Sunday, December 30, 2018
Sunday, November 18, 2018
The 50 Best Inventions of 2018 | Time.com
Saturday, November 10, 2018
Invitée de CL'hebdo, Anne-Marie Larose parle des femmes en science - CScience
Friday, November 9, 2018
Wednesday, November 7, 2018
Chinese President Vows To Boost Intellectual Property Protection - Slashdot
Chinese President Vows To Boost Intellectual Property Protection - Slashdot - https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/11/07/015212/chinese-president-vows-to-boost-intellectual-property-protection
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Projets résidentiels: la banlieue se transforme | Protégez-Vous.ca
Urbanova, Symbiocité, District Union... de Terrebonne à Brossard, des projets immobiliers misant sur le développement durable et la densification voient le jour. Mais peut-on vraiment vivre en banlieue comme en ville, sans auto et avec des commerces de...
Êtes-vous prêt à gérer vos investissements vous-même ? | Protégez-Vous.ca
Fonds indiciels, fonds négociés en bourse, courtage en ligne, robots-conseillers... Protégez-Vous présente diverses stratégies pour les investisseurs qui veulent devenir autonome. Ne vous lancez pas dans l'aventure sans lire les conseils de nos experts.
Énergie : combien d'argent jetez-vous par les fenêtres ? | LesAffaires.com
BLOGUE. Avez-vous déjà pris le temps d'analyser les factures énergétiques de votre ...
Saturday, July 28, 2018
Thursday, July 26, 2018
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
Monday, May 28, 2018
Thursday, May 3, 2018
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
2018 Links : Productivity, R-D, Innovation, GERD, BERD, HERD, GOVERD
Nouvelles | CCA | Conseil des académies canadiennes : http://sciencepourlepublic.ca/fr/news.aspx?id=212Un rapport confirme le retard canadien en matière d'innovation | Affaires Universitaires : https://www.affairesuniversitaires.ca/actualites/actualites-article/un-rapport-confirme-le-retard-canadien-en-matiere-dinnovation/
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Sunday, April 8, 2018
Saturday, April 7, 2018
Tuesday, April 3, 2018
Friday, March 30, 2018
Sunday, March 18, 2018
Wednesday, March 14, 2018
Wednesday, March 7, 2018
What are Emily Carr, Lucy Maud Montgomery and Nellie McClung famous for? Most Canadians have no clue
What are Emily Carr, Lucy Maud Montgomery and Nellie McClung famous for? Most Canadians have no clue
Monday, March 5, 2018
Saturday, March 3, 2018
Friday, March 2, 2018
Thursday, March 1, 2018
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
Monday, February 26, 2018
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Thursday, February 15, 2018
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
Monday, February 5, 2018
Sunday, February 4, 2018
Saturday, February 3, 2018
Friday, February 2, 2018
Thursday, February 1, 2018
Re: From theglobeandmail.com
Study of University of Toronto PhD graduates finds few end up in private sector
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Monday, January 29, 2018
Sunday, January 28, 2018
Friday, January 26, 2018
Thursday, January 25, 2018
Fwd: Microsoft announces expansion of Montreal research lab, new director
From: "Jean-Philippe Valois" <jpvalois@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 24, 2018 11:45 AM
Subject: Microsoft announces expansion of Montreal research lab, new director
To: "Jean-Philippe Valois" <jpvalois@gmail.com>, "Jean-Philippe Valois" <jpvalois@mitacs.ca>
Cc:
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
Monday, January 22, 2018
Thursday, January 18, 2018
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
Is Pop Music Becoming Louder, Simpler and More Repetitive? - Slashdot
by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2018 @09:31AM (#55938161) Homepage Journal
Yeah, that's part of it. but TFA talks about some actually objective measures of quality.
In particular, #2 and #5 are hard to argue with.
Historically, music has been defined as having three main components: Rhythm, melody and harmony.
And for a generation now, the mix between the three has definitely changed, where melody is reduced and harmony is so reduced that it's almost gone.
This is an observable trend. It's been observed before in history, with music trends that were biased to one of these three at the expense of the other two. Mozart was melody focused, Bach was harmony focused.
Pointing out a difference doesn't imply that this is bad, but the pendulum has swung so far on especially harmony that it seems likely to swing back again. It would surprise me if the next generation won't have music with both 3- and 4-note chord harmonies and counterpoints throughout it.
In addition to the three commonly acknowledged components of music, I'd argue for a fourth one: dynamics. How much the whole range between quiet and loud is used. That one seems to have diminished significantly too, starting in the early 80s and culminating with the loudness wars. It's either full volume or silence, and never any subtlety. Pink Floyd might have been one of the last chart-topping bands to actively use dynamics."
'via Blog this'
Monday, January 15, 2018
Warren Buffett Predicts 'Bad Ending' for Cryptocurrencies - Slashdot
In other words, stall out the economy.
You want to know why every country moved away from the gold standard? Because it turns out, your economy is limited by how much gold you can find. Find no gold? Well, you economy will stagnate (not a good thing). Find a ton of gold? Well, your economy booms (again, not a good thing).
Say you were paid 1 oz of gold a month for your work. Well, what happens if the company can't get you 1oz of gold? Let's say they can get half an ounce. So you work half the month. But you still have to pay for all your stuff - do you buy half a month's worth of food and starve half a month? Or do you have to search for short term work to make up the missing half an ounce? Perhaps next month, they have an ounce and a half, and let you work 50% more to get it - do you? This uncertainty is what screws up economies.
Going from boom to bust dependent on how much you can mine turns out to destabilize economies. That's why every economy floats their currency (i.e., fiat). Economies in the past were fine - there was lots of gold easily available, and thus the economic output of a country wasn't really limited.
Bitcoin with its fixed supply seems like a great idea, but you then realize it's a static economy. It cannot grow. And economies need to grow. If you have a baby, you need money to pay for its needs. But in a static economy, you can't - you're stuck with what you're earning. You cannot earn more because the economy cannot support your added output - i.e., you work more, and are thus paid less per unit to keep your income the same, keeping the economy static.
As people join the economy (after all, there are people who don't use bitcoin), demand for bitcoins go up, creating an even worse situation - a deflationary one, where a bitcoin today is worth more tomorrow because more people want it. Or, put another way, you can put 8 hours of work today for me, but I won't ask you do that, because tomorrow, it will cost me less bitcoin for those same 8 hours because they're worth more. Deflationary economies can lead to complete economic stall - if you're getting richer by the day, why would you buy today what is cheaper tomorrow? (This is partly the reason why the Great Depression was as long and as hard as it was - yes, being on gold also hurts).
So inflation it is. But not too much - you destabilize the economy if there's too much - what was affordable today, is out of reach tomorrow (see hyperinflaction). You want to add just enough to match growth in the economy. In a trading world, you can benefit as well - print a bit more cash and devalue your currency making your country cheaper to buy from, hopefully increasing economic output (people are buying your stuff!), but don't grow too fast because then your currency goes up and people stop buying.
Bitcoin is like Wikipedia. Both are experiments that have or are going to show what everyone already knows, just taught to the next generation who always never sees history repeat itself. (Wikipedia is a great example of communism as government, and the whole "every animal is equal, but some are more equal than others" conclusion of Animal Farm).
The only good news is that Bitcoin is at least unlikely to affect the economy too badly, so it's only those heavily leveraged on it will suffer. So unlike the lessons we all had to learn during the Great Depression about economic growth, the actual scope of losses will likely just be a blip.
...
Warren Buffett Predicts 'Bad Ending' for Cryptocurrencies - Slashdot
https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/01/14/0317246/warren-buffett-predicts-bad-ending-for-cryptocurrencies?sbsrc=md
"In other words, stall out the economy.
You want to know why every country moved away from the gold standard? Because it turns out, your economy is limited by how much gold you can find. Find no gold? Well, you economy will stagnate (not a good thing). Find a ton of gold? Well, your economy booms (again, not a good thing).
Say you were paid 1 oz of gold a month for your work. Well, what happens if the company can't get you 1oz of gold? Let's say they can get half an ounce. So you work half the month. But you still have to pay for all your stuff - do you buy half a month's worth of food and starve half a month? Or do you have to search for short term work to make up the missing half an ounce? Perhaps next month, they have an ounce and a half, and let you work 50% more to get it - do you? This uncertainty is what screws up economies.
Going from boom to bust dependent on how much you can mine turns out to destabilize economies. That's why every economy floats their currency (i.e., fiat). Economies in the past were fine - there was lots of gold easily available, and thus the economic output of a country wasn't really limited.
Bitcoin with its fixed supply seems like a great idea, but you then realize it's a static economy. It cannot grow. And economies need to grow. If you have a baby, you need money to pay for its needs. But in a static economy, you can't - you're stuck with what you're earning. You cannot earn more because the economy cannot support your added output - i.e., you work more, and are thus paid less per unit to keep your income the same, keeping the economy static.
As people join the economy (after all, there are people who don't use bitcoin), demand for bitcoins go up, creating an even worse situation - a deflationary one, where a bitcoin today is worth more tomorrow because more people want it. Or, put another way, you can put 8 hours of work today for me, but I won't ask you do that, because tomorrow, it will cost me less bitcoin for those same 8 hours because they're worth more. Deflationary economies can lead to complete economic stall - if you're getting richer by the day, why would you buy today what is cheaper tomorrow? (This is partly the reason why the Great Depression was as long and as hard as it was - yes, being on gold also hurts).
So inflation it is. But not too much - you destabilize the economy if there's too much - what was affordable today, is out of reach tomorrow (see hyperinflaction). You want to add just enough to match growth in the economy. In a trading world, you can benefit as well - print a bit more cash and devalue your currency making your country cheaper to buy from, hopefully increasing economic output (people are buying your stuff!), but don't grow too fast because then your currency goes up and people stop buying.
Bitcoin is like Wikipedia. Both are experiments that have or are going to show what everyone already knows, just taught to the next generation who always never sees history repeat itself. (Wikipedia is a great example of communism as government, and the whole "every animal is equal, but some are more equal than others" conclusion of Animal Farm).
The only good news is that Bitcoin is at least unlikely to affect the economy too badly, so it's only those heavily leveraged on it will suffer. So unlike the lessons we all had to learn during the Great Depression about economic growth, the actual scope of losses will likely just be a blip."
'via Blog this'