They just transferred profits from one group of guys that were making fairly easy money, collapsed the profit margin and concentrated that money into a fairly smaller group of people- so I think that they actually did benefit society
Collapse of profit margins is not a necessary ingredient in these, increase in margins is an easy possibility. Except for that, this is an argument for concentration of wealth.
Though I would ask you why all actions have to benefit society? Does a gambler going to a casino benefit society? Does someone who goes to a restauarant? How about about someone who takes a weekend trip away from the city?
I would ask you to read untll the second sentence of my post. Tough, I know.
I am not sure what you are getting at about raising the barriers to entry. Technology has in general raised the barriers to entry for opening up a brokerage firm. It used to be that you needed phones, sales reps, a clearing firm and someone down on the floor to open a brokerage, and that was about it. These days everything is electronic and it is more difficult to do so. That technology needs to be reasonably good as well. To be competitive these days, the technology is commoditized, you can buy many pieces off the shelf.
Confused, self-contradictory. "Off the shelf" and "more difficult" do not go together. Obvious facts that one should know before spouting off on this topic prove this comparison to be idiotic/malicious - Much before moving the trading to the internet, its advantages far outstripped the "costs" of doing so - reach not limited by geography except by law, speed, scalability. AND costs of services and devices needed for internet enablement plummeted. It is not comparable to HFT "technology" because getting one's trade completed microseconds earlierr than without this "technology" is not a "benefit" anyone would notice.
Guys with a speed advantage have always used that advantage to make money in the stock market. Whether it be guys with faster horses in the pre-railroad/telegraph era (supposedly the rothschilds made their fortune this way, buying up english bonds as they had news that a war had ended first), telephones ripping off bucket shops in the 1900's, SOES bandits in the 1980s, and now HFT today, this has always existed
And none of them benefited society in any respectable proportion to what they earned. So why should society infrastructure be modified to suit them (exclusive order types on exchanges regulated of necessity) ?
This is good for the industry in my opinion, maybe the focus can go back to trading smarter, not just saving off ten microseconds on the slice time
It is called raising the barriers to entry. Probably good for the industry (defined as existing large players in the industry) - but not good for society in general.
You'd need to treat them until they no longer like these sorts of things, however long that takes.
Been reading too much science fiction? Such a "treatment" is exactly that - fiction. A "test" to figure out what a person likes, is a fantasy.
What if they don't want to be rehabilitated?
Non-cooperation with the rehabilitation program would be cause to lock you up until you cooperate.
Why would they not "cooperate", at least apparently? Sociopaths can be legendary actors. Though one good effect of this policy will be that there will be a great evolutionary pressure on humans to be better actors. Hollywood will thank you.
1. No mouse gestures 2. No tab kit (or any tree style vertical tab bar solution) 3. No vimperator / pentadactyl 4. No simple Xpath checker - probably web developer can be hacked to do something for this.
The extension compatibility is not trivial - firefox plugins do not get installed on seamonkey from within the browser. Any solutions to these?
Ok, so presumably another TabKit 2.0 user. Do you have any idea if it works on this latest Firefox? And do you have any way for highlighting the current tab , which stopped working with TabKit about a year ago?
Yes, but siphon is not caused by that ambient pressure gradient. You can do a thought experiment to confirm that - assuming you've played with such equipment enough for an intuitive understanding.
Put the upper reservoir in a pressurized container, such that ambient pressure inside it is a little higher than atmospheric pressure at lower reservoir level. Put the lower reservoir in open, at atmospheric pressure. Try siphon.
Result - siphon still happens.
There is one more theoretical test you can do to show siphon is not caused by ambient pressure gradient - the fact that stuff flows from lower pressure to higher pressure.
Just cut the tube across its length, such that it becomes something like a canal without cover. Now try the siphon. Pulling on water applies equally in a cut open "tube", but siphon does not work.
So playing with gas shouldn't be necessary - though it might be fun.
Could it be placebo? Your conclusion coincides with naive expectations.
In absence of double blind studies - do you know incidences of people who didn't know the animal was looked after better, before eating the animal, and remarked that this meat was tastier than average?
99% users are already using non-de-plume. The name on my birth certificate is not bingoUV. Problem is, that from other posts some suspicion as to identity can be drawn, and the need to be careful will be enormous then.
So one needs to use a one-time non-de-plume. You can make another/. user instantly, but all the trouble of using a unique email ID, possibly even clicking on a link in that email to confirm it is really you etc. is too much for a single post./. could allow people to make "quick" users without this trouble, but then those posts will be equivalent to ACs, we will need modifiers for scores of such posts same as we need for ACs. So non-de-plume won't help.
Suppose/. allowed you to block individual accounts, including AC? Block them, and the posts don't exist for you
If you mean to say/. does not allow you to block ACs, you are almost wrong. You can set a modifier, to AC posts' score, and then browse at a particular score and above.
By choosing good numbers for these, you can make sure you never see AC posts, or see only highly rated AC posts.
That makes no sense. At the lowest level which we manipulate to make the "computer" compute - it is just electrons moving around in semi-predictable way. So why stop at "computer", the electrons moving around don't even "know" they are "computing". Electrodancer even sounds kind of ok. Going lower levels of implementations is not a popular way of naming tools.
No, we call them computers because their predecessors were actually used by the human user to do computations. And when people started facebooking on them, they forgot to rename them.
crouch over a piece of frozen steel for 11 hours, it's not much fun
Frozen steel? Trust me, it's even less fun to crouch over liquid or gaseous steel - the typical unfrozen varieties of steel found in the wild. Or in a furnace, I forget exactly where they are found.
Model not quantifying the unknown unknowns is, of course, not surprising. But this is wrong -
Only because there is a theoretical (or rather philosophical) possibility that the speed of light is in fact variable, you can't say that our current models are uncertain or have a higher "true uncertainty"
There IS a higher true uncertainty, when taking into account the unknown uncertainty. And models ARE uncertain, at least in an unknown way.
The theoretical, philosophical possibility that the speed of light [in vacuum] is variable DOES mean exactly what you are saying it doesn't.
Is condition not limit. You used the word "limit", but wrongly.
And like I was trying to explain earlier too, the uncertainty you're talking about is only the uncertainty inherent within the theory - the known uncertainty, if you will. But there is another uncertainty, of the theory being imprecise - even the currently most advanced theory can have imprecision. It could even be not applicable to the environment you're trying to apply it, and this fact could be unknown to everyone.
So no, you cannot always quantify the unknown unknowns so easily as you're implying.
No, you laid too much importance to theories being "correct". And it is plain wrong (though part of your first paragraph),that "a theory is either correct or not ".
And the conditions a, b, c etc. need not be of the theory but the application. E.g. you want to shoot a bullet from a gun at 1000 m/s. As long as you are not concerned with microns of precision, Newton's laws will do you more good to calculate the trajectory of the bullet even though they are "wrong" in the sense that better laws are known (relativity) . The application decides which theory to use, not the theory itself.
At least someone who chooses another major has expressed an interest in SOMETHING
And then by taking an unrelated job, shown a propensity to lose interest in that very something ?
The business administration crowd just recognized the HR idiocy of rejecting outright anyone without a degree , at times specifically business administration degree. Yes, they are reasonable people, not really causing progress in the world. But probably better than 1. an eternally undecided fellow, or 2. one who spends money studying a subject without a plan to earn back the money using that study 3. one whose plans of earning back the money didn't fructify ?
A theory is either correct or not. If it's making correct predictions than it's correct, if not, it's wrong. I still don't understand what you mean by "true uncertainty". If we find ever that the speed of light is in fact variable, then the current models must be dropped as wrong.
No. Theory can be correct for some purposes. For the purposes it is not correct, some other theory (say, theory1) can be thought of. Now theory1 might hold for the purposes that original theory still holds, and as simple to apply, in which case theory can be simply replaced with theory1. If not, both theory and theory1 co-exist, remaining valid, while claiming nothing about being "true".
That is why new revelations do not cause applications of science to stop working. Hence the theory on which those applications are based, is still "valid". Is it "true"? That is a stupid question - even the new and improved theory is not "true". There is no "true" in the philosophy of science - only valid for a purpose.
Even "scientific" theories of periods when science wasn't defined as well as today, are valid for some purposes. Heavier objects fall to earth faster than lighter objects - that is true in many cases. Of later theories - your stand holds even less water. Newton's laws, while being "wrong", still solve an enormous number of problems. They are "valid" for lots of purposes. And quantum + relativity theories that are "new and improved", still fail to precisely explain everything - and might predict something very incorrectly some day. That will not make them "wrong", because they are not "true" today. They are just valid for some purposes.
Much as most donâ(TM)t understand the scientific definition of âoetheory,â you seem to be using the wrong definition of âoedoubt.â
You are using the wrong definition of "wrong". As far as I can notice, the survey doesn't define "doubt". So any definition that fits the context cannot be said to be "wrong".
Doubt could mean the slightest chance of it being false, or a reasonable chance of it being false. Both definitions fit the context. Note people doubting things just because they weren't there during the big bang - they are just expressing their inability to be absolutely certain.
It is just a bad survey, like most others. See questions are lumping multiple assumptions - "universe beginning with a big bang". So one has to doubt it if one doubts universe didn't exist before big bang, and also doubt it if one doubts there was a big bang at all.
There is possibly, or likely a science ignorance in the US public. But this survey proves nothing either way.
I agree with you when thinking from the perspective of an individual - one can be said to be feeling entitled indeed for all these expectations.
But from the society's perspective - SHOULD it be so hard to get an education ? I see this question in this regard - and I cannot agree education should be so hard especially these days. An immense amount of knowledge has been amassed by man, and productivity can be improved immensely by at least some specialization , and acquiring knowledge should help.
Now knowledge CAN be acquired without college (or formal education), and can be applied well. But formal education makes it easy to acquire knowledge and improve one's usefulness to society using it. Readymade food can be acquired without formal restaurants by knocking on many doors and negotiating with door openers for food, but formal restaurants make this business much easier.
Don't you think that this idea of acquirability of knowledge without formal education has taken root in US precisely because of formal education being difficult? Taking an example from fiction - Sherlock Holmes was the summit of amateur excellence but he acquired a lot of his early knowledge in university (or maybe college) setting - in chemistry, poisons, maybe more. A huge storehouse of easily accessible practical knowledge can only help, right?
Given that everyone will benefit, even people whose kids do not make it to the most prestigious colleges, by improving students' future usefulness to society, why is there such a revulsion for highly subsidizing education?
Most OSes and applications have a habit of creating, editing and destroying small files - for maintaining state, cache etc. Overall, it is not surprising for an average PC to manipulate files at multiple hertz.
On Linux, home directory and/tmp get hit the most./tmp can be moved to memory resident volatile tmpfs, so on Linux this advice amounts to keeping/home in SSD. / on SSD helps in booting fast.
On Windows, C: - people use hardcoded temp/documents/user profile directories, and C: on SSD also helps boot fast.
Slashdot Mirror
They just transferred profits from one group of guys that were making fairly easy money, collapsed the profit margin and concentrated that money into a fairly smaller group of people- so I think that they actually did benefit society
Collapse of profit margins is not a necessary ingredient in these, increase in margins is an easy possibility. Except for that, this is an argument for concentration of wealth.
Though I would ask you why all actions have to benefit society? Does a gambler going to a casino benefit society? Does someone who goes to a restauarant? How about about someone who takes a weekend trip away from the city?
I would ask you to read untll the second sentence of my post. Tough, I know.
I am not sure what you are getting at about raising the barriers to entry. Technology has in general raised the barriers to entry for opening up a brokerage firm. It used to be that you needed phones, sales reps, a clearing firm and someone down on the floor to open a brokerage, and that was about it. These days everything is electronic and it is more difficult to do so. That technology needs to be reasonably good as well. To be competitive these days, the technology is commoditized, you can buy many pieces off the shelf.
Confused, self-contradictory. "Off the shelf" and "more difficult" do not go together. Obvious facts that one should know before spouting off on this topic prove this comparison to be idiotic/malicious - Much before moving the trading to the internet, its advantages far outstripped the "costs" of doing so - reach not limited by geography except by law, speed, scalability. AND costs of services and devices needed for internet enablement plummeted. It is not comparable to HFT "technology" because getting one's trade completed microseconds earlierr than without this "technology" is not a "benefit" anyone would notice.
Guys with a speed advantage have always used that advantage to make money in the stock market. Whether it be guys with faster horses in the pre-railroad/telegraph era (supposedly the rothschilds made their fortune this way, buying up english bonds as they had news that a war had ended first), telephones ripping off bucket shops in the 1900's, SOES bandits in the 1980s, and now HFT today, this has always existed
And none of them benefited society in any respectable proportion to what they earned. So why should society infrastructure be modified to suit them (exclusive order types on exchanges regulated of necessity) ?
This is good for the industry in my opinion, maybe the focus can go back to trading smarter, not just saving off ten microseconds on the slice time
It is called raising the barriers to entry. Probably good for the industry (defined as existing large players in the industry) - but not good for society in general.
You'd need to treat them until they no longer like these sorts of things, however long that takes.
Been reading too much science fiction? Such a "treatment" is exactly that - fiction. A "test" to figure out what a person likes, is a fantasy.
What if they don't want to be rehabilitated?
Non-cooperation with the rehabilitation program would be cause to lock you up until you cooperate.
Why would they not "cooperate", at least apparently? Sociopaths can be legendary actors. Though one good effect of this policy will be that there will be a great evolutionary pressure on humans to be better actors. Hollywood will thank you.
Ok. Preliminary investigation shows :
1. No mouse gestures
2. No tab kit (or any tree style vertical tab bar solution)
3. No vimperator / pentadactyl
4. No simple Xpath checker - probably web developer can be hacked to do something for this.
The extension compatibility is not trivial - firefox plugins do not get installed on seamonkey from within the browser. Any solutions to these?
Ok, so presumably another TabKit 2.0 user. Do you have any idea if it works on this latest Firefox? And do you have any way for highlighting the current tab , which stopped working with TabKit about a year ago?
thanks
Yes, but siphon is not caused by that ambient pressure gradient. You can do a thought experiment to confirm that - assuming you've played with such equipment enough for an intuitive understanding.
Put the upper reservoir in a pressurized container, such that ambient pressure inside it is a little higher than atmospheric pressure at lower reservoir level. Put the lower reservoir in open, at atmospheric pressure. Try siphon.
Result - siphon still happens.
There is one more theoretical test you can do to show siphon is not caused by ambient pressure gradient - the fact that stuff flows from lower pressure to higher pressure.
That is only for small quantity of "ideal" gases - the fluid mechanical equivalent of spherical cow of uniform density.
the "pulling on water" explanation
Just cut the tube across its length, such that it becomes something like a canal without cover. Now try the siphon. Pulling on water applies equally in a cut open "tube", but siphon does not work.
So playing with gas shouldn't be necessary - though it might be fun.
Could it be placebo? Your conclusion coincides with naive expectations.
In absence of double blind studies - do you know incidences of people who didn't know the animal was looked after better, before eating the animal, and remarked that this meat was tastier than average?
Probably. And there was a problem doing that especially on this site - the users KNOW the meaning of beta.
99% users are already using non-de-plume. The name on my birth certificate is not bingoUV. Problem is, that from other posts some suspicion as to identity can be drawn, and the need to be careful will be enormous then.
So one needs to use a one-time non-de-plume. You can make another /. user instantly, but all the trouble of using a unique email ID, possibly even clicking on a link in that email to confirm it is really you etc. is too much for a single post. /. could allow people to make "quick" users without this trouble, but then those posts will be equivalent to ACs, we will need modifiers for scores of such posts same as we need for ACs. So non-de-plume won't help.
Suppose /. allowed you to block individual accounts, including AC? Block them, and the posts don't exist for you
If you mean to say /. does not allow you to block ACs, you are almost wrong. You can set a modifier, to AC posts' score, and then browse at a particular score and above.
By choosing good numbers for these, you can make sure you never see AC posts, or see only highly rated AC posts.
That makes no sense. At the lowest level which we manipulate to make the "computer" compute - it is just electrons moving around in semi-predictable way. So why stop at "computer", the electrons moving around don't even "know" they are "computing". Electrodancer even sounds kind of ok. Going lower levels of implementations is not a popular way of naming tools.
No, we call them computers because their predecessors were actually used by the human user to do computations. And when people started facebooking on them, they forgot to rename them.
crouch over a piece of frozen steel for 11 hours, it's not much fun
Frozen steel? Trust me, it's even less fun to crouch over liquid or gaseous steel - the typical unfrozen varieties of steel found in the wild. Or in a furnace, I forget exactly where they are found.
Model not quantifying the unknown unknowns is, of course, not surprising. But this is wrong -
Only because there is a theoretical (or rather philosophical) possibility that the speed of light is in fact variable, you can't say that our current models are uncertain or have a higher "true uncertainty"
There IS a higher true uncertainty, when taking into account the unknown uncertainty. And models ARE uncertain, at least in an unknown way.
The theoretical, philosophical possibility that the speed of light [in vacuum] is variable DOES mean exactly what you are saying it doesn't.
Trademarking low positive integer numbers beats design patenting rounded corners, I guess.
(If a,b,c then)
Is condition not limit. You used the word "limit", but wrongly.
And like I was trying to explain earlier too, the uncertainty you're talking about is only the uncertainty inherent within the theory - the known uncertainty, if you will. But there is another uncertainty, of the theory being imprecise - even the currently most advanced theory can have imprecision. It could even be not applicable to the environment you're trying to apply it, and this fact could be unknown to everyone.
So no, you cannot always quantify the unknown unknowns so easily as you're implying.
No, you laid too much importance to theories being "correct". And it is plain wrong (though part of your first paragraph) ,that "a theory is either correct or not ".
And the conditions a, b, c etc. need not be of the theory but the application. E.g. you want to shoot a bullet from a gun at 1000 m/s. As long as you are not concerned with microns of precision, Newton's laws will do you more good to calculate the trajectory of the bullet even though they are "wrong" in the sense that better laws are known (relativity) . The application decides which theory to use, not the theory itself.
At least someone who chooses another major has expressed an interest in SOMETHING
And then by taking an unrelated job, shown a propensity to lose interest in that very something ?
The business administration crowd just recognized the HR idiocy of rejecting outright anyone without a degree , at times specifically business administration degree. Yes, they are reasonable people, not really causing progress in the world. But probably better than
1. an eternally undecided fellow, or
2. one who spends money studying a subject without a plan to earn back the money using that study
3. one whose plans of earning back the money didn't fructify ?
transmission of someone else's copyrighted content
Book delivery courier is also basing their revenue model on the transmission of someone else's copyrighted content. McGraw Hill isn't suing UPS.
A theory is either correct or not. If it's making correct predictions than it's correct, if not, it's wrong. I still don't understand what you mean by "true uncertainty". If we find ever that the speed of light is in fact variable, then the current models must be dropped as wrong.
No. Theory can be correct for some purposes. For the purposes it is not correct, some other theory (say, theory1) can be thought of. Now theory1 might hold for the purposes that original theory still holds, and as simple to apply, in which case theory can be simply replaced with theory1. If not, both theory and theory1 co-exist, remaining valid, while claiming nothing about being "true".
That is why new revelations do not cause applications of science to stop working. Hence the theory on which those applications are based, is still "valid". Is it "true"? That is a stupid question - even the new and improved theory is not "true". There is no "true" in the philosophy of science - only valid for a purpose.
Even "scientific" theories of periods when science wasn't defined as well as today, are valid for some purposes. Heavier objects fall to earth faster than lighter objects - that is true in many cases. Of later theories - your stand holds even less water. Newton's laws, while being "wrong", still solve an enormous number of problems. They are "valid" for lots of purposes. And quantum + relativity theories that are "new and improved", still fail to precisely explain everything - and might predict something very incorrectly some day. That will not make them "wrong", because they are not "true" today. They are just valid for some purposes.
Much as most donâ(TM)t understand the scientific definition of âoetheory,â you seem to be using the wrong definition of âoedoubt.â
You are using the wrong definition of "wrong". As far as I can notice, the survey doesn't define "doubt". So any definition that fits the context cannot be said to be "wrong".
Doubt could mean the slightest chance of it being false, or a reasonable chance of it being false. Both definitions fit the context. Note people doubting things just because they weren't there during the big bang - they are just expressing their inability to be absolutely certain.
It is just a bad survey, like most others. See questions are lumping multiple assumptions - "universe beginning with a big bang". So one has to doubt it if one doubts universe didn't exist before big bang, and also doubt it if one doubts there was a big bang at all.
There is possibly, or likely a science ignorance in the US public. But this survey proves nothing either way.
I agree with you when thinking from the perspective of an individual - one can be said to be feeling entitled indeed for all these expectations.
But from the society's perspective - SHOULD it be so hard to get an education ? I see this question in this regard - and I cannot agree education should be so hard especially these days. An immense amount of knowledge has been amassed by man, and productivity can be improved immensely by at least some specialization , and acquiring knowledge should help.
Now knowledge CAN be acquired without college (or formal education), and can be applied well. But formal education makes it easy to acquire knowledge and improve one's usefulness to society using it. Readymade food can be acquired without formal restaurants by knocking on many doors and negotiating with door openers for food, but formal restaurants make this business much easier.
Don't you think that this idea of acquirability of knowledge without formal education has taken root in US precisely because of formal education being difficult? Taking an example from fiction - Sherlock Holmes was the summit of amateur excellence but he acquired a lot of his early knowledge in university (or maybe college) setting - in chemistry, poisons, maybe more. A huge storehouse of easily accessible practical knowledge can only help, right?
Given that everyone will benefit, even people whose kids do not make it to the most prestigious colleges, by improving students' future usefulness to society, why is there such a revulsion for highly subsidizing education?
Most OSes and applications have a habit of creating, editing and destroying small files - for maintaining state, cache etc. Overall, it is not surprising for an average PC to manipulate files at multiple hertz.
On Linux, home directory and /tmp get hit the most. /tmp can be moved to memory resident volatile tmpfs, so on Linux this advice amounts to keeping /home in SSD. / on SSD helps in booting fast.
On Windows, C: - people use hardcoded temp/documents/user profile directories, and C: on SSD also helps boot fast.