Soon the North Koreans will build a robot designed to kill the South Korean robots. With the US and China pulling the wires behind the scenes. It will be the next generation of war by proxy.
I don't see why they would want the SSL key, when presumably they have easy access to the data on the servers under the laughable "due process" already in place. Why would they want to intercept the traffic when they could just read it off the server?
What is missing from this discussion is the fact that the news was already known and queued on a news server in Chicago (more than one really). These servers use NTP or some other mechanism to synchronize their times and send the message *locally* at the exact release time. There is no delay while data travel from NY, it is released at the same time everywhere. Perhaps in this case someone jiggered with the times on some local server, or perhaps just a software glitch, or perhaps someone figured out a clever way to shorten the seven MICROseconds (7 milliseconds is silly) supposedly needed to receive the message, process it, and send out responses to the exchange.
So large financial interests control the government to make their criminal actions legal, but we still need the government? I'm not following your reasoning there.
Here's an example of what I mean. The vast majority of tuna sold in the US is certified dolphin safe. There is no government regulation that requires tuna to be dolphin safe. (http://dolphinsafe.gov/faq.htm) Business sell it this way because their customers demand it, thus it is cheaper to make the dolphin safe effort than it is to forgo the lost sales. There is no reason the same sort of mechanism wouldn't work for other things as well.
Government regulation is a very visible hand, there's nothing invisible about it. Thus it isn't included in Adam Smith's and subsequent definitions of the term "invisible hand"
Fairly said, but I think you are wrong to assume there is no other way those things could impose costs on a polluter. For example, why wouldn't everyone downstream sue you for polluting the water? Government shields polluters now by imposing settlement caps and simply "owning" the river instead of private concerns. Sure, air pollution is a lot trickier since effects are diffuse and specific causality is difficult. But what about, instead of saying "the government needs to do something" customers said "we won't buy from polluters"? This would certainly be viewed by businesses as a cost. Now, I'm not saying that government staying out of it would be magic, i am just pointing out that government typically protects businesses from liability to the public and that there are mechanisms available that would price externalizes even in the absence of government regulation.
government is providing a free license to trash the place with fracking
Smith's 'invisible hand' has no relation to government shielding favored businesses from the costs of their process. If you are going to blame some for grabbing you by the balls, please take a look down and see whose hand it is.
HFT brings absolutely nothing of value to the table
That is your opinion. Fortunately for the world, everything that happens isn't subject to your opinion. The owners of the exchanges see value in it or else they wouldn't bother supporting it. Perhaps that is of no value to you, this has no relevance to whether or not others value it.
all it does is give the same hedge fund bozos who trashed the US and EU's economies another way to scarf income
Hedge funds and HFTs aren't the same people. Citation please on hedge funds trashing economies. I'm willing to bet there is no evidence for this opinion.
allow trades each 15 seconds
Have you seen the activity that goes on now on the microsecond that fed announcements are released? Simply moving the border around isn't going to change the game much.
Time to start archiving versions of portable Java so they will be available for use with a standalone Firefox Portable to run all those legacy apps. Or something similar.
From personal experience, here is how this proposal will work out. Private orgs will share data with the NSA, the NSA will then share nothing with the private orgs because everything of any interest is classified. Anyone who has attended any conference with a presenter from the NSA has seen this in action.
Really, the fact that the proposal isn't simply to make the information public shows the contemptuous disregard the NSA has for the public.
Nice, this was always my way of cutting through the debates. Given that one side or the other argues the the models are flawed or inaccurate, I would say is it a good idea then to shrug off changing the composition of the atmosphere? Given how little we understand about what effects that may or may not have? Is gambling with the future of humanity really the best plan here?
This has been my experience as well. At least at the personal level. I have actually learned quite a bit while looking into some of the points they have raised. Generally I have found that ignorance is typically the problem, such as most of them are completely unaware of the breadth and totality of the evidence for evolution. Things like distribution of species, the tendency of isolated populations to diverge, evidence for the age of the Earth, and so on. They tend to think that fossils are the only thing involved.
And, of course, police can lie or be mistaken. Frame ups and amazing coincidences might be rare but they do happen. Our rights are there, in part, to protect against these circumstances. There are plenty of cases of people in jail who had nothing to hide, but ended up charged and convicted anyway.
I think you are making the assumption that "commercial value to society" is a single measure. In reality, everyone has different ideas of value and this is what makes civilization possible. In this utopian future, for example, some or many may prefer to buy "robot free" goods just like people buy "organic" food now. Now that specific example may or may not work for everyone, it is just an example. My point is, since humans will always vary wildly in their preferences, there will always be opportunities for exchange of value for value, regardless of the structures we implement to support those exchanges.
Sure, if you expect 100% identical circumstances then nothing is precedented. This isn't a reasonable expectation. What history says is that when conditions change, humans adapt to them and find new ways to exist they don't' just sit around and give up because the old ways stopped working.. In a utopian future where physical needs are met by highly efficient automated production, who knows what people will use for exchange. I certainly don't. It may not resemble the "job" structure we are so fixated on today, but it will be something.
Slashdot Mirror
Soon the North Koreans will build a robot designed to kill the South Korean robots. With the US and China pulling the wires behind the scenes. It will be the next generation of war by proxy.
The colder seas have more life in them than the tropics. Something to do with oxygen content IIRC.
Heh yeah I should have read it, thanks for clearing that up.
I don't see why they would want the SSL key, when presumably they have easy access to the data on the servers under the laughable "due process" already in place. Why would they want to intercept the traffic when they could just read it off the server?
The side bar is too big. And the images with the stories serve no purpose other than to clutter up the screen.
It even foresaw how pitfalls in tech transfer, organizational structure, and product R&D could make it fall behind future competitors
Microsoft had to learn, just like I did, that there is a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path.
yes, the government stacks the deck against the little guy. What do we need it for again? To protect us from the guys that inevitably control it?
What is missing from this discussion is the fact that the news was already known and queued on a news server in Chicago (more than one really). These servers use NTP or some other mechanism to synchronize their times and send the message *locally* at the exact release time. There is no delay while data travel from NY, it is released at the same time everywhere. Perhaps in this case someone jiggered with the times on some local server, or perhaps just a software glitch, or perhaps someone figured out a clever way to shorten the seven MICROseconds (7 milliseconds is silly) supposedly needed to receive the message, process it, and send out responses to the exchange.
So large financial interests control the government to make their criminal actions legal, but we still need the government? I'm not following your reasoning there. Here's an example of what I mean. The vast majority of tuna sold in the US is certified dolphin safe. There is no government regulation that requires tuna to be dolphin safe. (http://dolphinsafe.gov/faq.htm) Business sell it this way because their customers demand it, thus it is cheaper to make the dolphin safe effort than it is to forgo the lost sales. There is no reason the same sort of mechanism wouldn't work for other things as well.
Government regulation is a very visible hand, there's nothing invisible about it. Thus it isn't included in Adam Smith's and subsequent definitions of the term "invisible hand"
Fairly said, but I think you are wrong to assume there is no other way those things could impose costs on a polluter. For example, why wouldn't everyone downstream sue you for polluting the water? Government shields polluters now by imposing settlement caps and simply "owning" the river instead of private concerns. Sure, air pollution is a lot trickier since effects are diffuse and specific causality is difficult. But what about, instead of saying "the government needs to do something" customers said "we won't buy from polluters"? This would certainly be viewed by businesses as a cost. Now, I'm not saying that government staying out of it would be magic, i am just pointing out that government typically protects businesses from liability to the public and that there are mechanisms available that would price externalizes even in the absence of government regulation.
government is providing a free license to trash the place with fracking
Smith's 'invisible hand' has no relation to government shielding favored businesses from the costs of their process. If you are going to blame some for grabbing you by the balls, please take a look down and see whose hand it is.
If we were in Luna, we could just go to a bookie and place a bet.
HFT brings absolutely nothing of value to the table
That is your opinion. Fortunately for the world, everything that happens isn't subject to your opinion. The owners of the exchanges see value in it or else they wouldn't bother supporting it. Perhaps that is of no value to you, this has no relevance to whether or not others value it.
all it does is give the same hedge fund bozos who trashed the US and EU's economies another way to scarf income
Hedge funds and HFTs aren't the same people. Citation please on hedge funds trashing economies. I'm willing to bet there is no evidence for this opinion.
allow trades each 15 seconds
Have you seen the activity that goes on now on the microsecond that fed announcements are released? Simply moving the border around isn't going to change the game much.
Time to start archiving versions of portable Java so they will be available for use with a standalone Firefox Portable to run all those legacy apps. Or something similar.
From personal experience, here is how this proposal will work out. Private orgs will share data with the NSA, the NSA will then share nothing with the private orgs because everything of any interest is classified. Anyone who has attended any conference with a presenter from the NSA has seen this in action. Really, the fact that the proposal isn't simply to make the information public shows the contemptuous disregard the NSA has for the public.
Nice, this was always my way of cutting through the debates. Given that one side or the other argues the the models are flawed or inaccurate, I would say is it a good idea then to shrug off changing the composition of the atmosphere? Given how little we understand about what effects that may or may not have? Is gambling with the future of humanity really the best plan here?
This has been my experience as well. At least at the personal level. I have actually learned quite a bit while looking into some of the points they have raised. Generally I have found that ignorance is typically the problem, such as most of them are completely unaware of the breadth and totality of the evidence for evolution. Things like distribution of species, the tendency of isolated populations to diverge, evidence for the age of the Earth, and so on. They tend to think that fossils are the only thing involved.
Well we need to get into space to do drudge work at all since the robots will soon be doing it all here on Earth.
You would have to be pretty dumb to think that anyone whose tastes differ from yours is pretty dumb.
And, of course, police can lie or be mistaken. Frame ups and amazing coincidences might be rare but they do happen. Our rights are there, in part, to protect against these circumstances. There are plenty of cases of people in jail who had nothing to hide, but ended up charged and convicted anyway.
Some people lay this squarely at the feet of the change to a full fiat monetary system with the ensuing inflation and seignurage profits.
I am sorry as well. A person being wrong about A does not invalidate everything he says about B.
I think you are making the assumption that "commercial value to society" is a single measure. In reality, everyone has different ideas of value and this is what makes civilization possible. In this utopian future, for example, some or many may prefer to buy "robot free" goods just like people buy "organic" food now. Now that specific example may or may not work for everyone, it is just an example. My point is, since humans will always vary wildly in their preferences, there will always be opportunities for exchange of value for value, regardless of the structures we implement to support those exchanges.
Sure, if you expect 100% identical circumstances then nothing is precedented. This isn't a reasonable expectation. What history says is that when conditions change, humans adapt to them and find new ways to exist they don't' just sit around and give up because the old ways stopped working.. In a utopian future where physical needs are met by highly efficient automated production, who knows what people will use for exchange. I certainly don't. It may not resemble the "job" structure we are so fixated on today, but it will be something.