Chrome had the advantage of being able to quickly release the RAM because it was wasting a lot of it in the first place. Each tab was it's own process, including RAM that was holding identical information for each tab.
By "identical information" do you mean things like the executable and shared libraries? Those are not duplicated in RAM for any sane operating system. Aside from bookkeeping applied within the OS itself, there is nothing inherent to forking vs. threading that should impact the gross memory allocation.
You can already take a crap vodka for pennies an ounce, literally filter the crap out of it, and for a quarter the price of the expensive spud juice, produce a vodka that is easily comparable to one of the high end brands.
Filters aren't free. It may still be cheaper than the markup on a premium brand, but it's not a free lunch.
Regardless of the holding duration, that's a buyer.
Not if they already have the stock and are deciding when to sell it.
I apologize for being unclear. What I mean is that your[1] participation strategy in the stock market is to buy stocks, let them appreciate, and then sell them. Your profit when stocks you own appreciate during your holding period. This is in contrast with market makers who profit when stock prices don't change during their holding period.
The premise is not required, it is only a simplification to make the explanation easier.
Your subsequent explanation was based on an assumption of reliable appreciation of a stock. The simplification is too distant from the reality of the stock market for the explanation to remain valid.
Unless you are trying to argue that market makers on average have non-positive net profits, I'm not sure what this is supposed to be buying you.
I am referring to all participants having a chance to lose. However, you do bring up a good point. The biggest exchanges in the stock market offer rebates for providing liquidity and charge (slightly larger) fees for taking liquidity. In terms of trading, market makers on these exchanges can have net losses and still make a profit because of the rebate. This is the real penny-shaving.
[1] the proverbial "you", not the Anthony Mouse you.
I am imagining it from the perspective of anyone who is not a "market maker" -- someone who intends to hold the stock for more than a minute.
Regardless of the holding duration, that's a buyer.
Now let's say that the "true" value of the company will increase by 2 cents/share every period, and everybody knows and expects that.
This is not a valid premise—the behavior you are describing is more fitting for bonds, or perhaps dividend-bearing stocks (where the $0.02/share is reflected in cash rather than an increase in the worth of the existing shares). In reality, stock prices are very volatile, and trading activity on exchanges serves to give all observers a reasonably clear view of the "consensus" value. Nobody knows the "true" value of a stock, hence the volatility.
Your further analysis basically comes to the conclusion that market makers remove capital from the system, depressing stock prices. Among other things, this ignores the set of participants who lose money on their trades. This could be investors who expect the stock to move up $0.02 but stop-loss out when the stock instead moves down $0.05. Or this could be market makers who expect the stock to hold its price, but stop-loss out when the stock instead moves $0.02 against their current inventory. These "losers" are effectively infusing more capital into the system.
Furthermore, anyone who doesn't want to pay for immediacy doesn't have to. You can submit a limit order for a specific price, and wait for the normal volatility of the market to come to your limit price.
...they're going to buy for $N/share and sell for $2N/share...
Just to give you an idea about the scale, my armchair analysis is considering participants who buy for $N/share and sell for $N*1.05/share. That sort of target is suitable for speculation on quarterly reports.
Those two NYTimes articles refer to flash trading, which was short-lived on several exchanges (most notably the NASDAQ). This does not happen a lot; it was shut down within months.
Think about it: If the HFTers shave a penny or so per share off of each trade between exchanges, future prospective buyers will be willing to pay that much less for their shares, because they know that when they ultimately sell them they'll suffer the same loss again to the HFTers. In consequence the seller is obligated to lower the price by that small pittance per share in order to make the trade, which sets the new market price for the stock. The value of the stock will continue to go down until it accounts for the amount of value the HFTers remove over the period of time that the average investor holds the stock.
While you are talking about HFT specifically here, this is an issue generic to traders using market-making strategies. The presence (or absence) of market makers should not depress the price of a stock, but it will definitely impact the bid/ask spread. You are imagining the "penny shaving" from a buyer's perspective, but market makers view buying and selling as mostly symmetric (buy low, sell high; or sell high, buy low), hence why the spread is impacted and not the "price". In actuality, HF market makers are competing with each other for increasingly small penny-shavings, and they're able to do so because reduced latency leads to reduced risk.
Regardless, a long-term investor is looking profit at least an order of magnitude above the cost of liquidity, so none of this should matter to Joe Sixpack and his 401k.
Then a better solution, I think, would be to somehow notify them that they are possibly infected and take proper precautions to stop them from spamming (on an individual basis).
Having worked at an ISP before, I can tell you that the 60% of users with malware are the same who just don't care. Unless by "somehow notify them" you mean "block their switch port." It makes the most sense to block something like this (port 25 outbound) by default and leave it to the more savvy customers to request an unblock.
I do not want them reading my mail, or filtering it or fucking touching it... I want real internet service, which means a dumb pipe.
You are paranoid about using your ISP's mail relay because you don't want them to read your mail? You know, they're your ISP, and they already have the power to read anything that's not encrypted when it hits their tubes.
I do not want to be forced to continue to rent servers from someone else. I like being self reliant.
That's fine, but it is unreasonable to expect outbound port 25 to be open by default. Even a white-knight ISP is going to block it by default and only open it for customers who have requested it.
And that is my point, there are a lot of rich guys calling for rich guys to be taxed more, yet there is no evidence that any of them put thier money where their mouth is.
I thought your point was this:
What conspiracy did I suggest? I suggested that Warren Buffet's motives for calling for higher taxes on the wealthy were that he would make money that way.
I just don't see the support for that argument; it really does sound like a conspiracy theory.
I look at my cats, they couldn't care less about playstation, books or music. All they want is some food, a shelter, and to sleep (I think they also like my company, but maybe I'm deluding myself). Sometimes I wish I could be like them, and sometimes I think they must be bored out of their wits.
Your cats play your playstation when you're not looking.
If he can afford to give 30+ billion dollars to charity without suffering unduly to his competitors, surely he can afford to give an additional billion or two to the government without suffering unduly.
You do have a point there. I did some brief searching to see what the Internet consensus on the topic (voluntary overpayment of US federal taxes), and it appears that everybody simply wants to avoid taxes. Seriously, I've never seen such bizarro search results. Maybe it's simply that charity (the word) is associated with more positive feelings than voluntary tax payment. Maybe it's that he feels that a charity (in which he probably has more influence) is money better spent to his ends than tax dollars.
Whoever decided that the POTUS should be spending his time on jearbs was a genius. Seriously, what better way to make the entire executive branch completely beholden to filibustering and other legislative shenanigans?
There is nothing the "The Buffet" is doing that you can't.
I read a book somewhere that estimated the odds of someone doing as well as he did, given the existing population of fund managers and tycoons that have risen (and fallen) in the world. The gist was that while it is possible to have been as successful as he has been based on random selection, it is likely that he is genuinely a very good decision maker. Most people are not.
Where I live, a land line costs $30/mo and my cell phone bill is marginally higher. Given that employers pretty much assume you have a phone number (so they can at least fire you when your lazy ass sleeps in one too many times), it's hard to justify that this is discretionary. A new smartphone plus unlimited texting/data is another beast altogether, I won't defend that.
You may dislike treating long term capital gains as different from other income, but it actually does encourage investing in companies.
I think that given sufficient education on the topic, most people do support lower capital gains taxes on supplemental investment. Most of us pay income tax, and then every once in a while we get a windfall from a speculative investment such as real estate or buying into the IPO of AAPL or GOOG. These behaviors are naturally riskier than our day jobs, which is why it makes sense to offset capital gains against capital losses.
The problem arrives when someone figures out how to bypass the "inconvenience" of income tax by converting all income into capital gains somehow. What's doubly nasty is that sufficiently diversified risk from capital gains (which requires lots of capital) can be practically as safe as regular working income. It's eating your cake, and having it too.
Warren Buffet's whole article was disingeuous. He knew full well that most people would not notice the fact that in order for the tax code to be changed to increase his taxes to close to the same percentage as the middle class, it would require changing the capital gains tax rate, yet most people would think of it in terms of the income tax rate.
But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.
(emphasis mine). If he intended to hide the "loophole" of long-term capital gains, he could have just deleted the statement in bold and gone on his merry way.
no, they should control *no* wealth if they pay *no* tax for it to be fair...
Surely that would lead to violence, as then the poorest 50% of the population would now have nothing to lose?
It is time to get rid of every single one of them [congress and POTUS]. by any means possible.
Surely you're not advocating violence?
I think the GP has it right, everyone pays taxes, even if it is a nominal amount, I'd settle for 0.5%, just for respect's sake.
Hmm, I'd also support a token tax for all brackets, provided that you could remove the bulk of regressive taxes from the system as well. That's no taxes for (non-luxury) food, clothing, and household staple goods, for starters. Probably also for regular unleaded gasoline and non-luxury vehicle purchases, since this is admittedly a nation built on driving and even most cities have awful public transportation (that's a fight for another day).
Warren Buffet suggests that people like himself aren't paying enough taxes, yet he does not do anything to pay what he says is his fair share, which leads people to suspect that he has an ulterior motive.
The first thought that jumps to my mind is simply that Buffet believes the situation to be immoral but inescapable. If he voluntarily pays more, he will suffer unduly when his competitors do not. This is about the same as a playground tattletale who is afraid to break the rules, yet sees others doing so and wants them to stop.
Or maybe Buffet just has a conscience, and he genuinely believes that what he sees is wrong. His appears to be first-generation wealth, surely he hasn't forgotten all of his upbringing.
That being said, the "ulterior motives" theory sounds more sensible than batshit. It's just... Occam's Razor and all that... seems too convoluted to be the answer.
You inherit your family's home, and because of taxes you can neither keep it nor sell it and retain any appreciable value from it.
First of all, the property taxes aren't at issue here. Having to sell your inheritance because you can't afford to inherit it does suck, but the property taxes aren't capital gains. Second, If the property taxes are $45,000 annually, then how much is the house worth? Some Googling shows me ~1.15% property tax, meaning the house is worth roughly $4.5 million. Whether the capital gains tax is 15% or 35% on that, you're still going to take a healthy profit. If the house is truly an heirloom house, then your grandmother likely purchased it for much cheaper (even adjusted for inflation), and appreciation during her lifetime is not factored into capital gains from your sale.
You should be happy that [Mr. Millionaire] lets you use his road.
"His" road? I would think that the goal of a republic is to avoid a feudal society. Corporations are not Lords, and besides it's pointless to talk about "who needs who" more—everyone benefits with division of labor. Let's call it "our road".
Dividends are taxed twice--once when the company (which you own) is paying taxes on earnings, and again when you receive their earnings.
Not if you're investing in GE! Yuk yuk. But seriously, I can't stomach that (theoretically reasonable) argument knowing that large US corporations are so effective at tax avoidance.
Slashdot Mirror
By "identical information" do you mean things like the executable and shared libraries? Those are not duplicated in RAM for any sane operating system. Aside from bookkeeping applied within the OS itself, there is nothing inherent to forking vs. threading that should impact the gross memory allocation.
So they can use their existing influence to discredit the character of the protesters?
Filters aren't free. It may still be cheaper than the markup on a premium brand, but it's not a free lunch.
I apologize for being unclear. What I mean is that your[1] participation strategy in the stock market is to buy stocks, let them appreciate, and then sell them. Your profit when stocks you own appreciate during your holding period. This is in contrast with market makers who profit when stock prices don't change during their holding period.
Your subsequent explanation was based on an assumption of reliable appreciation of a stock. The simplification is too distant from the reality of the stock market for the explanation to remain valid.
I am referring to all participants having a chance to lose. However, you do bring up a good point. The biggest exchanges in the stock market offer rebates for providing liquidity and charge (slightly larger) fees for taking liquidity. In terms of trading, market makers on these exchanges can have net losses and still make a profit because of the rebate. This is the real penny-shaving.
[1] the proverbial "you", not the Anthony Mouse you.
Regardless of the holding duration, that's a buyer.
This is not a valid premise—the behavior you are describing is more fitting for bonds, or perhaps dividend-bearing stocks (where the $0.02/share is reflected in cash rather than an increase in the worth of the existing shares). In reality, stock prices are very volatile, and trading activity on exchanges serves to give all observers a reasonably clear view of the "consensus" value. Nobody knows the "true" value of a stock, hence the volatility.
Your further analysis basically comes to the conclusion that market makers remove capital from the system, depressing stock prices. Among other things, this ignores the set of participants who lose money on their trades. This could be investors who expect the stock to move up $0.02 but stop-loss out when the stock instead moves down $0.05. Or this could be market makers who expect the stock to hold its price, but stop-loss out when the stock instead moves $0.02 against their current inventory. These "losers" are effectively infusing more capital into the system.
Furthermore, anyone who doesn't want to pay for immediacy doesn't have to. You can submit a limit order for a specific price, and wait for the normal volatility of the market to come to your limit price.
Just to give you an idea about the scale, my armchair analysis is considering participants who buy for $N/share and sell for $N*1.05/share. That sort of target is suitable for speculation on quarterly reports.
In other news, I have to pay more for concrete and lumber than do any of the big-box hardware stores.
Those two NYTimes articles refer to flash trading, which was short-lived on several exchanges (most notably the NASDAQ). This does not happen a lot; it was shut down within months.
While you are talking about HFT specifically here, this is an issue generic to traders using market-making strategies. The presence (or absence) of market makers should not depress the price of a stock, but it will definitely impact the bid/ask spread. You are imagining the "penny shaving" from a buyer's perspective, but market makers view buying and selling as mostly symmetric (buy low, sell high; or sell high, buy low), hence why the spread is impacted and not the "price". In actuality, HF market makers are competing with each other for increasingly small penny-shavings, and they're able to do so because reduced latency leads to reduced risk.
Regardless, a long-term investor is looking profit at least an order of magnitude above the cost of liquidity, so none of this should matter to Joe Sixpack and his 401k.
Having worked at an ISP before, I can tell you that the 60% of users with malware are the same who just don't care. Unless by "somehow notify them" you mean "block their switch port." It makes the most sense to block something like this (port 25 outbound) by default and leave it to the more savvy customers to request an unblock.
You are paranoid about using your ISP's mail relay because you don't want them to read your mail? You know, they're your ISP, and they already have the power to read anything that's not encrypted when it hits their tubes.
That's fine, but it is unreasonable to expect outbound port 25 to be open by default. Even a white-knight ISP is going to block it by default and only open it for customers who have requested it.
I thought your point was this:
I just don't see the support for that argument; it really does sound like a conspiracy theory.
Your cats play your playstation when you're not looking.
You do have a point there. I did some brief searching to see what the Internet consensus on the topic (voluntary overpayment of US federal taxes), and it appears that everybody simply wants to avoid taxes. Seriously, I've never seen such bizarro search results. Maybe it's simply that charity (the word) is associated with more positive feelings than voluntary tax payment. Maybe it's that he feels that a charity (in which he probably has more influence) is money better spent to his ends than tax dollars.
Whoever decided that the POTUS should be spending his time on jearbs was a genius. Seriously, what better way to make the entire executive branch completely beholden to filibustering and other legislative shenanigans?
I read a book somewhere that estimated the odds of someone doing as well as he did, given the existing population of fund managers and tycoons that have risen (and fallen) in the world. The gist was that while it is possible to have been as successful as he has been based on random selection, it is likely that he is genuinely a very good decision maker. Most people are not.
Where I live, a land line costs $30/mo and my cell phone bill is marginally higher. Given that employers pretty much assume you have a phone number (so they can at least fire you when your lazy ass sleeps in one too many times), it's hard to justify that this is discretionary. A new smartphone plus unlimited texting/data is another beast altogether, I won't defend that.
I think that given sufficient education on the topic, most people do support lower capital gains taxes on supplemental investment. Most of us pay income tax, and then every once in a while we get a windfall from a speculative investment such as real estate or buying into the IPO of AAPL or GOOG. These behaviors are naturally riskier than our day jobs, which is why it makes sense to offset capital gains against capital losses.
The problem arrives when someone figures out how to bypass the "inconvenience" of income tax by converting all income into capital gains somehow. What's doubly nasty is that sufficiently diversified risk from capital gains (which requires lots of capital) can be practically as safe as regular working income. It's eating your cake, and having it too.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man[1]. Warren Buffett's conclusion doesn't mince words:
(emphasis mine). If he intended to hide the "loophole" of long-term capital gains, he could have just deleted the statement in bold and gone on his merry way.
[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118715/quotes?qt=qt0464776
Surely that would lead to violence, as then the poorest 50% of the population would now have nothing to lose?
Surely you're not advocating violence?
Hmm, I'd also support a token tax for all brackets, provided that you could remove the bulk of regressive taxes from the system as well. That's no taxes for (non-luxury) food, clothing, and household staple goods, for starters. Probably also for regular unleaded gasoline and non-luxury vehicle purchases, since this is admittedly a nation built on driving and even most cities have awful public transportation (that's a fight for another day).
The first thought that jumps to my mind is simply that Buffet believes the situation to be immoral but inescapable. If he voluntarily pays more, he will suffer unduly when his competitors do not. This is about the same as a playground tattletale who is afraid to break the rules, yet sees others doing so and wants them to stop.
Or maybe Buffet just has a conscience, and he genuinely believes that what he sees is wrong. His appears to be first-generation wealth, surely he hasn't forgotten all of his upbringing.
That being said, the "ulterior motives" theory sounds more sensible than batshit. It's just... Occam's Razor and all that... seems too convoluted to be the answer.
First of all, the property taxes aren't at issue here. Having to sell your inheritance because you can't afford to inherit it does suck, but the property taxes aren't capital gains. Second, If the property taxes are $45,000 annually, then how much is the house worth? Some Googling shows me ~1.15% property tax, meaning the house is worth roughly $4.5 million. Whether the capital gains tax is 15% or 35% on that, you're still going to take a healthy profit. If the house is truly an heirloom house, then your grandmother likely purchased it for much cheaper (even adjusted for inflation), and appreciation during her lifetime is not factored into capital gains from your sale.
"His" road? I would think that the goal of a republic is to avoid a feudal society. Corporations are not Lords, and besides it's pointless to talk about "who needs who" more—everyone benefits with division of labor. Let's call it "our road".
Not if you're investing in GE! Yuk yuk. But seriously, I can't stomach that (theoretically reasonable) argument knowing that large US corporations are so effective at tax avoidance.
How about we get affordable space trips and reduce our light pollution? For starters, we can stop pointing so many lights up.