If you care about intraday trading, you're doing investing wrong. If you care about stock price changes at a finer granularity than quarterly, your doing investing wrong. None of this automaton affects anything at the timescale investors care about - this is all automation of speculation, and the more it's automated, the less money the insiders make per trade. Heck, the whole point of TFA is that Barclays can't afford to pay humans to do this any more.
You don't plan based on short term market swings, full stop. If you need to ensure something about a market price in the future, you buy insurance - simple as that. If you're a farmer who wants to sell crops 4 months from now, you have several ways of locking in a price, for a fee, just as you'd buy crop insurance.
Intraday movements are like the movements of a piston in a piston engine - it doesn't matter at all that they don't move in the same direction the car is going.
It's worth pointing out that "conservation of energy" is not a property of the universe we inhabit. Sure, at human-tinkering scale it is, and these guys won't achieve over-unity, but in the greater scheme of things: energy is not conserved in general relativity.
Conservation of energy is mathematically equivalent to "current age of the universe is not an input to the laws of motion" (time intervals are unrelated). It doesn't work out that way in GR, mostly because the idea of "current age" doesn't apply.
Relativity is odd that way. The mass of an object depends on it's total potential energy (a compressed spring is heavier). That concept of potential energy having some absolute total value, not just relative values to an arbitrary "floor", doesn't exist in "normal" physics. All that matters is potential difference (aka "force"). That change makes most of our intuitions, heck most of the stuff engineering is built on, wrong.
A return to normalcy would mean that Hollywood would stop assuming that all anyone ever wants to see on the big screen is yet another fucking sequel.
Fat fucking chance of that.
When that eventually passes, and everyone looks down on sequels, then is the right time for a TMNT sequel., at least to be in the original satirical spirit of the comic.
I'd be much more impressed with a robot that could solve a 4x4 cube. 3x3 is a sort of special case where you can just turn the centers and thereby turn the faces. Larger cubes have internal layers that are more mechanically complicated to turn, and even-sized cubes don't have a center cell to drill into to turn the face.
I've seen videos of a robot that didn't need holes drilled - it used small suction cups. No idea how reliable that is - I'm guess not very or you would have gone that way?
Does your robot follow the usual set of algorithms a human would use, or have you gone deep into the group theory to produce a much larger set of algorithms to trim off a few moves?
Basically once you scan in the cube and figure out the squares, you solve it based on the known algorithms and moves to get it to the solved state
That's simply not true.
The best cubers are simply looking ahead. Some have memorized hundreds of patterns and algorithms, some just a couple dozen, but most of the time solving a cube is spent on the first two layers, which is fairly straightforward algorithmically. The big speed up comes from thinking about how the cube will look when you're done with the current set of moves, so your next algorithm is already chosen when it's needed. But you're constantly looking at the cube, because you're only thinking one algorithm ahead, and need to constantly refresh.
There's a different competition where you only look at the cube once: that's blindfolded solving. World records there are around 24 seconds IIRC. It's slower because you simply can't mentally track the state of the cube if you use the usual algorithms. Instead you use a very minimal set of algorithms that makes very predictable state changes to the cube, so that you can keep its evolving state in your head without looking at it.
The 50% will be because he is an old rich white businessman not because he is a conservative.
No, the 50% will be because he's a populist, and that has strong overlap with both usual GOP voters, and usual Dem voters. He appeals to people who think the job of the American government is to put America first. More people feel that way on the right than on the left, but it's a strong and rising sentiment across the board.
Guess what? They're right. At best, the majority of the peasants are unwashed and uninformed.
There's a name for the sort of system of government you favor. No, no, I'm not going to call you a fascist or commie or anything like that. You want a small ruling class of well-educated people who Think The Right Things, and choose the direction for the nation while helping to correct the peasants, and take care of them in hard times since they can't take care of themselves. That's a feudal system. It works better than communism in practice, but not by a lot. Thing is: even if you get to pick who's in that ruling class to start with (and you don't), two generations later is has all gone to shit.
It's looking more and more like we might actually have a Trump/Sanders election. Trump is more likely than Sanders (unless Hillary gets indicted), but both are doing remarkably well given the RNC and DNC hate them with the burning passion of a million Suns.
Personally, I think Trump will betray 50% of the promises he makes to conservatives, which makes him infinity-times as reliable as the typical GOP candidate, who betrays the voter on 100% the promises he makes to conservatives.
Opinion and "facts" were divided better, but rampant bias was still present in story selection and the truthy factoids chosen for publication. Look at US news coverage of the Vietnam war with with a jaded eye, and you'll see it: did you know we won every major battle in Vietnam? That's not the story the press told, because they wanted us out so very badly. Just like today, the press thinks of itself as smarter than the peasants, who are in need of having their beliefs "corrected". Read some earlier Heinlein stories where is opinion on the press leaks out: literal "newsclowns" in fright wigs and floppy shoes show up in multiple works. Same thing, different generation. Go back further and you reach the height of "yellow journalism".
Newspapers have always printed fiction inspired by true events, slanted to produce a desired result. Only the sports page is trustworthy, and then only the scores.
No, my argument is that he wanted to strip citizens of their rights, for no other reason than that he doesn't like them
That's your opinion. Do you understand that other people may have other values, and thus form differing opinions? Can you at least entertain the concept that someone who disagrees with you isn't evil? Can you imagine, even hypothetically, that someone who takes the other side on this issue intends the best for the community, because by their values they are maximizing the good?
Being unable to understand where someone else is coming from, thinking that they can only be evil or stupid, is something I had enough from the religious right when growing up.
Your intolerance is exactly the same form as the religious whackos I knew when I was young. They too could not reason about moral questions, they could only say that anyone who disagreed was an evil sinner.
If you don't believe all people deserve the same rights equally, then *everyone* loses.
But what's a right? And what's merely a desire? And who decides? And on what basis? If your only basis is "I feel very strongly about this" then you cannot reason about it, and you are part of the problem.
Most people have some idea about what is good, and what is evil, and don't believe there is a right to be evil. But there's not much agreement on what those categories contain. Can you see that?
Sure - like I said, outlawing selling/buying/advertising it seems perfectly OK to me, even as a big fan of free speech. Surely it's easier to police when money can be tracked! You can outlaw the commercial activity without harming free speech, IMO, at least in non-political-speech cases like this, so I don't see any reason not to.
But that's distinct from an anonymous "dark web" image forum. Of course, having said that, I have no clue which case the server in TFA is in. If the site was selling porn, I'd hope the police could bust the customers without needing to sell it themselves.
, but to the extent that their viewing the stuff makes your "friendly neighborhood wanna-be child porn producer" think there is a demand for it, he may decide to start producing.
That is a solid argument for outlawing commercial child porn. As a fan of free speech I don't like to see anything banned based on content, no matter how objectionable, but that's a good example of a reason to restrict commercial activity that isn't about freedom of speech.
If you're going to argue that this happens non-commercially, that someone who doesn't already molest his or her kids would start just to film it for... step 3 profit? I'm not sure I buy that. If someone already molesting his or her kids wants to document the crime and send pictures towards the cops, I find it difficult to object to that. Surely the important problem is the kids' welfare, not the pictures?
There is also the issue of "porn isn't enough any more" - your local child-porn viewer may decide just watching kids on-screen isn't enough and he may start acting out what he sees.
Studies with normal porn go the other way. There were many attempts last century to show that porn causes rape, but no, really, it doesn't. Maybe this mental disorder is different? I don't know, but it sounds like something not to just assume.
It does more then wake on lan. Any time you have buggy code paying attention to the contents of packets in any way, you have a real attack vector. The ability to execute arbitrary code in a layer this low is something to worry about. Could an attacker use this layer to do an update to the BIOS (whatever it's called)? I don't know, but I'd like to know.
You're wrong about solar activity. Take a look at the Vostok ice core data You see the definite pattern every 100k years? That's the glaciation cycle for the current Ice Age. The 100k year cycle is a bit of a mystery, but the best current theories are all about solar cycles. The Sun has many cycles, on many timeframes. The past 10k years are a bigger mystery - why didn't the climate return to ice-age conditions as it normally had? Whatever the reason, that anomaly was quite important for humans to develop technology. This is all old news, and we're quite late for cooling.
Recently, Solar "cooling" has been suggested (among climate scientists) as the reason for the Pause. I'm not sure how well that hypothesis is playing out, but isn't not a crackpot theory.
the feedback loops, which are likely to be strongly positive
That's all guesswork for now. No one really understands the feedback mechanisms from first causes. It's a big part of what the climate models are modeling.
Predictions are something like four degrees C per doubling plus or minus 1.5
And yet there's been no warming for the past 19 years. Take that as evidence that the problem is not as simple as you imagine.
No one's debating that CO2 causes warming - that's not the climate change debate. The debate is about how much Man's action matter. If it were easy to show that answer, the models would be right. If it were easy to understand the system, the 19-year "pause" would have been predicted.
Here's a competing hypothesis. The Sun is "cooling" (less radiant energy will be input into the system in the future). We'll return to glaciation, as has been the norm for the current Ice Age, in a few centuries. Increasing CO2 is the only thing we can do to prevent most of western civilization from becoming buried in a kilometer of ice, but we have to increase it a whole lot, and start right away - it may already be too late.
There's not enough evidence to pick a theory to support today - there's substantial evidence for both, and substantial mystery remaining. Predictive climate models would answer the question, but if they just assume the Sun's output is constant (when we know for a fact it isn't), they aren't going to give that answer.
But then, the Sun is just the biggest of the many important factors not yet understood well enough to make good predictions.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You don't seem to get that. Your faith is strong, but faith is not science.
No one is arguing about whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That has never been a debate, but you can keep thrashing that strawman if you need the exercise. The debate is about whether CO2 man emits significantly affects the climate. That's non-trivial science. That's why there are models - when you can't just solve some equations, when the problem is more complex, you model the system as best you can.
The models aren't so good thus far. In fact, they aren't any better than the "no AGW" model. They need to be, before any predictions can be trusted. And because the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, it's perfectly scientific to believe the null hypothesis while awaiting evidence.
If you'll allow me a little flexibility in speaking, AGW depends only on the properties of CO2 gas
If it were that easy, the models would be nailing the predictions.
The atmosphere is not a bottle. The radiant heat absorbed by CO2 and re-radiated to the ground is trivial. "Forcing" summarizes complex effects - warmer upper atmosphere would mean less convection (the primary mechanism for cooling at ground level), and convection of the atmosphere is non-trivial. The CO2 in the atmosphere is regulated by the CO2 in the ocean (vastly more CO2 in the ocean), and ocean mixing is not yet well understood. There are feedback mechanisms both negative and positive that aren't well understood.
All of this can be modeled. This allows testable predictions from each of the hundreds of competing hypotheses for the details of the above. All of the models "run hot" today - we're missing something important.
The theory can be further confirmed by observing rising global temperatures
Which hasn't happened this century. Perhaps you've heard of "the pause". None of the models predicted the pause. It's a hard problem. The upper atmosphere is actually cooling, which actually fits with some models.
Everything's easy when you don't understand the details.
He participated in the political process. That's how adults who cannot agree settle disputes. You fight the metaphorical good fight in the campaign, and you accept the result of the election. You're only argument is that you disagree with him.
A climate model is a hypothesis. It's a falsifiable prediction about something you can measure. Textbook example, really.
Well, given the acknowledged possibility that climate models might be severely underestimating the warming yet to occur, we should pull out all stops to tackle this hard problem
Given the acknowledged problem of tiger attacks, no cost is too high for my Tiger Rock (tm), good for keeping tigers at bay.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. There are claims that AGW is a significant contributor to climate change. Great - that's definitely a falsifiable, scientific hypothesis. One that we can model and make concrete predictions about. It's certainly science at work.
As yet, there's no evidence of a problem. Sounds believable, sure. It's internally consistent and not obviously in contradiction with observed evidence. That's where science starts.
Slashdot Mirror
If you care about intraday trading, you're doing investing wrong. If you care about stock price changes at a finer granularity than quarterly, your doing investing wrong. None of this automaton affects anything at the timescale investors care about - this is all automation of speculation, and the more it's automated, the less money the insiders make per trade. Heck, the whole point of TFA is that Barclays can't afford to pay humans to do this any more.
No, you're basically a lying faggot making apologies for massive multinational corporations skirting taxes using any means necessary.
I think we need a new term here. I propose "the gaydwin effect", by which you have just gaydwinned the thread.
You don't plan based on short term market swings, full stop. If you need to ensure something about a market price in the future, you buy insurance - simple as that. If you're a farmer who wants to sell crops 4 months from now, you have several ways of locking in a price, for a fee, just as you'd buy crop insurance.
Intraday movements are like the movements of a piston in a piston engine - it doesn't matter at all that they don't move in the same direction the car is going.
Hey now, he's just the latest Disney Princess. Why all the hate?
They're attempting to overstep the authority of their roles in a way that violates the rights of the person they're trying to have cast out.
So Wikipedia editors of all people are doing this? This is my surprised face.
It's worth pointing out that "conservation of energy" is not a property of the universe we inhabit. Sure, at human-tinkering scale it is, and these guys won't achieve over-unity, but in the greater scheme of things: energy is not conserved in general relativity.
Conservation of energy is mathematically equivalent to "current age of the universe is not an input to the laws of motion" (time intervals are unrelated). It doesn't work out that way in GR, mostly because the idea of "current age" doesn't apply.
Relativity is odd that way. The mass of an object depends on it's total potential energy (a compressed spring is heavier). That concept of potential energy having some absolute total value, not just relative values to an arbitrary "floor", doesn't exist in "normal" physics. All that matters is potential difference (aka "force"). That change makes most of our intuitions, heck most of the stuff engineering is built on, wrong.
A return to normalcy would mean that Hollywood would stop assuming that all anyone ever wants to see on the big screen is yet another fucking sequel.
Fat fucking chance of that.
When that eventually passes, and everyone looks down on sequels, then is the right time for a TMNT sequel., at least to be in the original satirical spirit of the comic.
I'd be much more impressed with a robot that could solve a 4x4 cube. 3x3 is a sort of special case where you can just turn the centers and thereby turn the faces. Larger cubes have internal layers that are more mechanically complicated to turn, and even-sized cubes don't have a center cell to drill into to turn the face.
I've seen videos of a robot that didn't need holes drilled - it used small suction cups. No idea how reliable that is - I'm guess not very or you would have gone that way?
Does your robot follow the usual set of algorithms a human would use, or have you gone deep into the group theory to produce a much larger set of algorithms to trim off a few moves?
Basically once you scan in the cube and figure out the squares, you solve it based on the known algorithms and moves to get it to the solved state
That's simply not true.
The best cubers are simply looking ahead. Some have memorized hundreds of patterns and algorithms, some just a couple dozen, but most of the time solving a cube is spent on the first two layers, which is fairly straightforward algorithmically. The big speed up comes from thinking about how the cube will look when you're done with the current set of moves, so your next algorithm is already chosen when it's needed. But you're constantly looking at the cube, because you're only thinking one algorithm ahead, and need to constantly refresh.
There's a different competition where you only look at the cube once: that's blindfolded solving. World records there are around 24 seconds IIRC. It's slower because you simply can't mentally track the state of the cube if you use the usual algorithms. Instead you use a very minimal set of algorithms that makes very predictable state changes to the cube, so that you can keep its evolving state in your head without looking at it.
This is a real advantage to mechanical solvers.
The 50% will be because he is an old rich white businessman not because he is a conservative.
No, the 50% will be because he's a populist, and that has strong overlap with both usual GOP voters, and usual Dem voters. He appeals to people who think the job of the American government is to put America first. More people feel that way on the right than on the left, but it's a strong and rising sentiment across the board.
Guess what? They're right. At best, the majority of the peasants are unwashed and uninformed.
There's a name for the sort of system of government you favor. No, no, I'm not going to call you a fascist or commie or anything like that. You want a small ruling class of well-educated people who Think The Right Things, and choose the direction for the nation while helping to correct the peasants, and take care of them in hard times since they can't take care of themselves. That's a feudal system. It works better than communism in practice, but not by a lot. Thing is: even if you get to pick who's in that ruling class to start with (and you don't), two generations later is has all gone to shit.
It's looking more and more like we might actually have a Trump/Sanders election. Trump is more likely than Sanders (unless Hillary gets indicted), but both are doing remarkably well given the RNC and DNC hate them with the burning passion of a million Suns.
Personally, I think Trump will betray 50% of the promises he makes to conservatives, which makes him infinity-times as reliable as the typical GOP candidate, who betrays the voter on 100% the promises he makes to conservatives.
Opinion and "facts" were divided better, but rampant bias was still present in story selection and the truthy factoids chosen for publication. Look at US news coverage of the Vietnam war with with a jaded eye, and you'll see it: did you know we won every major battle in Vietnam? That's not the story the press told, because they wanted us out so very badly. Just like today, the press thinks of itself as smarter than the peasants, who are in need of having their beliefs "corrected". Read some earlier Heinlein stories where is opinion on the press leaks out: literal "newsclowns" in fright wigs and floppy shoes show up in multiple works. Same thing, different generation. Go back further and you reach the height of "yellow journalism".
Newspapers have always printed fiction inspired by true events, slanted to produce a desired result. Only the sports page is trustworthy, and then only the scores.
No, my argument is that he wanted to strip citizens of their rights, for no other reason than that he doesn't like them
That's your opinion. Do you understand that other people may have other values, and thus form differing opinions? Can you at least entertain the concept that someone who disagrees with you isn't evil? Can you imagine, even hypothetically, that someone who takes the other side on this issue intends the best for the community, because by their values they are maximizing the good?
Being unable to understand where someone else is coming from, thinking that they can only be evil or stupid, is something I had enough from the religious right when growing up.
Your intolerance is exactly the same form as the religious whackos I knew when I was young. They too could not reason about moral questions, they could only say that anyone who disagreed was an evil sinner.
If you don't believe all people deserve the same rights equally, then *everyone* loses.
But what's a right? And what's merely a desire? And who decides? And on what basis? If your only basis is "I feel very strongly about this" then you cannot reason about it, and you are part of the problem.
Most people have some idea about what is good, and what is evil, and don't believe there is a right to be evil. But there's not much agreement on what those categories contain. Can you see that?
Sure - like I said, outlawing selling/buying/advertising it seems perfectly OK to me, even as a big fan of free speech. Surely it's easier to police when money can be tracked! You can outlaw the commercial activity without harming free speech, IMO, at least in non-political-speech cases like this, so I don't see any reason not to.
But that's distinct from an anonymous "dark web" image forum. Of course, having said that, I have no clue which case the server in TFA is in. If the site was selling porn, I'd hope the police could bust the customers without needing to sell it themselves.
The show exists in and reflects mainstream culture.
, but to the extent that their viewing the stuff makes your "friendly neighborhood wanna-be child porn producer" think there is a demand for it, he may decide to start producing.
That is a solid argument for outlawing commercial child porn. As a fan of free speech I don't like to see anything banned based on content, no matter how objectionable, but that's a good example of a reason to restrict commercial activity that isn't about freedom of speech.
If you're going to argue that this happens non-commercially, that someone who doesn't already molest his or her kids would start just to film it for ... step 3 profit? I'm not sure I buy that. If someone already molesting his or her kids wants to document the crime and send pictures towards the cops, I find it difficult to object to that. Surely the important problem is the kids' welfare, not the pictures?
There is also the issue of "porn isn't enough any more" - your local child-porn viewer may decide just watching kids on-screen isn't enough and he may start acting out what he sees.
Studies with normal porn go the other way. There were many attempts last century to show that porn causes rape, but no, really, it doesn't. Maybe this mental disorder is different? I don't know, but it sounds like something not to just assume.
It does more then wake on lan. Any time you have buggy code paying attention to the contents of packets in any way, you have a real attack vector. The ability to execute arbitrary code in a layer this low is something to worry about. Could an attacker use this layer to do an update to the BIOS (whatever it's called)? I don't know, but I'd like to know.
You're wrong about solar activity. Take a look at the Vostok ice core data You see the definite pattern every 100k years? That's the glaciation cycle for the current Ice Age. The 100k year cycle is a bit of a mystery, but the best current theories are all about solar cycles. The Sun has many cycles, on many timeframes. The past 10k years are a bigger mystery - why didn't the climate return to ice-age conditions as it normally had? Whatever the reason, that anomaly was quite important for humans to develop technology. This is all old news, and we're quite late for cooling.
Recently, Solar "cooling" has been suggested (among climate scientists) as the reason for the Pause. I'm not sure how well that hypothesis is playing out, but isn't not a crackpot theory.
the feedback loops, which are likely to be strongly positive
That's all guesswork for now. No one really understands the feedback mechanisms from first causes. It's a big part of what the climate models are modeling.
Predictions are something like four degrees C per doubling plus or minus 1.5
And yet there's been no warming for the past 19 years. Take that as evidence that the problem is not as simple as you imagine.
No one's debating that CO2 causes warming - that's not the climate change debate. The debate is about how much Man's action matter. If it were easy to show that answer, the models would be right. If it were easy to understand the system, the 19-year "pause" would have been predicted.
Here's a competing hypothesis. The Sun is "cooling" (less radiant energy will be input into the system in the future). We'll return to glaciation, as has been the norm for the current Ice Age, in a few centuries. Increasing CO2 is the only thing we can do to prevent most of western civilization from becoming buried in a kilometer of ice, but we have to increase it a whole lot, and start right away - it may already be too late.
There's not enough evidence to pick a theory to support today - there's substantial evidence for both, and substantial mystery remaining. Predictive climate models would answer the question, but if they just assume the Sun's output is constant (when we know for a fact it isn't), they aren't going to give that answer.
But then, the Sun is just the biggest of the many important factors not yet understood well enough to make good predictions.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You don't seem to get that. Your faith is strong, but faith is not science.
No one is arguing about whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That has never been a debate, but you can keep thrashing that strawman if you need the exercise. The debate is about whether CO2 man emits significantly affects the climate. That's non-trivial science. That's why there are models - when you can't just solve some equations, when the problem is more complex, you model the system as best you can.
The models aren't so good thus far. In fact, they aren't any better than the "no AGW" model. They need to be, before any predictions can be trusted. And because the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, it's perfectly scientific to believe the null hypothesis while awaiting evidence.
If you'll allow me a little flexibility in speaking, AGW depends only on the properties of CO2 gas
If it were that easy, the models would be nailing the predictions.
The atmosphere is not a bottle. The radiant heat absorbed by CO2 and re-radiated to the ground is trivial. "Forcing" summarizes complex effects - warmer upper atmosphere would mean less convection (the primary mechanism for cooling at ground level), and convection of the atmosphere is non-trivial. The CO2 in the atmosphere is regulated by the CO2 in the ocean (vastly more CO2 in the ocean), and ocean mixing is not yet well understood. There are feedback mechanisms both negative and positive that aren't well understood.
All of this can be modeled. This allows testable predictions from each of the hundreds of competing hypotheses for the details of the above. All of the models "run hot" today - we're missing something important.
The theory can be further confirmed by observing rising global temperatures
Which hasn't happened this century. Perhaps you've heard of "the pause". None of the models predicted the pause. It's a hard problem. The upper atmosphere is actually cooling, which actually fits with some models.
Everything's easy when you don't understand the details.
He participated in the political process. That's how adults who cannot agree settle disputes. You fight the metaphorical good fight in the campaign, and you accept the result of the election. You're only argument is that you disagree with him.
You won, get over it.
Climate models aren't used to test hypotheses.
A climate model is a hypothesis. It's a falsifiable prediction about something you can measure. Textbook example, really.
Well, given the acknowledged possibility that climate models might be severely underestimating the warming yet to occur, we should pull out all stops to tackle this hard problem
Given the acknowledged problem of tiger attacks, no cost is too high for my Tiger Rock (tm), good for keeping tigers at bay.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. There are claims that AGW is a significant contributor to climate change. Great - that's definitely a falsifiable, scientific hypothesis. One that we can model and make concrete predictions about. It's certainly science at work.
As yet, there's no evidence of a problem. Sounds believable, sure. It's internally consistent and not obviously in contradiction with observed evidence. That's where science starts.