the quality of being amphibious
I have a new theory of amphibuity: things spelled with 'ph' are amphibious.
For instance, phrogs, as we all know are amphibious, so that's one point to my theory right off the bat.
Now I know what you're thinking: Phones. Phones are spelled with 'ph', but are they amphibious? Well, the latest research says yes...
I was sticking my feet in a cold mountain stream today and decided that I would put my mobile phone in my shoe to keep it from falling out of my pocket and into said cold mountain stream. You see, I too did not think that phones were amphibious. But I underestimated the amphibuity of my phone and it took a dive right out of the shoe and into the stream. I retrieved it, dissasembled it and let it dry for about 5 hours. and then...DUM DUM DUM!!...it worked as if nothing had happened. Ergo, phones are amphibious and my new theory is going to revolutionize zoology the world over.
The only bummer is that for about five hours I was convincing myself that I would have get a new phone but now that my old one works....no new phone for david :( NOKIA!!! I'll get those quality finnish engineers one of these days...
Saturday, June 17
Friday, June 9
ooohh! shiny
new subway trains
The TTC is displaying mock-ups of the new trains. Those of you who aren't in Italy should definitely go and have a look. And, perhaps, take some pictures for me ;)
The TTC is displaying mock-ups of the new trains. Those of you who aren't in Italy should definitely go and have a look. And, perhaps, take some pictures for me ;)
Friday, May 19
insurance
co-op style
Gambling is a Bad Thing, so when someone described insureance as gambling I started to think and decided that there are two ways to look at insurance.
Insurance as a gamble: you buy insurance because something might go wrong and instead of maybe paying a large sum, you pay–for sure–a smaller sum. Essentially, you're gambling that something will go wrong.
Insurance as Capitalist-Communist Mashup: Given that calamity generally doesn't strike everyone at the same time, we all chip in a fixed amount of money on a regular basis. When problems occur, we dip into the kitty. Sometimes we're helping others and sometimes we're being helped.
If we look at it this way, insurance clearly isn't gambling. However, two questions remain: How do the insurers look at it? and How would a different point of view affect insurance policies?
I won't pretend to answer the first question, since anything I say will probably be too simplistic. Moving on to the second question, here's an idea for a new kind of insurance business: co-operative insurance.
In co-op insurance, the premium is not fixed. Every month, the total cost of claims approved is divided among the policy holders. If no claims are approved, no one pays more than the basic administration fee. In a month with a higher number of claims, everyone's premiums jump up.
The idea here is that the cost would be lower because the insurer is not being paid to take a risk. The uncertainty is spread across all the co-op policy holders, not concentrated in one insurance firm.
This is simply the germ of the idea. It would be interesting to flesh it out a little to see what it might look like in more detail. It would also be interesting to contrast it with Lloyds of London's insurance market.
At any rate, it's an idea that moves insurance away from gambling, and may even result in reduced costs.
Gambling is a Bad Thing, so when someone described insureance as gambling I started to think and decided that there are two ways to look at insurance.
Insurance as a gamble: you buy insurance because something might go wrong and instead of maybe paying a large sum, you pay–for sure–a smaller sum. Essentially, you're gambling that something will go wrong.
Insurance as Capitalist-Communist Mashup: Given that calamity generally doesn't strike everyone at the same time, we all chip in a fixed amount of money on a regular basis. When problems occur, we dip into the kitty. Sometimes we're helping others and sometimes we're being helped.
If we look at it this way, insurance clearly isn't gambling. However, two questions remain: How do the insurers look at it? and How would a different point of view affect insurance policies?
I won't pretend to answer the first question, since anything I say will probably be too simplistic. Moving on to the second question, here's an idea for a new kind of insurance business: co-operative insurance.
In co-op insurance, the premium is not fixed. Every month, the total cost of claims approved is divided among the policy holders. If no claims are approved, no one pays more than the basic administration fee. In a month with a higher number of claims, everyone's premiums jump up.
The idea here is that the cost would be lower because the insurer is not being paid to take a risk. The uncertainty is spread across all the co-op policy holders, not concentrated in one insurance firm.
This is simply the germ of the idea. It would be interesting to flesh it out a little to see what it might look like in more detail. It would also be interesting to contrast it with Lloyds of London's insurance market.
At any rate, it's an idea that moves insurance away from gambling, and may even result in reduced costs.
Thursday, May 18
severe
potential
as in "Have you heard the debut release from Mimico Molly? It's a bit rough around the edges, but it's got severe potential!"
Has anyone noticed that I like making up random phrases? aaahhh.....
as in "Have you heard the debut release from Mimico Molly? It's a bit rough around the edges, but it's got severe potential!"
Has anyone noticed that I like making up random phrases? aaahhh.....
Tuesday, May 16
"I deeply considered this
to find an explanation"
Our class received an email today for a professor who expressed his deepest admiration for us as well as his chagrined disappointment with our preformance in the final exam. After writing that he would bump the marks by about 20%, he concluded by saying...
Choice quote from (every single) lecture: "I remember to you..."
Our class received an email today for a professor who expressed his deepest admiration for us as well as his chagrined disappointment with our preformance in the final exam. After writing that he would bump the marks by about 20%, he concluded by saying...
The final grades will reflect my unchanged esteem towards you.
Choice quote from (every single) lecture: "I remember to you..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)