![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
приметы кризиса
Jan. 12th, 2009 01:25 pmещё одна картинка - если кто-то по-прежнему думает, что общепринятые концепции/тенденции всё ещё работают или даже вообще применимы в текущей ситуации.
Jan. 12th, 2009
http://seekingalpha.com/article/114032-is-the-u-s-solvent
and what do we have today on the market? let's see... people are selling gold to buy US treasuries thus driving down already measly 2% yield.
one resonable comment in the sea of panic:
Inflation is all about the velocity of money, not the supply. Sure supply can affect velocity, but selling and buying and lending and repackaging as derivatives needs to be going on for that supply to do anything. You wouldn't get any inflation if everybody was stuffing greenbacks in mattresses, even if you were printing a billion dollars a second. With all the deleveraging that has been done in financial markets the fed actually some time to print at warp speed without worrying about inflation. The hyperinflation of the USD that many people on these boards worry about has been overstated and overlooks the role that i-banks and hedge funds played in hyper-leveraging their dollars. Until those positions have unwound and people get back to buying and selling again there is very little probablilty of inflation.
Of course, that could start happening tomorrow, which is why having gold in one's portfolio isn't a bad idea. Even the remotest possibility of a dollar default happening is enough to make one want to invest in gold. Just think twice about how big a proportion that hedge needs to be, and understand the mechanics of inflation and why we aren't seeing any despite this insane increase in the supply of USD.
and what do we have today on the market? let's see... people are selling gold to buy US treasuries thus driving down already measly 2% yield.
one resonable comment in the sea of panic:
Inflation is all about the velocity of money, not the supply. Sure supply can affect velocity, but selling and buying and lending and repackaging as derivatives needs to be going on for that supply to do anything. You wouldn't get any inflation if everybody was stuffing greenbacks in mattresses, even if you were printing a billion dollars a second. With all the deleveraging that has been done in financial markets the fed actually some time to print at warp speed without worrying about inflation. The hyperinflation of the USD that many people on these boards worry about has been overstated and overlooks the role that i-banks and hedge funds played in hyper-leveraging their dollars. Until those positions have unwound and people get back to buying and selling again there is very little probablilty of inflation.
Of course, that could start happening tomorrow, which is why having gold in one's portfolio isn't a bad idea. Even the remotest possibility of a dollar default happening is enough to make one want to invest in gold. Just think twice about how big a proportion that hedge needs to be, and understand the mechanics of inflation and why we aren't seeing any despite this insane increase in the supply of USD.
рассмотрим wine.rdf, приводимый w3.org в статье про owl в качестве примера.
- <owl:Class rdf:ID="Merlot">
- <rdfs:subClassOf>
- <owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasColor" />
<owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#Red" />
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
- <rdfs:subClassOf>
- <owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasSugar" />
<owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#Dry" />
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
и ведь совершенно не приходит в голову, что свойство с названием hasSomething может принимать значения только 'да' и 'нет'. ну или ещё 'хрен знает', если мы не любим nulls.
а ведь это они так стараются приблизиться к естественному языку представления знаний, между прочим. опилки в голове у этих людей, больше ничего.
и вот со всеми этими нейро-лингво-онтологистами так. самый лучший способ со всем этим бредом (owl, rdf, gellish) бороться - это поскорее засунуть xml-представление в датасет, и дальше уже рассматривать relational representation, удивляясь кривости имплементации.
- <owl:Class rdf:ID="Merlot">
- <rdfs:subClassOf>
- <owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasColor" />
<owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#Red" />
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
- <rdfs:subClassOf>
- <owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasSugar" />
<owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#Dry" />
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
и ведь совершенно не приходит в голову, что свойство с названием hasSomething может принимать значения только 'да' и 'нет'. ну или ещё 'хрен знает', если мы не любим nulls.
а ведь это они так стараются приблизиться к естественному языку представления знаний, между прочим. опилки в голове у этих людей, больше ничего.
и вот со всеми этими нейро-лингво-онтологистами так. самый лучший способ со всем этим бредом (owl, rdf, gellish) бороться - это поскорее засунуть xml-представление в датасет, и дальше уже рассматривать relational representation, удивляясь кривости имплементации.