The bankster's game has nothing to do with HFT. Regardless, you aren't going to beat HFTs with software, you also need physical proximity to the exchange's gateways. And that isn't cheap.
Yes, a better question is, why are these countries so poor that people want to work under these conditions? I don't see not buying the technology helping change that.
Try shipping IT equipment to a company division in Australia, the taxes are enormous to the point where we always try to get it sourced locally. Some US reps will give you a substantial discount if you say you have to ship it to Australia.
What sort of selection process is used to determine who is the 'top' bioethicist? Anyone at all can consider the ethical implications of brain implants.
I am not sure what an 'open slather' is, but it wasn't that long ago in the US that there were NO software patents. Is this what the software market was like back then? Was there more or less innovation compared to now? I am interested if anyone knows of a useful comparison, especially after the ridiculous Microsoft v. Motorola case
How about a citation for the assertion that he dropped US citizenship "solely" to avoid paying taxes? As I understood it, he has been living and doing business in Singapore for quite some time prior to dropping the US six or so months ago.
Citation needed on actual income and worth of people giving up US citizenship. These data are sadly missing from all the articles I've seen implying that it was all wealthy people. I know a couple of them, they were not wealthy by any means, but it just became a better choice given all the US laws concerning financial reporting from foreign banks.
Well, history says that they will. There is plenty of innovation at all levels without any patent protection at all, so we have to question whether patents are even necessary for the goal of promoting innovation. A great example is the software business itself. There was loads of innovation before patent protection was extended. Some might even argue that there was far less innovation after patents were extended to software.
It is not required that the word explicit be used for something to be explicit. Still, I will grant there is an implied set of powers which are granted to pursue the explicitly granted powers, such as 'provide for the common defense.' It wouldn't be reasonable to expect that the powers necessary for that charge would all be explicitly listed.
But that's irrelevant. Your claim that the Feds have a legal claim on a power because it isn't *forbidden* by the Constitution is false. The 9th and 10th require that one clearly establish how the Constitution allows a power, it is not required of opponents that they demonstrate where the Constitution forbids it. Sort of like the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
If you want to claim that the power to force private citizens to build in eavesdropping capability is implied by one of the explicitly granted powers, please clarify that point.
The Constitution does indeed say the government can't require this, in amendments 9 and 10. The intent of the authors was clear, the powers of the government are explicitly stated in the Constitution, and anything not in there is not a power. Obviously, modern interpretations of the 'living' constitution don't acknowledge these amendments.
From a related article "One officer even told the girl's mother that the airport would have to be shut down and every flight cancelled if the four-year-old did not co-operate" My reaction to this was, yeah go ahead and close the airport because of a crying little girl TSA, let me dial that number for you.
You're right, there is historical precedent for using little kids with grenades and similar incidents. I believe the concern in this case was that the woman might have passed the child a gun or something to try to evade the screening. The question here is why the TSO does not have the initiative or leeway to make a judgement call about a situation before it escalates into a scene where they threaten to shut down the airport because of a crying child.
Security doesn't come from a bunch of rigid bureaucratic rules, it comes from an exercise of intelligence, observation, and experience. If the rules are the only thing that matters then those terrorists will just exploit the inevitable gaps. There's already plenty of holes in the procedures. And as other have pointed out, a security measure does not have to be applied 100% of the time in all situations to be effective, it just has to be likely enough to interfere to force the plotter to try something else. There aren't enough suicide bomber volunteers that they can afford to gamble on a security measure that is merely inconsistent.
Can anyone name an employer other than the MD Dept of Corrections that has done this? I've been following the links and that is the only one named. There are multiple references to a 'rising trend' and such but no real evidence of any such thing. The closest I got was employers using a Facebook app with applicants to monitor their jobs history (Sears) but the article did not say this was mandatory, just described it as a recruiting tool.
and what happens if everyone votes and they are still there? is the minority going to bring arms against majority to have it your way? is that a democracy?
Only about 1/3 of the people supported the revolution against the British, another third were against and the rest were undecided.
It makes sense to me, after all these people are voluntarily carrying around a tracking device that broadcasts their location with a unique identifier. If they didn't want to be tracked they wouldn't be carrying the damn things around. It seems inconceivable that they would seriously expect no one to track them.
You could ask this about all the stupid things any government does. Replace Iran with Soviet Union and you get pretty much the same questions. Or North Korea. My opinion is that governments are not run for the benefit of the people, so it is easy to understand.
According to the article, almost nothing has been reverse engineered and at best you get "a hint of what data is being captured" from examining an unencrypted config file
What the world is telling us is that it believes the chances of someone intercepting email over the network or stealing them from your mail server, and the costs associated with that vulnerability, are less than the costs of maintaining all the encryption keys and other information needed to provide global end-to-end encryption. This is just a fancy way of repeating that most people don't care.
I call this the "criticality paradox" where the most critical logons are the least likely to have stronger controls. This happens when the cost of the control is seen as too high. If you have a long PIN or passcode on your ATM card, and you forget it, now you can't get money at 2 AM when you need gas money to get home. Since the CEO gets paid a bazillion dollars, the five minutes it takes to reset his AD password cost the company more than the annual salary of the help desk guy who resets it. (I know, CEO would call the CIO for password resets, he would never stoop to calling the help desk)
Slashdot Mirror
Citations please on 'hacked left and right'. I've never heard of any HFT getting hacked via interconnect with the exchange
The bankster's game has nothing to do with HFT. Regardless, you aren't going to beat HFTs with software, you also need physical proximity to the exchange's gateways. And that isn't cheap.
An agnostic is just an atheist trying to hedge his bets
Yes, a better question is, why are these countries so poor that people want to work under these conditions? I don't see not buying the technology helping change that.
Try shipping IT equipment to a company division in Australia, the taxes are enormous to the point where we always try to get it sourced locally. Some US reps will give you a substantial discount if you say you have to ship it to Australia.
What sort of selection process is used to determine who is the 'top' bioethicist? Anyone at all can consider the ethical implications of brain implants.
I believe in this context an 'undercover agent' would be more properly referred to as 'liar'
For example?
I am not sure what an 'open slather' is, but it wasn't that long ago in the US that there were NO software patents. Is this what the software market was like back then? Was there more or less innovation compared to now? I am interested if anyone knows of a useful comparison, especially after the ridiculous Microsoft v. Motorola case
How about a citation for the assertion that he dropped US citizenship "solely" to avoid paying taxes? As I understood it, he has been living and doing business in Singapore for quite some time prior to dropping the US six or so months ago.
Citation needed on actual income and worth of people giving up US citizenship. These data are sadly missing from all the articles I've seen implying that it was all wealthy people. I know a couple of them, they were not wealthy by any means, but it just became a better choice given all the US laws concerning financial reporting from foreign banks.
Well, history says that they will. There is plenty of innovation at all levels without any patent protection at all, so we have to question whether patents are even necessary for the goal of promoting innovation. A great example is the software business itself. There was loads of innovation before patent protection was extended. Some might even argue that there was far less innovation after patents were extended to software.
How is geek fitness different than everyone else's fitness? This is the same reaction I had to 'Ethics for Women'
It is not required that the word explicit be used for something to be explicit. Still, I will grant there is an implied set of powers which are granted to pursue the explicitly granted powers, such as 'provide for the common defense.' It wouldn't be reasonable to expect that the powers necessary for that charge would all be explicitly listed. But that's irrelevant. Your claim that the Feds have a legal claim on a power because it isn't *forbidden* by the Constitution is false. The 9th and 10th require that one clearly establish how the Constitution allows a power, it is not required of opponents that they demonstrate where the Constitution forbids it. Sort of like the burden of proof is on the prosecution. If you want to claim that the power to force private citizens to build in eavesdropping capability is implied by one of the explicitly granted powers, please clarify that point.
The Constitution does indeed say the government can't require this, in amendments 9 and 10. The intent of the authors was clear, the powers of the government are explicitly stated in the Constitution, and anything not in there is not a power. Obviously, modern interpretations of the 'living' constitution don't acknowledge these amendments.
From a related article "One officer even told the girl's mother that the airport would have to be shut down and every flight cancelled if the four-year-old did not co-operate" My reaction to this was, yeah go ahead and close the airport because of a crying little girl TSA, let me dial that number for you.
You're right, there is historical precedent for using little kids with grenades and similar incidents. I believe the concern in this case was that the woman might have passed the child a gun or something to try to evade the screening. The question here is why the TSO does not have the initiative or leeway to make a judgement call about a situation before it escalates into a scene where they threaten to shut down the airport because of a crying child. Security doesn't come from a bunch of rigid bureaucratic rules, it comes from an exercise of intelligence, observation, and experience. If the rules are the only thing that matters then those terrorists will just exploit the inevitable gaps. There's already plenty of holes in the procedures. And as other have pointed out, a security measure does not have to be applied 100% of the time in all situations to be effective, it just has to be likely enough to interfere to force the plotter to try something else. There aren't enough suicide bomber volunteers that they can afford to gamble on a security measure that is merely inconsistent.
Can anyone name an employer other than the MD Dept of Corrections that has done this? I've been following the links and that is the only one named. There are multiple references to a 'rising trend' and such but no real evidence of any such thing. The closest I got was employers using a Facebook app with applicants to monitor their jobs history (Sears) but the article did not say this was mandatory, just described it as a recruiting tool.
and what happens if everyone votes and they are still there? is the minority going to bring arms against majority to have it your way? is that a democracy?
Only about 1/3 of the people supported the revolution against the British, another third were against and the rest were undecided.
It makes sense to me, after all these people are voluntarily carrying around a tracking device that broadcasts their location with a unique identifier. If they didn't want to be tracked they wouldn't be carrying the damn things around. It seems inconceivable that they would seriously expect no one to track them.
You could ask this about all the stupid things any government does. Replace Iran with Soviet Union and you get pretty much the same questions. Or North Korea. My opinion is that governments are not run for the benefit of the people, so it is easy to understand.
Exactly. "Support for internet blocking schemes was at 16%." So much for government of, by, and for the people.
According to the article, almost nothing has been reverse engineered and at best you get "a hint of what data is being captured" from examining an unencrypted config file
What the world is telling us is that it believes the chances of someone intercepting email over the network or stealing them from your mail server, and the costs associated with that vulnerability, are less than the costs of maintaining all the encryption keys and other information needed to provide global end-to-end encryption. This is just a fancy way of repeating that most people don't care.
I call this the "criticality paradox" where the most critical logons are the least likely to have stronger controls. This happens when the cost of the control is seen as too high. If you have a long PIN or passcode on your ATM card, and you forget it, now you can't get money at 2 AM when you need gas money to get home. Since the CEO gets paid a bazillion dollars, the five minutes it takes to reset his AD password cost the company more than the annual salary of the help desk guy who resets it. (I know, CEO would call the CIO for password resets, he would never stoop to calling the help desk)