitch about it. I don't tell others how they should express themselves because that's worse than any word they could use, and because I am not their lord and master. The only person I want to control is myself.
That this particular term "sheeple" gets so deeply and visibly under the skin of so many tells me something. It tells me that this word has power, that it's significant, that it must in fact do a very good job of connecting an ugly tendency with an ugly word. "Follower", "lemming", "droid", "trendy", "mindless automaton" etc. all describe the same thing, but for some reason it is the word "sheeple" that so many I'm-better-than-you types fixate on. That's all the more reason to use it.
I don't get it. What does free speech have to do with censoring comments on a website? He seemed to be talking about government censorship being bad, and then he said that.
If you believe that censorship is fundamentally wrong then you have two choices: 1) Be a hypocrite and pretend it's different when you do it, or 2) don't censor content on your own Web site either. This KWin maintainer is choosing the first option. What he doesn't seem to appreciate is easy enough to understand: if the trolls can cause him to abandon one of his core beliefs and make a hypocrite of himself, then that's a victory for the trolls and a defeat for himself. It reminds me of how certain nations respond to terrorism by eliminating freedoms -- if the terrorists want to do as much lasting harm as possible, then they must be delighted by that.
This near-obsession with treating government as a special case even when the discussion is about abstract principles is why you were confused. Government is only a special case when the discussion is about censorship via the legal system, because government is the only entity legally allowed to use force or threat of force to achieve its goals. A Web site operator isn't going to arrest a troll and throw him in jail so that just doesn't apply here. Said operator might, however, delete certain posts or ban certain users to effect censorship.
I think our society in general is losing the ability to think in terms of abstract principles (part of why privacy is eroding). This is why we have to rehash the same old "but but
You forget how slashdot moderation works.
Insightful -> I agree with your opinion
Flamebait -> How dare you disagree with my opinion
Machines that have broken down will work perfectly when the repairman arrives.