SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 7:56 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: outrunaha! Just read that Frasier is running for major of NY! He would make a great future president.Good Idea! Frasier can run as a member of the Sherry Party.QuoteOriginally posted by: outrunI've also found a solution to all the economical problems! the replicator."'Tea. Earl Grey, Hot.', is a command familiar to every Trek fan as representing everyday use of replicator technology. While its use on the show is simply sci-fi wizardry, the beginnings of that technology is now making it into homes"Nice idea, but the replicator would be banned by both the right (because people would use it to replicate drugs and sextoys) and the left (because it would hurt union labour). And I'm sure replicators would be an affront to someone's gods, deplete the ozone layer, cause cancer, and increase gay marriage.
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 8:39 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: outrunQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: outrunaha! Just read that Frasier is running for major of NY! He would make a great future president.Good Idea! Frasier can run as a member of the Sherry Party.QuoteOriginally posted by: outrunI've also found a solution to all the economical problems! the replicator."'Tea. Earl Grey, Hot.', is a command familiar to every Trek fan as representing everyday use of replicator technology. While its use on the show is simply sci-fi wizardry, the beginnings of that technology is now making it into homes"Nice idea, but the replicator would be banned by both the right (because people would use it to replicate drugs and sextoys) and the left (because it would hurt union labour). And I'm sure replicators would be an affront to someone's gods, deplete the ozone layer, cause cancer, and increase gay marriage.well, the ozone layer is planted by corrupt nasa scientsts, cancer can be healed with homoeopathic water with P(Bush urine)=14, and they gay thing can be cured by Michele BachmannWell, I'm just glad that someone has all the answers!Got any recommendations for interpolators?
 
User avatar
Anthis
Posts: 4313
Joined: October 22nd, 2001, 10:06 am

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 8:44 pm

Tea is for the ill and the elder in this side of the world. Sounds sobering. Party without burbon, is like sleeping with a transexual. Consequently, tea party sounds like a transexual in hormonic disorder and badly butchered by an interning plastic surgeon.The end result cant be nice...
 
User avatar
zerdna
Posts: 3856
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 9:41 pm

QuoteIronically, it will be the Tea Party that attenuates U.S. military strength -- you can't slash taxes and government spending and maintain a massive military budget.You don't have to have current massive military budget to maintain military strength. Today US has half of the budget of the world. It's a remnant of the cold war, when US had taken upon itself the military expense of Europe and kept paying on top for a big bureaucracy in NATO to shuffle papers and pretend that they are some important fixtures instead of void American puppets they actually are. It's an artifact of the time when US was very rich, Europe very poor after the war, and everyone tried to pretend that they are "together" in counterbalancing the Soviet Union and Eastern block. But this is not even the most important point. Americans, having there mind-boggling military advantage cannot convincingly win most of their wars, even when they are fighting some stone age fighters. This is because the main problem of American military is not the enemy -- it's their own politicians, demagogues, and lawyers, who tie the soldiers arms with idiotic decisions and rules, and fight mainly the war as a war for their popularity. Take the current hopey-changer. Instead of taking soldiers out of Afghan war, the war he never intended to fight, he did the increase of troops together with a promise of exit in the next year - simply wasting lives of the soldiers and funds from the treasury -- with no intention to do anything, except of doing the troops drawdown before the next election.
Last edited by zerdna on July 31st, 2011, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 9:51 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: outrunDo you have software that can simplifysigma * sigma / 2 / k / k / k * ((2 * k * x - 3 + 4 * Exp(-k * x) - Exp(-2 * k * x)) + (Exp(-k * y) - Exp(-k * x)) * (2 - (Exp(2 * k * x) + 1) * Exp(-k * x)) ))My copy of Simplifier 2.0 said "LET sigma = 0"
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 9:52 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: outrunIn this side of the world we feed the ill and elderly space-spanakopitaI'm sure that makes them feel very gouda.
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 9:58 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: zerdnaQuoteIronically, it will be the Tea Party that attenuates U.S. military strength -- you can't slash taxes and government spending and maintain a massive military budget.You don't have to have current massive military budget to maintain military strength. Today US has half of the budget of the world. It's a remnant of the cold war, when US had taken upon itself the military expense of Europe and kept paying on top for a big bureaucracy in NATO to shuffle papers and pretend that they are some important fixtures instead of void American puppets they actually are. It's an artifact of the time when US was very rich, Europe very poor after the war, and everyone tried to pretend that they are "together" in counterbalancing the Soviet Union and Eastern block. But this is not even the most important point. Americans, having there mind-boggling military advantage cannot convincingly win most of their wars, even when they are fighting some stone age fighters. This is because the main problem of American military is not the enemy -- it's their own politicians, demagogues, and lawyers, who tie the soldiers arms with idiotic decisions and rules, and fight mainly the war as a war for their popularity. Take the current hopey-changer. Instead of taking soldiers out of Afghan war, the war he never intended to fight, he did the increase of troops together with a promise of exit in the next year - simply wasting lives of the soldiers and funds from the treasury -- with no intention to do anything, except of doing the troops drawdown before the next election.Good points, zerdna.Another reason that the U.S. can't win wars against stone age fighters is that these wars aren't military conflicts, but social conflicts. Planes, guns, tanks, and bombs do little to win the foreign public relations battle that underpins both local and global support for the enemy factions.
 
User avatar
zerdna
Posts: 3856
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 10:47 pm

QuoteAnother reason that the U.S. can't win wars against stone age fighters is that these wars aren't military conflicts, but social conflicts. Planes, guns, tanks, and bombs do little to win the foreign public relations battle that underpins both local and global support for the enemy factions.Please, spare this stuff for crashmint and trackstar. If planes and tanks don't work, than drones and bribes do. These are not exactly mysteries -- a handful of Brits 9 times out of ten was able to win a war being outnumbered one to a million. Maybe the reason was they didn't have any bullcrap notions of how every social structure is equally unique and valuable as their own, no matter if it is a culture of stoning chicks for going out with a wrong dude. They just went about winning the wars being sure that they are the real deal, without declaring some pie in the sky goals, like democracy in Iraq, hearts and minds of Taliban, or new madrasahs in Kandahar to educate children in their unique and valuable culture that includes cutting heads of whoever changes his mind.
Last edited by zerdna on August 1st, 2011, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
trackstar
Posts: 26738
Joined: August 28th, 2008, 1:53 pm

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 11:14 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: zerdnaQuoteAnother reason that the U.S. can't win wars against stone age fighters is that these wars aren't military conflicts, but social conflicts. Planes, guns, tanks, and bombs do little to win the foreign public relations battle that underpins both local and global support for the enemy factions.Please, spare this stuff for crashmint and trackstar. If planes and tanks don't work, than drones and bribes do. These are not exactly mysteries -- a handful of Brits 9 times out of ten was able to win a war being outnumbered one to a million. Maybe the reason was they didn't have any bullcrap notions of how every social structure is equally unique and valuable as their own, no matter if it is a culture of stoning chicks for going out with a wrong dude. They just went about winning the wars being sure that they are the real deal, without declaring some pie in the sky goals, like democracy in Iraq, hearts and minds of Taliban, or new madrasahs in Kandahar to educate children in their unique and valuable culture that includes cutting heads of whoever changes his mind.Foreign policy expertise snub duly noted. With irony.When zerdna comes out with The Great Cold War and Post-Modern Memory in four volumes, I will be first in line at his book signing party.
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

tea party explained

August 1st, 2011, 11:28 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: zerdnaQuoteAnother reason that the U.S. can't win wars against stone age fighters is that these wars aren't military conflicts, but social conflicts. Planes, guns, tanks, and bombs do little to win the foreign public relations battle that underpins both local and global support for the enemy factions.Please, spare this stuff for crashmint and trackstar. If planes and tanks don't work, than drones and bribes do. These are not exactly mysteries -- a handful of Brits 9 times out of ten was able to win a war being outnumbered one to a million. Maybe the reason was they didn't have any bullcrap notions of how every social structure is equally unique and valuable as their own, no matter if it is a culture of stoning chicks for going out with a wrong dude. They just went about winning the wars being sure that they are the real deal, without declaring some pie in the sky goals, like democracy in Iraq, hearts and minds of Taliban, or new madrasahs in Kandahar to educate children in their unique and valuable culture that includes cutting heads of whoever changes his mind.There's some truth to what you say although the British lost twice to the Afghans and didn't have a particularly convincing victory on their third try. Also, the British enjoyed a time of tremendous asymmetry of military power -- they literally did face opponents from the stone age. The U.S. faces opponents that seem primitive, but who have significant access to the arms, explosives, electronics, and communications tools of modernity.What I said was not due to some wishy-washy politically correct philosophy but simple pragmatism and models of human behavior. Whether I believe that social structure X is valid or invalid isn't very relevant because it doesn't change the systems dynamics equation of the world. What matters is the behaviours of those that do believe in it's validity (either due to direct faith or political correctness) and the responses of those people to any prospective actions. Thus, the limits on American power become a function of foreign public opinion and not just the opinions of a few decimated villagers in some forgotten high valley. In that sense, the British enjoyed a tremendous asymmetry of political power -- they could act unilaterally with less fear foreign journalistic oversight, diplomatic disapprobation, and trading partner sanctions.
 
User avatar
Fermion
Posts: 4486
Joined: November 14th, 2002, 8:50 pm

tea party explained

August 2nd, 2011, 12:53 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: zerdnaQuoteAnother reason that the U.S. can't win wars against stone age fighters is that these wars aren't military conflicts, but social conflicts. Planes, guns, tanks, and bombs do little to win the foreign public relations battle that underpins both local and global support for the enemy factions.Please, spare this stuff for crashmint and trackstar. If planes and tanks don't work, than drones and bribes do. These are not exactly mysteries -- a handful of Brits 9 times out of ten was able to win a war being outnumbered one to a million. Maybe the reason was they didn't have any bullcrap notions of how every social structure is equally unique and valuable as their own, no matter if it is a culture of stoning chicks for going out with a wrong dude. They just went about winning the wars being sure that they are the real deal, without declaring some pie in the sky goals, like democracy in Iraq, hearts and minds of Taliban, or new madrasahs in Kandahar to educate children in their unique and valuable culture that includes cutting heads of whoever changes his mind.Zerdna is obviously hankering back to the ruthless days of the 3rd Reich. Britain could never have conquered Europe like the Nazis did. In fact if it hadn't been for the equally ruthless sacrifice of a large segment of the population of the Soviet Union defending Stalingrad (no doubt in large part because it was named after Stalin) and the late intervention of the wealthy USA, they would have completed the job.He obviously wants the USA and Israel to emulate the Nazis in the Middle East and commit genocide of the unruly people who live there. He won't say that explicitly of course (though Errrb probably will), but it is implicit in every de-humanizing word he writes about about Muslims.
 
User avatar
zerdna
Posts: 3856
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

tea party explained

August 2nd, 2011, 1:02 am

Well, T -- you sound reasonable even when i disagree with you. Here i suspect that we are mostly in agreement about the substance, it's just some differences of expression. Track, you know -- only reason i pull your hair is to show i still like you, the same reason it was in the first grade.
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On