From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] My apologies
RandomP, I'm sorry if I portrayed you in a bad light. When I saw the quotes around "harmless", it did look like you were quoting me though. Really I'm not trying to defend the practice of sex tourism, so much as the definition of it. There are other forms that the advocacy groups do not acknowledge. If you look on "mongering" forums you will see talk about live sex shows, gang bangs, and swingers clubs. These are places where people go to have consensual sex that is not abusive with people whom they do not know and which does not include prostitution. I've also seen these establishments in-person. There is a website for Casa Rosso in Amsterdam which is probably the most open about these non-prostitution forms of sex tourism. It's hard to give examples because the subject has a bad name and people want keep to quiet about it. You wouldn't find much published on the web to refer to. Edgarde's definition didn't account for all there is to it. I know this subject well, and it was not reported completely.
I wrote a new definition tonight that tries to keep a neutral point of view, while still including all forms of sex tourism.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 05:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
archive 1
- "After the hedgehogs stop hibernating"...well, I guess that's an improvement over "I was talking about the classical theory I just made up", "It's a math thing, you wouldn't understand", "hyperinflation isn't that big a deal because the factories are still there", "I support this principle except when I don't like its implications", and "ooh, let me make a gratuitous mention of my knowledge of Abel groups" ... but it's still really, really cryptic. MrVoluntarist 14:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Not to worry, he probably just went mad. They stop hibernating sometime in spring, I think. He'll be in shortly after that. -Dan 192.75.48.150 16:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] hubbert pseudotheory?
See it as an Autocatalysis model at the scale of the production of resources.At the place of molecules you have peopol, machines and resources.--Pixel ;-) 19:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- If Hubbert had meant that, or written that, he would immediately have been criticised on any number of valid points; at the very least, it would have clearly precluded applicability to other non-renewable resources (while you could argue that "industrialisation" is proportional to oil used (and would lose the argument), applying the same to copper clearly does not make sense).
- As far as I know, he hasn't.
- RandomP 12:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] American (ethinc group) AfD
Hi, I nominated the article American (ethnic group) for deletion as it is impossbile to expand. All we know is that 7.2% of respondents to the 2000 Census marked "American" under ethnicity. You can see my reasoning on the deletion page. I appreciate your support and as a member of Concordia want to congratulate you on the great job you did of staying civil and remianing professional in the midst of such a heated debate. Anyways, the uncivil user is blocked, so no worries there and if you want to, you can vote on the AfD here: [1]. Best Regards and Happy Editing! Signaturebrendel 19:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! I hope the AfD settles the issue, for a while at least. RandomP 12:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Arthur Rubin's Nobel prizes
Very good - I don't often laugh at AFD reasoning Yomanganitalk 00:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, that must be a clue it is time for me to go to sleep. Yomanganitalk 00:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not a problem at all. RandomP 12:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I tried to offer an alternate way to reach the equation which may make more sense; apologies for not replying earlier. —AySz88\^-^ 05:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- I replied there — I'm wondering whether it might be easiest to engage some of the NHC folks in discussion about this.
- RandomP 12:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
What's the issue? Please do not list RfCs until there is something on the talk page that can be found easily, and summarises the problem and diverging opinions on how to solve it. RandomP 15:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Simple: spam, just as it says above [on Talk:Ecological economics]. Editor Swedenborg has been attempting to continually reinsert a link to a unreliable source, namely a website which he's spent the last year trying (and failing) to use Wikipedia to promote. See the four (4) AfDS above [on Talk:Ecological economics]. During the last year, he's failed to provide a single reliable source for this thing's importance or even existence. --Calton | Talk 07:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quick question
Does a zero-coupon bond count as an investment? Just wanted to see you apply the "classical" theory. Thanks. MrVoluntarist 03:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for taking a bit long. Important explanations follow, but the answer is "yes, purchasing a zero-coupon bond under realistic conditions counts as investment". I'm going to go with the narrow definition here, and ignore :
- The holder of a zero coupon bond is entitled to receive a single payment of a specified sum of money at a specified time in the future.
So, what is your decision as to whether or not to purchase such a coupon based on? First, of course, the time value (to you) of the future payment. The second aspect is the risk that you will not receive that payment at all (if you want to make things really complicated, you also take into account possibilities other than receiving the entire payment or no payment at all).
Those two items are things you put as the expected future returns, and they give you the value of your investment, in this case, your zero-coupon bond.
Note that all this assumes your investment decision, and the price you buy at, are rational.
This, BTW, is exactly the opposite from the "gold" case: in the gold case, you get to keep your gold, but get no return; in the zero-coupon bond case, you lose the bond, but get returns (the payment).
RandomP 19:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, you said gold doesn't count as an investment because you have to cede the gold to get a (dollar) return. The exact same thing applies to the zero-coupon bond: you must lose it to get your return. And if the gold increases in value, you do get a return. Just another reason why your "classical" theory of investment is flawed. Just a heads-up. MrVoluntarist 21:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Nope, not quite. You can keep the coupon, it's just worthless.
- Is that a significant difference? Yes, I think so. Let's go back a bit.
- I say that an investment is an asset that's valued as the time value of its expected future returns, all the way to infinity. Thus, a rental property is an investment because you can calculate the time value of all the expected rents you receive, and reduce that number by the time value of all the expected future repairs you'll have to make (negative returns, if you so wish).
- Of course there's some freedom of choice as to how far you go into the future: if you accept that a rental property is an investment, as above, you can also consider the next ten years' rents, the next ten years' return, and an extra return in ten years' time from selling the house. The tricky point is that that won't change the value you calculate, because the buyer in ten years' time will offer you the value of the house, which happens to be calculated by the same method.
- The point is that in the very long term, the only consistent way to give gold a good rate of "return" is for people to buy gold at a higher value than its future returns would have: otherwise, the percentage of the world's wealth that's in gold would increase forever and ever, until it would finally be more than a hundred percent.
- By the definition given above, there aren't things that are investments for some people but other people buy them at higher prices: either it is an investment for enough people, and that (together with the prevailing ideas about what the future will look like) will set its price, or it isn't, and its price will not match the predicted one.
- When people buy gold, that's what they're thinking: that the value of gold as a non-investment will go up. That's speculation. It can be a valid reason to make a business decision in the short term, but in the long term, there's no clear trend to the non-investment value of gold.
- But the issue's pretty much dead. I currently don't really have the energy to go through the mediation-arbitration cycle that would be necessary to get any of the articles into real shape, and my current strategy is mostly to wait for gold as an investment to deteriorate to the point where a new article can be written at gold price without being deleted.
- Sorry to tell you that textbook theory still stands.
- RandomP 22:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- If a zero-coupon bond is an investment, so is gold. They both have a speculative value. They both must be ceded to get a return out of them. They both have time-discounted values. There is no "textbook theory" backing you up. MrVoluntarist 00:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for October 2nd.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for October 9th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for October 16th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for October 23rd.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for October 30th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] composition of Measurable functions
Hi RandomP, thanks for your thoughtful answer to my question about "measureomorphisms" last month. I asked related questions last night on the Measurable function talk page, hope you're interested. Regards,Rich 15:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 6th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 13th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 20th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 27th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your NPOV dispute
Does your NPOV dispute with news embargo still apply, now that the article has been rewritten? If not, please remove the notice. Uncle G 18:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, I've removed the note. Thanks for the heads-up! RandomP 19:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)t
[edit] Signpost updated for December 4th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
