This type of insider trading is illegal. The leak that allowed this is a firing offense and also illegal. Trades were executed in Chicago after the change was announced in Washington D.C. in a classical physics sense. Trades were executed in Chicago before the change was announced in Washington D.C. in a relativistic physics sense.
What does all that imply? Someone at the Federal Reserve leaked the information before it was announced. Someone else wanted to use this information but also not get caught. That someone doesn't understand relativistic physics.
I disagree, Slashdot's very low limits on positive and negative moderation encourage more discussion. A single vote may hide a comment, but a single vote can almost always bring it right back. It takes anywhere from 3-5 people agreeing with a comment (or more optimistically agreeing that the comment adds to the discussion). Contrast this to system's like Reddit where a single comment can have hundreds of downvotes before the conversation even gets going in earnest. One thing I would like to see is for down mods to cost more than up mods, I think that would further discourage their use. If it cost 3 times more to down mod something than up, you encourage people to promote comments that refute the problem comment, rather than hiding it. And if it cost 3 mod points, most moderators would only be able to downmod a single comment each time they are given points (moderators with extremely high karma would be given significantly more opportunities to down mod though, which could still cause problems).
So what? "The DEA gotta catch shady doctors" does not translate to "you have no expectation of medical privacy". Especially when there are federal laws laying out that we do, in fact, have the expectation of privacy. In fact, those laws require anyone touching our medical information to provide us with a statement saying "hey, this is going to be kept private".
What if the FSM just wanted to use gravity as an extension of his noodle-down-pushing-power?
It's a meaningless statement. If god created all the multitude of animals through the use of evolution, how is that any different from just... evolution? Why add the extra assumptions in there if they don't contribute to the theory? I'm not saying the statement is wrong necessarily, just that it's meaningless; the two parts of the statement belong to two fundamentally different philosophies.
Seriously though, something's got to give here and soon. If we ever hit the point where most products can be reproduced essentially for free there is going to be a massive and thorough push to lock down the internet in ways the RIAA and MIAA can only dream of. Remember, those media companies are bit players in the grand scheme of things. The amount of money going into the IP protection lobby will sky rocket the day you can download the plans for a BMW off pirate bay.
I was under the impression from the beginning that the money they were asking for was to build a working model that would be used to sell the game's concept to someone with more money; there's simply no way the amount they were raising was sufficient to make a deliverable product. 500K minus all the expenses of hardware prototyping leaves enough for maybe half a dozen (not very well paid) developers for one year, and that ignores all the expenses of actually building and delivering production hardware at the end. I find it hard to believe that anyone thought they were fully funding the game from the ground up with that level of financing.
Lets say you did in fact have a few Siberian tigers in your basement, how did they get there? You've got no idea! Then one day you came home and they were gone. The mystery deepens.
My argument isn't with his numbers, it's with the use of payoff time in general as a measure if an investment is economically viable. It ignores the fact that money tomorrow is worth less than money today. I guess you can argue that's an assumption, but it's an assumption that every economist, investor, bank, lender, borrower, and policy maker in the world agrees is a valid one. Using payoff time is bogus because eventually the value of the payoff is a fraction the value put in at the beginning. If you only take into account inflation, completely ignoring the lost opportunity cost that the money could have been invested in something different, the value of the 24000 put in at the beginning is 32000 after ten years which alone adds another 5 years to the adjusted payoff time.
The real problem I have is that from a purely economical standpoint, it still doesn't make sense. A relatively safe investment will net you 3-5% per year. If you shop around and you can even find investment options that practically guarantee that rate of return. Your $24000 investment is worth ~$100 per month in interest, more over the long term as compound interest starts to kick in. This seriously undermines a purely economics based argument.
There are obviously other benefits of having your own solar installation, I'm merely saying that you cannot compare the future value of your solar panels against the present value of their cost.
FEMA doesn't know how to deal with a 500 year flood? There are hundreds of flood plains in the US, many of them have towns of various sizes built on them. You know when the last time a major area had the river crest above the 500 year flood plain? 2008, 5 years ago, Cedar Rapids IA. Furthermore, the probability of any particular floodplain having a 500 year flood in the past 50 years is right around 10% meaning there have been dozens of 500 year floods in the US since FEMA was formed. But
Because the hope of a lot of people is to have a high quality 3D printer in every home some day. If they become standard appliances it's quite a bit different from a CnC machine.
My college calculus coursed did essentially the same thing. The last half hour a each class was presenting an intro to the new topic, homework and reading were assigned, the first hour of the next class was on clarification, answering questions, going through especially difficult problems from the take home work. Then the last half hour introduced the next topic.
It worked wonderfully with my learning style, if you understood the intro well enough and could handle the work without doing the reading you didn't have to worry much about it. It's also an obvious and effective way of making sure you focus on the parts of the material that are actually difficult for the students to understand. If a 30 minute lecture and textbook reading can get people comfortable with problems 1-5 and 7-10 that they don't have questions about them it's probably better to focus most of the remaining hour on problem 6.
The risks from green potatoes are no more significant than the risks associated with basically any meat product. The vast majority of the toxin is kept in the skin, so peeling does in fact eliminate most of the toxin. Boiling and deep frying, while not destroying the toxin, cause it to leach out into the cooking fluid, again greatly reducing content. And finally, the toxins are extremely bitter, it's unlikely you're going to keep eating food that tastes disgusting, which is why almost all cases of real poisoning happen when there's simply no other food to eat.
Who gives a shit about activists? You point me to the hoards of climate scientists who say that about individual storms. The best you'll be able to do is a handful of papers (which the media loves to take out of context) about an increase in the rate of major weather events and a couple of scientists who say something like "we expect more storms like this as global warming intensifies".
Moral of the story is randomly choosing the order of the names on the ballot a single time then using that order on all the ballots doesn't actually accomplish anything.
It's like making a random number generator with a single fair dice roll.
Why air conditioning? Wouldn't it be simpler, lighter, and more efficient to cool with conduction than convection? I'm thinking pads that stick to the skin running water to a heat pump or even Peltier devices to make the whole thing solid state.
They almost certainly almost never have to replace broken movies. Look at the shelves at the local brick and mortar rental store next time a big release comes out, see the hundred or so copies? 2 weeks later it's 50, 2 weeks after that it's 10. In a year there's only a handful. So Netflix has their stock of the new release which, even taking into account how long it used to take to get some new releases, is much larger than the stock they will need just a few weeks down the road. Breakage gets written off, so long as it doesn't outpace the drop in demand (which I suppose it will one movies are old enough, but that isn't the majority of the business) you never need to worry about it.
The whole system is broken, that's what's missing here. A couple numbers and a name contains all the information needed to withdraw money from my account, that is the real problem and it is seriously backwards early 20th century thinking. There is no reason that information should fly around unencrypted, heck it's written in plain text on my credit card for crying out loud, why does no one think that is an issue!? The sad thing is that something like Google Wallet, that has enough brains to be password protected and provide strong encryption, should have been the answer to all this, but the banking system is so incredibly backward that rather than encrypting the data in a way that makes sense (with one time pads a la secureID) they ended up broadcasting the same unencrypted string of data that can be copied right off a card.
To summarize, the solution to the problem of buying from someone you don't trust with your CC information isn't to use paypal, it's to overhaul the CC system to the 21st century so that you aren't sharing the actually CC information with anyone but the bank to begin with.
Suppose that you are worried that you might have a rare disease.
Presumably if you are worried there is a reason. Genetic predisposition, experiencing symptoms, contact with someone who has had it, etc. That makes the odds much, much more in favor of you having it than.01%.
The house? Why leave the bedroom/bathroom suite? You can have food brought in by one of the ubiquitous robots the article talks about. Someday, we'll even have chamber pot emptying robot technology and you will never have to leave the bed! Oh if only I could live in such a world!
I sincerely hope you were being as sarcastic as I am.
First generation autonomous vehicles won't be able to use swarm logic, because it only works if everyone is doing it and 99% of the cars on the road won't be (they're be driven by people). Now, in 2040 when you simply can't buy a car that doesn't drive itself you can start looking at eliminating the "rules of the road" as they exist now. If all vehicles perform with near perfect decision making you can do things like divide the 2 lanes each way highway into 6 lanes (because they can be much closer together and even overlap in some cases) going whichever direction traffic needs them to go. And eventually you can just say no lanes at all, just a sheet of pavement and cars will pack in however seems most efficient at the time. That is the kind of future this research is for, not puttering around the suburb following the posted road signs.
It's swarm behavior, each unit of the group has simple rules that follows. Things like "don't get closer than X to the unit in front of you" and "don't approach another unit at more than Y relative speed". There's no central processing happening to manage the group, no more than there is for a flock of starlings flying through the air. It's just simple rules leading to seemingly complex behavior.
Until someone puts out a device built from the ground up to be a and as a result has higher build quality, better battery life, lower cost, higher performance and a more appropriate user interface. All of which can be achieved by removing all the unnecessary "non-camera" things and removing the joints between the modules.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets list the facts:
This type of insider trading is illegal.
The leak that allowed this is a firing offense and also illegal.
Trades were executed in Chicago after the change was announced in Washington D.C. in a classical physics sense.
Trades were executed in Chicago before the change was announced in Washington D.C. in a relativistic physics sense.
What does all that imply?
Someone at the Federal Reserve leaked the information before it was announced.
Someone else wanted to use this information but also not get caught.
That someone doesn't understand relativistic physics.
I disagree, Slashdot's very low limits on positive and negative moderation encourage more discussion. A single vote may hide a comment, but a single vote can almost always bring it right back. It takes anywhere from 3-5 people agreeing with a comment (or more optimistically agreeing that the comment adds to the discussion). Contrast this to system's like Reddit where a single comment can have hundreds of downvotes before the conversation even gets going in earnest. One thing I would like to see is for down mods to cost more than up mods, I think that would further discourage their use. If it cost 3 times more to down mod something than up, you encourage people to promote comments that refute the problem comment, rather than hiding it. And if it cost 3 mod points, most moderators would only be able to downmod a single comment each time they are given points (moderators with extremely high karma would be given significantly more opportunities to down mod though, which could still cause problems).
So what? "The DEA gotta catch shady doctors" does not translate to "you have no expectation of medical privacy". Especially when there are federal laws laying out that we do, in fact, have the expectation of privacy. In fact, those laws require anyone touching our medical information to provide us with a statement saying "hey, this is going to be kept private".
Which would still be something along the lines of .000001% of the electrons in 1 meter of silk.
Every now and them I'm reminded just how small atoms actually are.
What if the FSM just wanted to use gravity as an extension of his noodle-down-pushing-power?
It's a meaningless statement. If god created all the multitude of animals through the use of evolution, how is that any different from just... evolution? Why add the extra assumptions in there if they don't contribute to the theory? I'm not saying the statement is wrong necessarily, just that it's meaningless; the two parts of the statement belong to two fundamentally different philosophies.
"You wouldn't download a car!"
"Fuck you! I would if I could!"
Seriously though, something's got to give here and soon. If we ever hit the point where most products can be reproduced essentially for free there is going to be a massive and thorough push to lock down the internet in ways the RIAA and MIAA can only dream of. Remember, those media companies are bit players in the grand scheme of things. The amount of money going into the IP protection lobby will sky rocket the day you can download the plans for a BMW off pirate bay.
I was under the impression from the beginning that the money they were asking for was to build a working model that would be used to sell the game's concept to someone with more money; there's simply no way the amount they were raising was sufficient to make a deliverable product. 500K minus all the expenses of hardware prototyping leaves enough for maybe half a dozen (not very well paid) developers for one year, and that ignores all the expenses of actually building and delivering production hardware at the end. I find it hard to believe that anyone thought they were fully funding the game from the ground up with that level of financing.
Lets say you did in fact have a few Siberian tigers in your basement, how did they get there? You've got no idea! Then one day you came home and they were gone. The mystery deepens.
My argument isn't with his numbers, it's with the use of payoff time in general as a measure if an investment is economically viable. It ignores the fact that money tomorrow is worth less than money today. I guess you can argue that's an assumption, but it's an assumption that every economist, investor, bank, lender, borrower, and policy maker in the world agrees is a valid one. Using payoff time is bogus because eventually the value of the payoff is a fraction the value put in at the beginning. If you only take into account inflation, completely ignoring the lost opportunity cost that the money could have been invested in something different, the value of the 24000 put in at the beginning is 32000 after ten years which alone adds another 5 years to the adjusted payoff time.
The real problem I have is that from a purely economical standpoint, it still doesn't make sense. A relatively safe investment will net you 3-5% per year. If you shop around and you can even find investment options that practically guarantee that rate of return. Your $24000 investment is worth ~$100 per month in interest, more over the long term as compound interest starts to kick in. This seriously undermines a purely economics based argument.
There are obviously other benefits of having your own solar installation, I'm merely saying that you cannot compare the future value of your solar panels against the present value of their cost.
How do you snap two windows side by side in XP? Oh wait, you can't.
Winsplit Revolution, and I still have it installed on all my win7 machines also, since you can do much more than just side by side with it.
FEMA doesn't know how to deal with a 500 year flood? There are hundreds of flood plains in the US, many of them have towns of various sizes built on them. You know when the last time a major area had the river crest above the 500 year flood plain? 2008, 5 years ago, Cedar Rapids IA. Furthermore, the probability of any particular floodplain having a 500 year flood in the past 50 years is right around 10% meaning there have been dozens of 500 year floods in the US since FEMA was formed. But
Because the hope of a lot of people is to have a high quality 3D printer in every home some day. If they become standard appliances it's quite a bit different from a CnC machine.
My college calculus coursed did essentially the same thing. The last half hour a each class was presenting an intro to the new topic, homework and reading were assigned, the first hour of the next class was on clarification, answering questions, going through especially difficult problems from the take home work. Then the last half hour introduced the next topic.
It worked wonderfully with my learning style, if you understood the intro well enough and could handle the work without doing the reading you didn't have to worry much about it. It's also an obvious and effective way of making sure you focus on the parts of the material that are actually difficult for the students to understand. If a 30 minute lecture and textbook reading can get people comfortable with problems 1-5 and 7-10 that they don't have questions about them it's probably better to focus most of the remaining hour on problem 6.
The risks from green potatoes are no more significant than the risks associated with basically any meat product. The vast majority of the toxin is kept in the skin, so peeling does in fact eliminate most of the toxin. Boiling and deep frying, while not destroying the toxin, cause it to leach out into the cooking fluid, again greatly reducing content. And finally, the toxins are extremely bitter, it's unlikely you're going to keep eating food that tastes disgusting, which is why almost all cases of real poisoning happen when there's simply no other food to eat.
Who gives a shit about activists? You point me to the hoards of climate scientists who say that about individual storms. The best you'll be able to do is a handful of papers (which the media loves to take out of context) about an increase in the rate of major weather events and a couple of scientists who say something like "we expect more storms like this as global warming intensifies".
Moral of the story is randomly choosing the order of the names on the ballot a single time then using that order on all the ballots doesn't actually accomplish anything.
It's like making a random number generator with a single fair dice roll.
Why air conditioning? Wouldn't it be simpler, lighter, and more efficient to cool with conduction than convection? I'm thinking pads that stick to the skin running water to a heat pump or even Peltier devices to make the whole thing solid state.
They almost certainly almost never have to replace broken movies. Look at the shelves at the local brick and mortar rental store next time a big release comes out, see the hundred or so copies? 2 weeks later it's 50, 2 weeks after that it's 10. In a year there's only a handful. So Netflix has their stock of the new release which, even taking into account how long it used to take to get some new releases, is much larger than the stock they will need just a few weeks down the road. Breakage gets written off, so long as it doesn't outpace the drop in demand (which I suppose it will one movies are old enough, but that isn't the majority of the business) you never need to worry about it.
The whole system is broken, that's what's missing here. A couple numbers and a name contains all the information needed to withdraw money from my account, that is the real problem and it is seriously backwards early 20th century thinking. There is no reason that information should fly around unencrypted, heck it's written in plain text on my credit card for crying out loud, why does no one think that is an issue!? The sad thing is that something like Google Wallet, that has enough brains to be password protected and provide strong encryption, should have been the answer to all this, but the banking system is so incredibly backward that rather than encrypting the data in a way that makes sense (with one time pads a la secureID) they ended up broadcasting the same unencrypted string of data that can be copied right off a card.
To summarize, the solution to the problem of buying from someone you don't trust with your CC information isn't to use paypal, it's to overhaul the CC system to the 21st century so that you aren't sharing the actually CC information with anyone but the bank to begin with.
Suppose that you are worried that you might have a rare disease.
Presumably if you are worried there is a reason. Genetic predisposition, experiencing symptoms, contact with someone who has had it, etc. That makes the odds much, much more in favor of you having it than .01%.
The house? Why leave the bedroom/bathroom suite? You can have food brought in by one of the ubiquitous robots the article talks about. Someday, we'll even have chamber pot emptying robot technology and you will never have to leave the bed! Oh if only I could live in such a world!
I sincerely hope you were being as sarcastic as I am.
First generation autonomous vehicles won't be able to use swarm logic, because it only works if everyone is doing it and 99% of the cars on the road won't be (they're be driven by people). Now, in 2040 when you simply can't buy a car that doesn't drive itself you can start looking at eliminating the "rules of the road" as they exist now. If all vehicles perform with near perfect decision making you can do things like divide the 2 lanes each way highway into 6 lanes (because they can be much closer together and even overlap in some cases) going whichever direction traffic needs them to go. And eventually you can just say no lanes at all, just a sheet of pavement and cars will pack in however seems most efficient at the time. That is the kind of future this research is for, not puttering around the suburb following the posted road signs.
It's swarm behavior, each unit of the group has simple rules that follows. Things like "don't get closer than X to the unit in front of you" and "don't approach another unit at more than Y relative speed". There's no central processing happening to manage the group, no more than there is for a flock of starlings flying through the air. It's just simple rules leading to seemingly complex behavior.
Until someone puts out a device built from the ground up to be a and as a result has higher build quality, better battery life, lower cost, higher performance and a more appropriate user interface. All of which can be achieved by removing all the unnecessary "non-camera" things and removing the joints between the modules.