cchooper

There's a difference. A chord is always composed of multiple notes. There's no single note that can sound like a chord. But a colour like yellow can be generated by a single wavelength or a combination of wavelengths that average out to yellow (so long as those wavelengths are not too far apart).

So in colour there is no sharp dividing line between a 'chord' and a 'note'. Some 'chords' look like 'notes' and some 'notes' look like 'chords'. Magenta is interesting because it's always a 'chord'.

As other people have said, Unix was the name of an operating system, not a kernel, and the name has always referred to more than just a kernel and a shell.

How?

To look at the question the other way around: is there any reason he should have started with the kernel?

He's describing High Concept.

http://www.writersstore.com/article.php?articles_id=609

Isn't calling them "lurid rumors" enough?

> Wouldn’t having functions be first class citizens be locking them in the same cage with data structures as well?

An important difference between first-class functions and objects is that first-class functions are still functions. Closures are also functions, even though they merge data and code together just like objects do. But objects merge data and functions to form something that's neither data nor a function.

This, I think, is a shame. Data and functions are the most important abstractions in computer science. Objects not so much. If you aren't simulating something, then there's no natural ontology that you want to model with objects. By comparison almost every system needs to process data. The data about an object is not itself an object, and it doesn't help matters to conceive of it as an object.

Actaully, pg has been asked this before and his answer was 'Yes.'

So we're only doomed x 2.

The 'natural' in natural selection refers to the distinction with artificial selection, rather than 'supernatural selection', and reminds us that what nature does to a species is no different from what breeders are successfully doing. So I think that's the best term.

The way your accountants record your assets makes no difference to the money supply. That is a completely separate issue.

Your quote doesn't back up your point at all, nor can I see any 'confusion' there. He is saying that geeks overrate their expertise in economics. It couldn't be clearer.

Whether they hold onto it or not is irrelevant. If a company issues a bond, but doesn't spend the money it has been loaned, the bond still exists. If the bank issues you with a current account, but doesn't spend the money you loaned it, the current account still exists. The current account is the new money. It exists. You could spend it by transferring it and yet the bank still has the original $100.

I don't know why everyone thinks he said that people shouldn't discuss economics. What he said was that geeks overrate their competence and therefore their discussions tend to be stupid.

If you deposit $100 at a bank then you will receive a $100 bank account. That account is the additional money. It remains money whether or not the bank lends out your original $100. So the money is created in the act of depositing, not the act of lending.

A current account is a bit like a short-term bond. It is a valuable commodity that is created by banks and can be traded in the market. The difference is that bank trading systems allow current account balances to be used directly as payment, without having to be converted into cash first. Therefore the current accounts themselves are being used as payment, and count as money in their own right.

This is why current account balances are counted in all the official measures of money quantities, including the most strict measures such as M0.

> When I borrow $10k at the bank, money is created

This is a perfect example of the kind of misunderstanding the OP was talking about. Money is created by depositing money at a bank, not by the bank lending it. Banks only lend base money, and it's illegal for them to print that.

Of course, people usually don't take the cash loan directly, but have the money deposited at the bank instead, which results in money (in the form of current account balances) being created. But it's the act of depositing, not the act of borrowing, that creates the money. If they took the cash, no money would be created.

How about regular expressions as an essential part of a modern, general purpose language (rather than a separate mini-language)?

It makes a difference though. If people interpret all condom use as being a sin, then there is a chance they will not use them in non-marital sex, so the policy (or possibly just the lack of clarity in the policy) may still lead to increased HIV infections.

Do you have a cite for that? I couldn't find anything reliable clarifying the issue.

It depends on whether the prohibition on condoms does indeed increase the spread of HIV in non-monogamous sex. If it does, then the combined monogamy+no comdoms policy causes more HIV infections than a simple monogamy policy. Therefore the no condoms policy is a cause of spreading HIV. This would be equivalent to the suffering caused by vegetarians demanding that animals farmed for food should be made to suffer. They can be praised for their vegetarianism, but should still be held accountable for the suffering they cause.

If the Church simply advocated monogamy, then the analogy would hold. But it advocates monogamy and prohibits condom use. It even prohibits condom use between two married people, even if one of them has HIV. The closest equivalent in your analogy would be if the "meat is murder" people said "You shouldn't eat meat. But if you do, make sure the animal suffers first."

Thanks.

Could you answer a question for me? When I went to Ghana, I noticed it had far more volunteers (especially from the US) than any other country I've ever been to. Do you know why this is?

You have proved my point: that misinvestment alone is not the explanation. You also have to look for secondary effects from the financial collapse.

Inflation is defined as a persistent rise in general prices. It used to mean an increase in the money supply, but that usage is archaic in most economic circles.

The money would be withdrawn in the way that central banks usually withdraw money in their day-to-day operations: by selling bonds or allowing them to mature.

Not all IT professionals are programmers. Not all coders do it for fun.

Changes in the money supply do not appear to be correlated with short term inflation at all, so it's not certain that short term expansion will produce any effect.

Yes, in the industries where the bad investments where made (finance). But that alone cannot explain the withdrawing of investment from other industries.

He's proposing an expansion of the money supply, not inflation. It will only lead to inflation if the money is not withdrawn quickly enough as the economy recovers.

IT does not require particularly long hours most of the time, and it certainly doesn't require years of study (many IT professionals have never studied it at all). At the same time, many jobs with long hours and years of study have more than 7% female participation.