From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents
- 1 My apologies
- 2 hubbert pseudotheory?
- 3 American (ethinc group) AfD
- 4 Arthur Rubin's Nobel prizes
- 5 Reply at Accumulated Cyclone Energy
- 6 From Ecological economics
- 7 Quick question
- 8 South Australian legislative election, 2006 FA candidate
- 9 Signpost updated for October 2nd.
- 10 Signpost updated for October 9th.
- 11 Signpost updated for October 16th.
- 12 Signpost updated for October 23rd.
- 13 Signpost updated for October 30th.
- 14 composition of Measurable functions
- 15 Signpost updated for November 6th.
- 16 Signpost updated for November 13th.
- 17 Signpost updated for November 20th.
- 18 Signpost updated for November 27th.
- 19 Your NPOV dispute
- 20 Signpost updated for December 4th.
- 21 Signpost updated for December 11th.
- 22 Signpost updated for December 18th.
- 23 Signpost updated for December 26th.
- 24 Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
- 25 Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
- 26 Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
- 27 Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
- 28 Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
- 29 Signpost and Colbert
- 30 Tyranny of the majority
- 31 Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
- 32 Gold
- 33 Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
- 34 Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
- 35 Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
- 36 Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
- 37 Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
- 38 Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
- 39 Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
- 40 Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
|
[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)
Hello - this is a message being sent to all who have contributed comments in regards to this page becoming a featured article. I believe appropriate modifications have been made, please contribute any further comments you may have toward it's improvement, otherwise hopefully we can get some support comments happening! Thanks for your hopefully continued interest toward advancing the article. Timeshift 18:23, 19 December 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)
[edit] Signpost updated for December 11th.
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 05:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for December 18th.
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 06:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for December 26th.
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 07:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
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 07:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
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 07:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
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 06:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
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 06:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
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 18:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost and Colbert
(For the record, I didn't write the phrase that you're criticizing, though I think it's worded correctly). I understand the satirical nature of Colbert (in fact, I'm a regular viewer of the show); the fact remains that, however tongue-in-cheek the mention was for Colbert the actor, Colbert the character openly solicited the vandalism. Also, I think the word 'real' was meant to contrast it with the Microsoft-related edits, which weren't vandalism. Ral315 (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies. While you did insert the section, it was indeed heavily edited afterwards, and the phrase that I'm particularly concerned by, "vandalism promoted by one of the usual suspects", was added by Michael Snow. However, I must also point out that the actor-vs-character distinction was not made, by a reasonable standard, in this case - the "(character)" was pipe-tricked out, and to a reader unfamiliar with the Colbert show or character, the paragraph could be construed as referring to a serious show.
- I believe the summary of what Stephen-Colbert-the-character actually told people to do is also inaccurate - as far as I remember, he was very specifically referring to a single article, which would reduce the burden of protection quite a bit.
- Frankly, the point of view there is quite intolerable to me - when silly edits were made following media attention to wikipedia, we used to refer to that as "experimentation", and I believe the overall effect was considered positive. I would think there are quite a few now-accomplished editors whose first edit was a case of "wow, they mean I can change the X article and it will stick". Ultimately, I very much doubt the Colbert segment caused more damage than yet-another-news-show. To its credit, it must be said it also did a fairly good job at challenging viewers to try to understand why, when it's so easy to do silly things on Wikipedia, it still works. ("anyone can edit" Wikipedia s what everyone knows now - the "and it's easy to revert such edits" point hasn't really made it to general consciousness).
- I can't help it, but the paragraph looks like it's attacking Colbert, under (or rather, next to) the Wikipedia trademark, for warning of a dystopic vision of a commercially-dominated Wikipedia. Accusing a show, or a "character", of promoting vandalism without also mentioning that such attention is likely to ultimately promote valuable edits as well is, plainly, one-sided reporting, and strikes me as an unacceptable path to take.
- RandomP 01:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tyranny of the majority
I found a reference to justify Nietzsche. My memory hadn't failed me that badly although it has been a long time since I studied him and my books are all packed up. I decided to play nice and give you the web link. There are plenty more where that came from if you are researching the article and the comments upon Nietzsche could certainly be expanded into a line or long line like the one above rather than the half of one I put in. It is indeed one of the phrases I will never forget and though it was in translation and I am sure there are other similar expressions: he talks about the masses quite often, probably "tyranny of the masses" also but the "majority" sticks in my mind so well it must have be repeated many times in my readings of Kaufman's translations cited (but not in accordance with wiki Style). Regards, Mattjs 01:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I found another link that briefly mentioned Locke as well as Mill indirectly, wish I had time to research it further...: http://www.wabash.edu/depart/CandT/C&T-Handouts/Nietzsche/Nietzsche.htm Mattjs 01:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Er, I'm sorry, so far, I can see a single cited use of the phrase by Nietzsche, in a context that is markedly different from the one the article talks about. Possibly enough for an inclusion, but "popular expression" might be a bit of a stretch.
- Note that, in general, secondary sources are better than primary ones: if you can find reliable secondary sources discussing Nietzsche's use of the phrase, and maybe explain in more detail what they think he meant by it, including the reference would make more sense.
- RandomP 12:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Granted. His is using it in the sense of "moral self-censorship" at the hands of a "moral majority". I looked online at some of the works I guessed to be his most moral and politcal and although he refers to tyrannies of various kinds fairly regularly I cannot find a repeat of this particular phrase as yet. Also though my recollections of the phrase and concept itself may be coloured by other influences it is clear that Nietzsche hhimself was a great critic of "democracy" so-called and for this very reason (though perhaps from a moral angle - he is a moral philisopher par excelleance: The Geneology of Morals etc.). I made a slight tweak on yours but read my comments as I am not intending to over-emphasise Nietzche - maybe we need to directly quote Mill or something to compensate for the Nietzsche mention by expanding upon the originator of the phrase. I simply mentioned as briefly as possible Nietzsche's regular mentionn of "tyrannies", including moral kinds, with goes to the possible difference in sense of his usage in the quote I had cited and that you are talking about. Please leave it in for the reasons I have just explained here. Regards, Mattjs 18:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Actually, if you object or are not keen to add further on Mill etc. per above it might be worth simply reverting my tweak. At least he is there and get's a very relevant mention in this very short article. Regards again, Mattjs 18:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Well, Wikipedia articles are about things, not about phrases. We state very clearly in the opening paragraph that the phrase refers to a particular concept, and unless Nietzsche wrote about that concept, he should not be talking of him much.
- I'll also change to avoid use of the term "polity", which you appear to be using in a different from its (not very) usual sense. RandomP 19:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- My point and argument is only that Nietszche was indeed well aware of the concept and used it repeatedly he refers regularly and disdainfully to the "masses" though I neglecteed to check for that word it in my recent searches: "mass rule" aka mob rule (no doubt he refers to that also as his works are sprinkled with such remarks), and the "rule of the masses" might well have turned up also. This is clearly what we are talking about. Mattjs 19:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Long as he is mentioned there however briefly I will be happy! Regards, Mattjs 19:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
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 05:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I appericate your comments on the Talk Gold page. I am an investor and never understood why people "invest" in gold. You made several good points that back up my belief that gold is just valuable because other people think it is valuable. I believe Warren Bufett made some quote about gold having no utility. XM 16:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
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 05:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
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 07:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
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 08:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
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 06:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
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 05:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
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 07:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
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 14:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
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 05:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
