What is a "popular" tax that people voluntarily pay? I wasn't aware there was such a thing.
I suppose one could argue that residential property tax falls under this category. I've never heard anyone move to a cheaper neighborhood to reduce their property tax load.
Not all relations between objects have clear ownership semantics. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with cycles when they correctly model your domain.
If the domain is modeled by cyclical references that do not express ownership, then use plain old boring pointers. But those pointers are pointing to dynamic memory, you say? Well, something else must own them (for the sake of RAII). Heck, a simple vector-of-shared-pointers solves the ownership and cleanup problem. Chances are there is some reasonable place where you could squirrel away the ownership obligation without mucking up the domain model.
Ah, I see the problem: you're a Windows programmer. You must be. No other platform cares nearly so much about whether a file is closed before allowing another process to open it.
File I/O matters on every platform. If you have a file open, you are using OS resources. If the contents of your file are buffered, you are further gambling with race conditions due to human interaction. Windows merely "enhances" these costs and risks.
If you have cycles of pointers which are claiming "ownership" of each other then maybe you need to revisit your design, re-read the chapter on RAII.
I agree; the biggest problems I have had with trying to "retrain" people used to GC is that memory management is all about ownership in C++. If you can't identify ownership as a DAG, chances are that something in the design is wrong already, regardless of the language. Once the ownership is there, the memory management just falls into place.
Ack! You've just rediscovered the most vexing parse. This code won't compile, because you've declared a local function s that takes no parameters and returns a std::string by value. I imagine this sidebar isn't going to win any more fans for C++...
RAII is an idiom based on the language feature of deterministic destruction. It relies on this language feature:.finalize() and similar don't cut the mustard. It is also the primary purpose for the language feature to exist: there is no reason to have a destructor unless it is cleaning up resources. Arguing that RAII is not a language feature is sophistry.
Justin Bieber might be a 'hot trend' now but you cannot assume his popularity will remain for generations to come. Many fans like him for qualities that cannot be preserved for long (i.e. young face, young voice).
In the future, Justin Bieber's youthful head will be preserved in a jar. Put atop a robot body, he may continue to woo stupid little girls and probably Fry.
...banking on the current "mood" means he's actually inflating the dangerous cycles of emotionally driven, short-term investment decisions...
Well that all depends upon how he trades. Suppose he sees information that tells him this:
ZVZZT is currently worth $20
everyone thinks ZVZZT is awesome today
He has two courses of action. First, he can push the momentum that he expects:
buy ZVZZT at $20
wait for ZVZZT to go up
sell ZVZZT at $21 or whatever
This fails if ZVZZT fails to move (i.e. twitter sentiment is too weak to make a difference). This type of strategy will magnify the impact of emotional sentiment, increasing volatility. OTOH, he can do the same trade on the "back side":
wait for ZVZZT to go up
sell ZVZZT short at $21
wait for ZVZZT to go back down to fundamental value
buy back ZVZZT at $20
This fails if the stock price doesn't revert in a reasonable time frame. This type of strategy dampens the effect of emotional sentiment, reducing volatility. In effect, this strategy uses the knowledge of emotional mispricing to eliminate the mispricing. So, hopefully this demonstrates that most any information about short-term trading sentiment can for both "good" (dampening oscillations, pushing prices always towards fundamental values) and "evil" (magnifying oscillations, letting prices swing around and benefiting from the momentum).
In concrete terms, you're suggesting that the distribution of stock changes is highly skewed, and claiming that it MUST be skewed in terms of a long tail of stocks going UP.
The specific distribution of stock changes is less important than the lesson: the law of large numbers doesn't apply to the stock market, because (1) stock prices don't have a fixed mean, and (2) stock prices are not independent random variables. But to address your specific concern, let me attempt some armchair analysis: The stock market is not zero-sum: if stock prices go up, there are many beneficiaries:
stock holders win (paper) profits: citizens (long investors) are happy.
stock issuers gain (paper) value: corporations are happy
the president gets to brag about single-handedly turning around the economy and creating jorbs: politicians are happy
On the other hand, if stock prices go down, the only beneficiaries are short-selling investors (note: market makers are hurt by solid moves in either direction). We can discount short-selling investors in aggregate because investors are long on average (i.e. number of shares issued is always greater than 0). Plus, short-selling is more expensive/complex and therefore short investors tend to be professionals or wealthy, garnering no empathy from the public.
Overall, there is an incentive for Congress and the various regulatory agencies to see a stock market that always goes up, because it keeps people happy. This is visible in existing regulations: Stocks that drop in value rapidly will have extra rules placed on short sales, but no such rules are placed on buys for stocks that rise in value rapidly. You can observe this in recent news as well, with short-sale bans happening in Europe. It stands to reason that the distribution of stock changes has a positive skew and non-stationary mean.
pecifically, why link to c2.com for "type inference" and intel.com for "lambda functions"? Wikipedia wasn't good enough for those?
Have you ever browsed around c2.com? It's great. Wikipedia is good as a generic "fail-safe" resource, but I'd rather see a deep subject-matter wiki being cited where appropriate.
I imagine the Intel article was referenced due to its examples of syntax. It's more specific than a general encyclopedia entry on lambda functions.
0.5% transaction fee on any and all trades, payable by the seller... The only way the scam works is if transactions are effectively free.
The transaction merely needs to be cheaper than the spread. In your example, if a 0.5% fee were applied to all sales, the "arbitrage opportunity" that HFT takes advantage of would instead require a 0.5% deviation (or is it half that, since the fee applies only to sells?), rather than a >0% deviation.
At the same time the entire elitist concept of separate "capital gains" tax rates being distinct from "earned income" must be abolished completely.
Short-term trading gains are taxed as ordinary income, so that whole can-o-worms doesn't really apply here.
I'd rather see evidence of a Linux machine in Hitler's bunker than hear about Linux helping Wall Street punks get even further from real, useful activities than they used to be.
You'd rather see technology used for mass genocide than greed? Scratch that, if we find evidence, we're actually talking about time-traveling mass genocide. This could be serious.
A tube mic preamp can be much cleaner and musical with less THD than any amplifier on a chip.
[Citation needed]
I'm sorry I don't have a citation to support the GP's claim, but I have heard something to the effect of even- vs. odd-ordered harmonics. Distortion due to even-order harmonics (tube) is subjectively more pleasing than distortion due to odd-order harmonics. Thus, even with worse THD, tube amplification may still sound "cleaner and [more] musical". See this general discussion on harmonics.
I am looking for a new amp, and I am on the fence. Mostly because I am having a hard time finding tube amps. Could you recommend I place where I can acquire one?
I recommend any music store where you can bring in your own guitar and play on all of their amps. Also, don't pay too much attention to the wattage on amps. Tubes can put out a lot of sound with low wattage.
Put a counter in all your loops. If the counter hits some arbitrarily ridiculous number throw an exception.
Replace "throw an exception" with "kill myself with a core dump" and you have yourself a deal! I mean something like SIGABRT (a.k.a. abort()) or SIGQUIT. I can see value in preventing infinite loops, because faulty program exits tend reveal their errors more "naturally" than hung programs.
But exceptions are baaaad in this case. Exceptions can be caught and ignored. An infinite loop like this is a logic error and the entire program state must be considered suspect/unreliable.
The problem is that by then the tip-off that somebody got playing golf with the CEO of [censored] would be common knowledge.
First of all, that sounds like insider trading, and that is illegal. Like, Martha-Stewart illegal. Second of all, if you need to "push out a fix" to your platform react to a generic "up" or "down" signal from an insider, you're doing it wrong. This is an operational control change, not a software logic change.
HFT is somewhat illegal, since it could be considered insider trading, since you have time to process information before it becomes available to other people thanks to a faster network infrastructure.
Can you offer any suggestions as to how a retail investor might deal with the presence of HFTs and not get taken to the cleaners?
As a retail investor, you should largely ignore HFTs. Trade infrequently, and you won't be subject to short-term volatility. As somebody else mentioned, use options to hedge instead of stop-loss orders.
Are there any time when you get "a preview" of one order someone will put into the market where you can for instance pick up all that's available for that price and then sell for that order?
If any trading firm receives customer order flow (e.g. Goldman Sachs, Interactive Brokers, and countless others), the previews are technically available in the form of direct customer orders. However, trading on that knowledge is front-running, and it is illegal. These types of companies are expected to separate their proprietary trading desks from their broker desks to avoid this sort of behavior, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
In a proprietary trading firm there are no customer orders, and all trading decisions are based on public knowledge. The doom and gloom you typically hear about "HFT front-running" typically refers to HFT algorithms reacting with lower latency than other algorithms or human traders. AFAIK, there's no ability to actually front-run in that situation.
Re:Joe Sixpack isn't even using his 1080p right
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 1
I wonder if the LED issues you are referring to are more typical to TVs as they have a much larger screen to light up/refresh/etc.
Those issues are definitely a bigger deal for TVs, but that's also due to the content displayed; i.e. nobody really cares if there's clouding visible in a PuTTY session, because it doesn't distract from the "SSH experience". I have some of those issues with my Samsung LED monitor: specifically a poor viewing angle and awful hue shift (test this by viewing a solid purple image on yours, if you're curious). Looking at the specs, Samsung doesn't mention the panel type that they use, so maybe it's lower-quality panel than that of your LG.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose one could argue that residential property tax falls under this category. I've never heard anyone move to a cheaper neighborhood to reduce their property tax load.
FTFY. Somehow this now reminds me of grade school.
If the domain is modeled by cyclical references that do not express ownership, then use plain old boring pointers. But those pointers are pointing to dynamic memory, you say? Well, something else must own them (for the sake of RAII). Heck, a simple vector-of-shared-pointers solves the ownership and cleanup problem. Chances are there is some reasonable place where you could squirrel away the ownership obligation without mucking up the domain model.
File I/O matters on every platform. If you have a file open, you are using OS resources. If the contents of your file are buffered, you are further gambling with race conditions due to human interaction. Windows merely "enhances" these costs and risks.
I agree; the biggest problems I have had with trying to "retrain" people used to GC is that memory management is all about ownership in C++. If you can't identify ownership as a DAG, chances are that something in the design is wrong already, regardless of the language. Once the ownership is there, the memory management just falls into place.
Ack! You've just rediscovered the most vexing parse. This code won't compile, because you've declared a local function s that takes no parameters and returns a std::string by value. I imagine this sidebar isn't going to win any more fans for C++...
RAII is an idiom based on the language feature of deterministic destruction. It relies on this language feature: .finalize() and similar don't cut the mustard. It is also the primary purpose for the language feature to exist: there is no reason to have a destructor unless it is cleaning up resources. Arguing that RAII is not a language feature is sophistry.
In the future, Justin Bieber's youthful head will be preserved in a jar. Put atop a robot body, he may continue to woo stupid little girls and probably Fry.
Well said, sir!
Well that all depends upon how he trades. Suppose he sees information that tells him this:
He has two courses of action. First, he can push the momentum that he expects:
This fails if ZVZZT fails to move (i.e. twitter sentiment is too weak to make a difference). This type of strategy will magnify the impact of emotional sentiment, increasing volatility. OTOH, he can do the same trade on the "back side":
This fails if the stock price doesn't revert in a reasonable time frame. This type of strategy dampens the effect of emotional sentiment, reducing volatility. In effect, this strategy uses the knowledge of emotional mispricing to eliminate the mispricing. So, hopefully this demonstrates that most any information about short-term trading sentiment can for both "good" (dampening oscillations, pushing prices always towards fundamental values) and "evil" (magnifying oscillations, letting prices swing around and benefiting from the momentum).
The specific distribution of stock changes is less important than the lesson: the law of large numbers doesn't apply to the stock market, because (1) stock prices don't have a fixed mean, and (2) stock prices are not independent random variables. But to address your specific concern, let me attempt some armchair analysis: The stock market is not zero-sum: if stock prices go up, there are many beneficiaries:
On the other hand, if stock prices go down, the only beneficiaries are short-selling investors (note: market makers are hurt by solid moves in either direction). We can discount short-selling investors in aggregate because investors are long on average (i.e. number of shares issued is always greater than 0). Plus, short-selling is more expensive/complex and therefore short investors tend to be professionals or wealthy, garnering no empathy from the public.
Overall, there is an incentive for Congress and the various regulatory agencies to see a stock market that always goes up, because it keeps people happy. This is visible in existing regulations: Stocks that drop in value rapidly will have extra rules placed on short sales, but no such rules are placed on buys for stocks that rise in value rapidly. You can observe this in recent news as well, with short-sale bans happening in Europe. It stands to reason that the distribution of stock changes has a positive skew and non-stationary mean.
Have you ever browsed around c2.com? It's great. Wikipedia is good as a generic "fail-safe" resource, but I'd rather see a deep subject-matter wiki being cited where appropriate.
I imagine the Intel article was referenced due to its examples of syntax. It's more specific than a general encyclopedia entry on lambda functions.
The transaction merely needs to be cheaper than the spread. In your example, if a 0.5% fee were applied to all sales, the "arbitrage opportunity" that HFT takes advantage of would instead require a 0.5% deviation (or is it half that, since the fee applies only to sells?), rather than a >0% deviation.
Short-term trading gains are taxed as ordinary income, so that whole can-o-worms doesn't really apply here.
You'd rather see technology used for mass genocide than greed? Scratch that, if we find evidence, we're actually talking about time-traveling mass genocide. This could be serious.
I'm sorry I don't have a citation to support the GP's claim, but I have heard something to the effect of even- vs. odd-ordered harmonics. Distortion due to even-order harmonics (tube) is subjectively more pleasing than distortion due to odd-order harmonics. Thus, even with worse THD, tube amplification may still sound "cleaner and [more] musical". See this general discussion on harmonics.
I recommend any music store where you can bring in your own guitar and play on all of their amps. Also, don't pay too much attention to the wattage on amps. Tubes can put out a lot of sound with low wattage.
How many corporations do things out of the goodness of their hearts? People may be altruistic, corporations not.
Pass around a size_t with your pointer and use the mem*() family of functions instead of str*().
Replace "throw an exception" with "kill myself with a core dump" and you have yourself a deal! I mean something like SIGABRT (a.k.a. abort()) or SIGQUIT. I can see value in preventing infinite loops, because faulty program exits tend reveal their errors more "naturally" than hung programs.
But exceptions are baaaad in this case. Exceptions can be caught and ignored. An infinite loop like this is a logic error and the entire program state must be considered suspect/unreliable.
First of all, that sounds like insider trading, and that is illegal. Like, Martha-Stewart illegal. Second of all, if you need to "push out a fix" to your platform react to a generic "up" or "down" signal from an insider, you're doing it wrong. This is an operational control change, not a software logic change.
That is an incorrect definition of insider trading. Don't take my word for it, read the SEC definition of insider trading.
As a retail investor, you should largely ignore HFTs. Trade infrequently, and you won't be subject to short-term volatility. As somebody else mentioned, use options to hedge instead of stop-loss orders.
Start by looking for an opening at an exchange or an ECN. Check out the job requirements of any major exchange located in your area.
If any trading firm receives customer order flow (e.g. Goldman Sachs, Interactive Brokers, and countless others), the previews are technically available in the form of direct customer orders. However, trading on that knowledge is front-running, and it is illegal. These types of companies are expected to separate their proprietary trading desks from their broker desks to avoid this sort of behavior, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
In a proprietary trading firm there are no customer orders, and all trading decisions are based on public knowledge. The doom and gloom you typically hear about "HFT front-running" typically refers to HFT algorithms reacting with lower latency than other algorithms or human traders. AFAIK, there's no ability to actually front-run in that situation.
Those issues are definitely a bigger deal for TVs, but that's also due to the content displayed; i.e. nobody really cares if there's clouding visible in a PuTTY session, because it doesn't distract from the "SSH experience". I have some of those issues with my Samsung LED monitor: specifically a poor viewing angle and awful hue shift (test this by viewing a solid purple image on yours, if you're curious). Looking at the specs, Samsung doesn't mention the panel type that they use, so maybe it's lower-quality panel than that of your LG.