Who does high frequency trading hurt again? Who are the victims?
Pension funds, Mutual Funds, and other large investors.
Wrong. The spreads between BIDs and ASKs are smaller because of HFT - that means "pension funds", "mutual funds", and "other large investors" are getting a better price on their trades.
I know that you cannot understand that its possible for a 3rd party to enter into these transaction, make a profit, and also benefit everyone else involved... but thats because you are either a pig headed class bigot, ignorant of the mechanics of the methods of buying and selling, or lack the intelligence to figure out how its possible.
. 5 to 10 cents worse per share – much greater than the fraction of a penny that the HFT steal.
...something these anti-HFT people continue to forget is that just waving your hands saying how someone is making money is not evidence of a problem.
HFT has brought down spreads between BID and ASK - everyone involved gets better prices, including the detractors retirement funds, and so on....but we cant have those evil people make money "doing nothing." Of course, when the detractors are told that HFT's add value to the market they just ignore it, say its not true, and so on. So here we are with a bunch of drones demanding worse prices.. they wont admit that the prices will be worse, but hey... we arent interested in facts when jealousy rules the thought process.
what i am arguing is that we take a stand, make our "representatives" in Washington actually do that for once, and stop the corporations from trying to screw us all over.
Translation: With good intentions, increase government influence, because this time the lobbyists wont take advantage of the increased influence.
You are everything that was, is, and will continue to be wrong with populations of governed people. You just dont get that your ideas when implemented have made things worse, do make things worse, and will continue to make things worse. It was always good intentions that supported the increases in government scope that you complain about today, and your soluton is good intentions that increase government scope even more.
Take a few years out of your life and learn some god damned history.
do you have ANY solution that will stop these lobbyists from undermining actual competition? this is where government CAN step in, to stop these shenanigans and enforce an equitable, competitor-filled marketplace.
Are you listening to yourself, at all?
...the government has already stepped in, or else you wouldn't have a problem with the lobbyists. You do understand who lobbyists lobby, right?
What Linux needs a stable driver interface like Windows has.
Windows does not have a stable driver interface. What windows does have is the market share necessary to not suffer too much when the interface changes.
In any event its inexcusable in both cases to ever undergo more than 1 driver interface change per architecture. I get it.. at first you do something that works but later the design proves inadequate, so the second time around it should be designed right. Pick an ABI and stick with it, and design to be extensible.
Finally someone that isnt just talking out their ass. These guys picked the theory before looking at any data, and then latched onto whatever number they come to first that seems like it supports their theory (even when it doesn't.)
Zero critical thinking skills (or worse! intentional dishonesty in some cases) from most of these people when it comes to economic issues.
... try not being paid for half your fucking working week. That cunt ripped me off by about $2k in a couple of months, while violating about half a dozen other basic rights - even human rights - and if I kick up a stink, I'll be fired immediately.
And in a capitalistic economy there is a direct relationship between the amount of money you have and the quantity of goods and services that you can enjoy
Nobody at all said otherwise.
One side was challenged to show that people making minimum wage enjoy insufficient goods and services. All we have heard is crickets from that side.
You folks are waving your hands saying how unfair it all is, but cannot even give a single datum that supports the theory you have put forth. Hand waving is not an argument, and arguing about unrelated things doesnt prove the thing you are waving your hands about.
We are too busy throwing money down a green toilet that contains campaign contributors to bother with throwing money down a mechanized toilet that contains campaign contributors.
Thank you for a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy
Funnily enough, his "slippery slope" is a reality already, or have you forgotten the recent initiative in Switzerland that tried to create a maximum wage?
(luckily, the voters rejected it)
Its people that arent paying any attention that so often call things "slippery slopes" when in reality the slope isnt just slippery, there is also someone pushing you down it.
Another person that measures wealth in dollar signs....
Let me repeat what you have surely already been told numerous times. Wealth is not measured by the quantity of currency. Wealth is measured by the quantity of goods and services that can be enjoyed.
Every time you try to justify your argument using the idea that the richest wont consume "400x as much [goods and services]" you have lost because you are failing to address the point you were trying to justify. You are trying to claim that those that earn minimum wage do not enjoy much goods and services, but never once attempt to show that they don't enjoy much goods and services.
In your attempt to do so, its then OK to start counting currency, but only because you are then relating currency to what wealth really is.
7 nobel economists? You can probably also find 7 that say murder is OK. There have been something like 80 economics prizes awarded since 1969, so yay for getting less than 10% to endorse your theory.
Whoa, back the horse up. A living wage is not about a "nice cozy life". It is about not having to choose between eating and paying the rent.
Sure, now stop waving your hands saying shit and run the numbers, chief.
The median rent in the U.S. right now is $884/month. 50% of renters pay less. 50% of renters pay more. (36% of people are renters.)
Even at the median rent level, a worker that earns $8/hour will still have $450/month left over for food, clothing, etc. A more typical rent for the poorest people would be around $600/month, leaving the $8/hour worker with $734/month for food and other stuff.
The $15/hour under consideration here would leave the median renter with $1616/month for food and other stuff.. so yes, my "nice cozy life" statement hit the bullseye but you were too ignorant to notice.
A negative income tax is only attractive when you eliminate all other forms of credits, incentives, and welfare. yes, even the graduated tax brackets should be eliminated in such a case in favor of a simple flat tax rate.
The primary reason for doing it is the acceptance that there should indeed be a safety net, and that because we are going to do it that we should do it both as efficiently and as equally as possible.
So start with something like a -$20000 tax on everyone (this is equivalent to a minimum wage of $10/hour), and then tax all income at a flat 20%. In this case someone that takes a full time (2000 hours/year) job at a measly $8 an hour ($16000/year) will still have $32000 at the end of the year after paying $3200 in taxes.
A key thing to note is that there is still incentive to work. With standard welfare its all or nothing.. if your choice is to grab $6000/year from welfare or earn $16000/year at minimum wage, the the effective wage on the labor is only $10000/year which is only $5/hour. Here is the thing.. we've got these people bitching that $8/hour isnt enough incentive to work, but support the current welfare system that lowers an $8/hour minimum wage to an effective $5/hour. Completely irrational thought processes from the left.
There are, suprisingly, a lot of adult fast food workers.
Raising the minimum wage will only increase this effect, because when you have to pay more for an employee than you otherwise would have paid then you also expect more from the employee to make up the difference in value. Reliability and so forth, something teenagers do not offer in the general case.
Even in the so-called "unskilled" labor market, things like a track record of showing up for work, of holding a job for more than a few months, has value. Just because anybody can do the job doesnt mean that there is a queue of people ready to do the job right at this moment because the guy you scheduled to work this shift called out again, just didnt bother to show up, or is running late as usual.
As a difficult-to-implement experiment, I'd love to see what actually happens
The way to implement the experiment is to abolish the minimum wage entirely, and then leave it abolished since it will achieve the natural price for labor value.
...or we could just keep throwing darts blindly and hope we dont hurt anyone else.
No serious economist supports the minimum wage. Its an ignorant idea that relies on the irrational notion that not only must all work continue to be done, that it also must continue to be done by human beings.
Still further there is the even more ignorant people that believe that not only should there be a minimum, but that it should be a "living wage" -- because all work that must be done must also be worth enough to afford a nice cozy life. Lets not consider it a problem that we already have 20something people in this country that have never had a job their entire life. Lets make sure its even worse.
You should only trust SSD's produced by flash manufacturers:
Intel, Samsung, Sandisk, and Micron.
The first 3 use a company-wide branding strategy, whereas Micron keeps their product brands separate from their manufacturing brand. Crucial is Microns SSD brand.
Micron seems to have got one up on the competition right now with regard to flash technology.
The biggest issue is that after your 70,000 year trip, you arrive in a star system that humans have inhabited for 69,000 years already. Thats a full stop right there.
How come the zealots read one thing but understand something completely different?
Comcast is not refusing to allow netflix traffic if netflix finds another ISP. You are imagining things. What Comcast refuses to do is set up a CDN on their own network that will benefit netflix without netflix paying for access. Netflix thinks that simply providing the equipment for free should be enough, but obviously its not (if you ran an ISP would you let netflix start throwing data around it for free? yeah, didn't think so)
However the Comcast is a private firm, so is free to negotiate minimum service levels with customers. While this is obviously problematic, is does solve a basic problem with streaming video. That unlike broadcast which has minimal marginal costs as users increase, the marginal costs for the internet provider is pretty much linear.
Its this right here in the nutshell.
Netflix went with an ISP that doesnt have the best connectivity and no other ISP really wants to improve connectivity with them because of how this particular ISP demands to handle peering arrangements. It was a win for netflix in that they got a better monetary deal, but its also a loss because the reason they got a better deal is that their ISP is a professional cheapskate seeking to take advantage of lopsided peering arrangements.
The fact is that "fast lanes" arent against net neutrality. How many of us have the lowest level of bandwidth their ISP offers? We willingly pay for a faster lane but have the balls to say that a corporation cannot? What kind of shit is that? The system is set up so that ultimately it is the senders that pays for the bandwidth between ISP's. If your ISP is sending many times as much as it receives then its gotta pay the difference. Netflix's ISP doesnt want to, so netflix has the choice of changing ISP's or paying the difference themselves.
If all they say is what you quoted, no they do not address it on their website. What you quoted is not even close to addressing questions of wear and tear. I have to wonder why you thought that it did....
You are talking about healthy foods and your list begin with cheese? Slabs of fat, salt, and grease that will make most of the worlds population (which is lactose intolerant) piss out their ass?
Slashdot Mirror
Who does high frequency trading hurt again? Who are the victims?
Pension funds, Mutual Funds, and other large investors.
Wrong. The spreads between BIDs and ASKs are smaller because of HFT - that means "pension funds", "mutual funds", and "other large investors" are getting a better price on their trades.
I know that you cannot understand that its possible for a 3rd party to enter into these transaction, make a profit, and also benefit everyone else involved... but thats because you are either a pig headed class bigot, ignorant of the mechanics of the methods of buying and selling, or lack the intelligence to figure out how its possible.
. 5 to 10 cents worse per share – much greater than the fraction of a penny that the HFT steal.
HFT has brought down spreads between BID and ASK - everyone involved gets better prices, including the detractors retirement funds, and so on.
what i am arguing is that we take a stand, make our "representatives" in Washington actually do that for once, and stop the corporations from trying to screw us all over.
Translation: With good intentions, increase government influence, because this time the lobbyists wont take advantage of the increased influence.
You are everything that was, is, and will continue to be wrong with populations of governed people. You just dont get that your ideas when implemented have made things worse, do make things worse, and will continue to make things worse. It was always good intentions that supported the increases in government scope that you complain about today, and your soluton is good intentions that increase government scope even more.
Take a few years out of your life and learn some god damned history.
do you have ANY solution that will stop these lobbyists from undermining actual competition? this is where government CAN step in, to stop these shenanigans and enforce an equitable, competitor-filled marketplace.
Are you listening to yourself, at all?
...the government has already stepped in, or else you wouldn't have a problem with the lobbyists. You do understand who lobbyists lobby, right?
What Linux needs a stable driver interface like Windows has.
Windows does not have a stable driver interface. What windows does have is the market share necessary to not suffer too much when the interface changes.
In any event its inexcusable in both cases to ever undergo more than 1 driver interface change per architecture. I get it.. at first you do something that works but later the design proves inadequate, so the second time around it should be designed right. Pick an ABI and stick with it, and design to be extensible.
Thank you.
Finally someone that isnt just talking out their ass. These guys picked the theory before looking at any data, and then latched onto whatever number they come to first that seems like it supports their theory (even when it doesn't.)
Zero critical thinking skills (or worse! intentional dishonesty in some cases) from most of these people when it comes to economic issues.
Who cares if it requires more initial resources to build a solar farm if robots mined the ore
The people that ultimately pay for those resources should. There is no such thing as good inefficiency. Full stop.
... try not being paid for half your fucking working week. That cunt ripped me off by about $2k in a couple of months, while violating about half a dozen other basic rights - even human rights - and if I kick up a stink, I'll be fired immediately.
Wait.. you are STILL working for 'em?
The government cannot fix your stupidity.
And in a capitalistic economy there is a direct relationship between the amount of money you have and the quantity of goods and services that you can enjoy
Nobody at all said otherwise.
One side was challenged to show that people making minimum wage enjoy insufficient goods and services. All we have heard is crickets from that side.
You folks are waving your hands saying how unfair it all is, but cannot even give a single datum that supports the theory you have put forth. Hand waving is not an argument, and arguing about unrelated things doesnt prove the thing you are waving your hands about.
We are too busy throwing money down a green toilet that contains campaign contributors to bother with throwing money down a mechanized toilet that contains campaign contributors.
Thank you for a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy
Funnily enough, his "slippery slope" is a reality already, or have you forgotten the recent initiative in Switzerland that tried to create a maximum wage?
(luckily, the voters rejected it)
Its people that arent paying any attention that so often call things "slippery slopes" when in reality the slope isnt just slippery, there is also someone pushing you down it.
Another person that measures wealth in dollar signs....
Let me repeat what you have surely already been told numerous times. Wealth is not measured by the quantity of currency. Wealth is measured by the quantity of goods and services that can be enjoyed.
Every time you try to justify your argument using the idea that the richest wont consume "400x as much [goods and services]" you have lost because you are failing to address the point you were trying to justify. You are trying to claim that those that earn minimum wage do not enjoy much goods and services, but never once attempt to show that they don't enjoy much goods and services.
In your attempt to do so, its then OK to start counting currency, but only because you are then relating currency to what wealth really is.
Cherry picking at its best.
7 nobel economists? You can probably also find 7 that say murder is OK. There have been something like 80 economics prizes awarded since 1969, so yay for getting less than 10% to endorse your theory.
Whoa, back the horse up. A living wage is not about a "nice cozy life". It is about not having to choose between eating and paying the rent.
Sure, now stop waving your hands saying shit and run the numbers, chief.
The median rent in the U.S. right now is $884/month. 50% of renters pay less. 50% of renters pay more. (36% of people are renters.)
Even at the median rent level, a worker that earns $8/hour will still have $450/month left over for food, clothing, etc. A more typical rent for the poorest people would be around $600/month, leaving the $8/hour worker with $734/month for food and other stuff.
The $15/hour under consideration here would leave the median renter with $1616/month for food and other stuff.. so yes, my "nice cozy life" statement hit the bullseye but you were too ignorant to notice.
Certainly the rent in "poor neighborhoods" will go up, yes.
Not sure the rents in my area will go up, because contrary to popular slashdot belief, almost nobody actually makes minimum wage.
Negative income tax.
A negative income tax is only attractive when you eliminate all other forms of credits, incentives, and welfare. yes, even the graduated tax brackets should be eliminated in such a case in favor of a simple flat tax rate.
The primary reason for doing it is the acceptance that there should indeed be a safety net, and that because we are going to do it that we should do it both as efficiently and as equally as possible.
So start with something like a -$20000 tax on everyone (this is equivalent to a minimum wage of $10/hour), and then tax all income at a flat 20%. In this case someone that takes a full time (2000 hours/year) job at a measly $8 an hour ($16000/year) will still have $32000 at the end of the year after paying $3200 in taxes.
A key thing to note is that there is still incentive to work. With standard welfare its all or nothing.. if your choice is to grab $6000/year from welfare or earn $16000/year at minimum wage, the the effective wage on the labor is only $10000/year which is only $5/hour. Here is the thing.. we've got these people bitching that $8/hour isnt enough incentive to work, but support the current welfare system that lowers an $8/hour minimum wage to an effective $5/hour. Completely irrational thought processes from the left.
There are, suprisingly, a lot of adult fast food workers.
Raising the minimum wage will only increase this effect, because when you have to pay more for an employee than you otherwise would have paid then you also expect more from the employee to make up the difference in value. Reliability and so forth, something teenagers do not offer in the general case.
Even in the so-called "unskilled" labor market, things like a track record of showing up for work, of holding a job for more than a few months, has value. Just because anybody can do the job doesnt mean that there is a queue of people ready to do the job right at this moment because the guy you scheduled to work this shift called out again, just didnt bother to show up, or is running late as usual.
As a difficult-to-implement experiment, I'd love to see what actually happens
The way to implement the experiment is to abolish the minimum wage entirely, and then leave it abolished since it will achieve the natural price for labor value.
...or we could just keep throwing darts blindly and hope we dont hurt anyone else.
No serious economist supports the minimum wage. Its an ignorant idea that relies on the irrational notion that not only must all work continue to be done, that it also must continue to be done by human beings.
Still further there is the even more ignorant people that believe that not only should there be a minimum, but that it should be a "living wage" -- because all work that must be done must also be worth enough to afford a nice cozy life. Lets not consider it a problem that we already have 20something people in this country that have never had a job their entire life. Lets make sure its even worse.
You should only trust SSD's produced by flash manufacturers:
Intel, Samsung, Sandisk, and Micron.
The first 3 use a company-wide branding strategy, whereas Micron keeps their product brands separate from their manufacturing brand. Crucial is Microns SSD brand.
Micron seems to have got one up on the competition right now with regard to flash technology.
With a 70,000 year trip corrosion is a big issue
The biggest issue is that after your 70,000 year trip, you arrive in a star system that humans have inhabited for 69,000 years already. Thats a full stop right there.
So public transport is more efficient so long as we declare that its more efficient?
Nice.
Wrong.
How come the zealots read one thing but understand something completely different?
Comcast is not refusing to allow netflix traffic if netflix finds another ISP. You are imagining things. What Comcast refuses to do is set up a CDN on their own network that will benefit netflix without netflix paying for access. Netflix thinks that simply providing the equipment for free should be enough, but obviously its not (if you ran an ISP would you let netflix start throwing data around it for free? yeah, didn't think so)
However the Comcast is a private firm, so is free to negotiate minimum service levels with customers. While this is obviously problematic, is does solve a basic problem with streaming video. That unlike broadcast which has minimal marginal costs as users increase, the marginal costs for the internet provider is pretty much linear.
Its this right here in the nutshell.
Netflix went with an ISP that doesnt have the best connectivity and no other ISP really wants to improve connectivity with them because of how this particular ISP demands to handle peering arrangements. It was a win for netflix in that they got a better monetary deal, but its also a loss because the reason they got a better deal is that their ISP is a professional cheapskate seeking to take advantage of lopsided peering arrangements.
The fact is that "fast lanes" arent against net neutrality. How many of us have the lowest level of bandwidth their ISP offers? We willingly pay for a faster lane but have the balls to say that a corporation cannot? What kind of shit is that? The system is set up so that ultimately it is the senders that pays for the bandwidth between ISP's. If your ISP is sending many times as much as it receives then its gotta pay the difference. Netflix's ISP doesnt want to, so netflix has the choice of changing ISP's or paying the difference themselves.
They address this on their website:
If all they say is what you quoted, no they do not address it on their website. What you quoted is not even close to addressing questions of wear and tear. I have to wonder why you thought that it did....
Shill much?
You are talking about healthy foods and your list begin with cheese? Slabs of fat, salt, and grease that will make most of the worlds population (which is lactose intolerant) piss out their ass?