I will have to read between the lines because one group of people here dont seem to ever want to answer questions directly. So the translation is the answer to the question "Have I simply failed to notice or have they been silent on the issue?" is "No you didnt fail to notice. yes they have been silent on the issue"
While temps go up for both, the mitigation scenario leads to a much more livable planet, closer to the one we live in today.
This is why nobody listens to you. You took a perfectly valid sentence about the paper and went ahead and made your sentence invalid, and its because you wanted to load your sentence up to make the sentence stronger.
Its stronger, but now its also a fabrication. We observe that you fabricated, therefore we tune you right the fuck out.
Why wouldn't Costco tell us themselves? Maybe they know there are enough corporate shills out there to defend whatever selfish act they might do, so why bother?
Maybe they tried but the summary didnt give a fuck what costco said? Maybe this lack of intellectual honesty extends beyond slashdot summaries as well?
Maybe if you didnt live your life based on logical fallacies like plurium interrogationum you wouldn't be such a giant tool?
Perhaps, but how fast do you think a million jars of peanut butter are going to be distributed in New Mexico?
So the reason that brought you to the conclusion you did was proven to be incorrect, and your reaction to this event was to immediately theorize about another reason to get to the same conclusion?
..and you can expect them to work given there's high visibility of the operating system compared to most Linux distros.
..and the fact that its a legal requirement.
There are plenty of laws you can just go ahead and break and not expect severe repercussions, but when you go ahead and stick it to handicapped people well thats a story thats going to have its own legs, where even being "technically right" isnt going to shield you from the onslaught.
Of course this shouldn't even be an issue. You would think accesibility features would be a priority within the community or some segment of it.
You know how desktops still contain that crappy internal speaker, and the computer beeps once when its starting normally? Thats because the ADA demands this audio feedback. Welcome Linux to the corporate world where you dont get to do whatever the fuck you want.
Handicap accessibility is a legal requirement in most of the world, and anyone that breaks that accessibility could be a target for a lawsuit. In this case thats the guy that submitted the "patch" that broke this feature. Sure, he wasn't trying to break the feature and he probably wont lose the lawsuit, but he will still be there in court defending himself and explaining why he didnt even try to fix it if someone really wanted to push this issue. Whats that? Linux is free software? Yeah, but maybe it came installed on his computer (you guys have been pushing for a more frequent Linux option when buying a desktop, right?) and thats exactly when the ADA kicks in.
Microsoft would also potentially be facing a lawsuit if they broke handicap accessibility and then ignored the issue. Keep that in mind.
Get over yourself... "turn in your geek card" indeed...
No. Seriously. Turn in your geek card.
A geek would be interested even if they werent interested in graphics programming. Thats why Abrash was a writer for Dr Dobbs Programmers Technical Journal, not Graphics Weekly.
I have no interest in writing an operating system, yet Dr Dobbs also covered the porting of BSD to the 386 architecture culminating in 386BSD which I was an avid follower of.
You keep telling yourself that... doesnt make it true.
Equal rights means everyone is the same. It does not mean that some people have special rights and privileges, nor does it mean that other people can demand that they and only they be added to the special rights and privileges group. However, thats exactly whats happening. Thats the reality of it and its why what you are saying does not match what you feel that you are saying.
The "distrimination" is that a straight person can marry anyone they want (if they are straight, the won't "want" to marry anyone of the same gender), and a gay person can not marry anyone they want. How is that equal?
You make the claim that straight people would not want to marry people of the same gender, but clearly that is not true since there is an incentive to be married. Perhaps straight people would not want to be thought of as homosexuals for getting hitched to a member of their own gender, but thats not the same thing at all.
Getting married grants the people involved special rights and privileges. Homosexuals don't want equal rights and privileges.. they want the same special rights and privileges that not everyone else enjoys.
I would disagree, I would say that it is the right to those benefits. That's a technicality though.
So what you are saying is that its not about equal rights. Realize that adding your own limited class to the special benefits club is not the same as equal rights.
Again, you throw around the term "lie" pretty loosely. [Psychological projection link]
Indeed. The Democrats do fall into psychological projection quite easily, and in fact this Yee guy is a case study. He pushed for heavy gun regulations precisely because he was right in the middle of easy gun trafficking. After all, if he is right in the middle of it, so must everyone else.. and something must be done if everyone has such easy access to gun traffickers.
Republicans arent saints, but this projection syndrome isnt one of their flaws. Its all Democrats, When a Democrat politician calls their opponent something negative, its fairly likely that the Democrat making the claim is a closer fit to that negative than anybody opposed to him.
"Racist!" Said by someone who pander to people based on the color of their skin. Isnt that pretty racist? So why they calling other folks racist? Projection.
"Greedy!" Said by someone that demands that certain folk give more money to bloated government budgets. Isnt that pretty greedy? So why they calling other folk greedy? Projection. ....
I favor a negative income tax. I'd do it something like this...
Its much simpler to implement.
For example, everyone starts out with -$X income tax (they will get $X if they do not earn anything.)
Then you enforce a simple flat tax rate on income.
Such a tax is efficient to collect, and is itself fair. There is also no crying foul about a flat tax in this case being regressive because the first $X in taxes comes out of the negative rate. In other words, both highly progressive and completely fair. The liberals get what they want (progressive taxation), and the libertarians get what they want (a fair tax rate.)
But again, you've got to get rid of all other forms of welfare as well as all other kinds of tax and subsidy. And yes, it replaces SNAP.
Communism has never been tried on a large scale. Only typically fascist systems of capitalism masquerading as communism have been given a go.
You are mistaken. They didn't start as fascist dictatorships. A dictatorship is just the inevitable result.
There is little incentive to prevent 0.1% of your labor going to some would-be dictator, meanwhile there is lots of incentive to set it up so that you as a would-be dictator get 0.1% from every single person. Nobody has any incentive to stop you until you are, in fact, dictator.
Thats why communism has always turned into a dictatorship and always will.
I think that you are both missing the real result. The grocery store is going to close, to be replaced by automated delivery. The boxes of stuff you wanted will be left in front of your house, boxes which had never been handled by any human being until you went outside to collect them.
Start with a low but sure guaranteed minimum weekly income, even if it's just $20 (on top of any income you normally get), and increase gradually as more and more stuff is automated. It's the perfect solution to a growing problem.
Welcome to the libertarian "negative income tax" solution. Soon you will be a full blown libertarian.
The difficulty with making it work is that all the other forms of welfare, including minimum wage laws as well as business welfare such as tax breaks and subsidies, need to be eliminated.
If you just start handing out more money, then nothing really changes.
During the Nixon years, a negative income tax almost made it through congress. It will never happen today because the authority to both tax and subsidize selectively is the method of choice for politicians to selfishly assert their influence.
Naked short selling isn't illegal per-se because in some cases it isn't actually a problem but it's a type of transaction that tends to carry more risk than allowing it is worth.
But it should be illegal.
There have surely been millions, perhaps even billions of shorts that were both naked and unfulfilled by now. However we've set up the market so that nobody gets fucked in these cases... by the magic of simply pretending that they were fulfilled.
Sooner or later the numbers are going to have to add up. The entire system collapses on that day.
Your trades would still occur if there was a 10 second delay between posting your trade and it going through
..but the spread between bid and ask would be larger, ergo you would get worse prices on those trades that you rightly say "still occur."
I find it amazing how the argument against HFT's begins with how much money they are making "off of you" but never ends with anything talking about the dollars and cents of the alternative. The reason the arguments never end this way is that they are illogical. They hook the reader with "omg you are getting burned" but then conveniently never explain how you would actually do better with the proposed alternative or a reversion to old methods. Its because the proposed alternative is actually worse once you knuckle down and stick to talking about the money.
The gap between bids and asks is smaller now, due to HFT's. Instead of spreads like $0.95/$1.05 that were common decades ago, it is $0.99/$1.01. You save $0.04 per share, or make an extra $0.04 per share than what you could do decades ago. Its a different guy making the gap now, but the gap is much smaller. You benefit.
The man in the middle pushes in unwanted and takes their cut before the buyer and seller know what hit them.
You say this, but you don't show this.
That "man in the middle" had to beat the best price that was already there.
How do you get hurt while getting a better price?
omg I got paid more money than I otherwise would have... thats terrible! omg I spent less money than I otherwise would have... thats terrible!
I mean seriously.. the only way you can have the reaction you are having is if you dont understand how trading works. When people pay less than they would have for a stock, that benefits those people. When people sell their stock for more money than they would have, that benefits those people. You seem to think that the HFT is causing the opposite, yet to the extent that that is possible does not require high frequency trading.. in fact it requires a completely different qualia.. it requires the entity trying to game the market in the manner that you (completely incorrectly) imagine HFT's to be doing to completely corner it. Cornering doesnt require HFT's.. HFT's actually mitigate cornering.
Prior to HFT's the spreads were larger. Study after study shows this to be true. The spreads are smaller... the HFT guy isnt taking an extra cut - he is reducing the cut that was already there.
That doesn't happen since HFT - now it's all 10,000 shares @ 1.00
What you are observing is precisely what you would observe when all the players have a better overall idea of the current value of a stock. That is because the market is more efficient.
So HFT's are bad because the prices you see are less ignorant now? Think about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Its worse than that. Another version of the video already exits, and the judge knows it.
So did you answer his question?
I will have to read between the lines because one group of people here dont seem to ever want to answer questions directly. So the translation is the answer to the question "Have I simply failed to notice or have they been silent on the issue?" is "No you didnt fail to notice. yes they have been silent on the issue"
So you are a conspiracy theorist.
While temps go up for both, the mitigation scenario leads to a much more livable planet, closer to the one we live in today.
This is why nobody listens to you. You took a perfectly valid sentence about the paper and went ahead and made your sentence invalid, and its because you wanted to load your sentence up to make the sentence stronger.
Its stronger, but now its also a fabrication. We observe that you fabricated, therefore we tune you right the fuck out.
How does this shit get modded up as informative?
...."reliable enough to act as registers"
This clown is a technology tourist at best.
Why wouldn't Costco tell us themselves? Maybe they know there are enough corporate shills out there to defend whatever selfish act they might do, so why bother?
Maybe they tried but the summary didnt give a fuck what costco said? Maybe this lack of intellectual honesty extends beyond slashdot summaries as well?
Maybe if you didnt live your life based on logical fallacies like plurium interrogationum you wouldn't be such a giant tool?
Perhaps, but how fast do you think a million jars of peanut butter are going to be distributed in New Mexico?
So the reason that brought you to the conclusion you did was proven to be incorrect, and your reaction to this event was to immediately theorize about another reason to get to the same conclusion?
Which came first, chief?
nah that was a totally different thing
..and you can expect them to work given there's high visibility of the operating system compared to most Linux distros.
There are plenty of laws you can just go ahead and break and not expect severe repercussions, but when you go ahead and stick it to handicapped people well thats a story thats going to have its own legs, where even being "technically right" isnt going to shield you from the onslaught.
Of course this shouldn't even be an issue. You would think accesibility features would be a priority within the community or some segment of it.
You know how desktops still contain that crappy internal speaker, and the computer beeps once when its starting normally? Thats because the ADA demands this audio feedback. Welcome Linux to the corporate world where you dont get to do whatever the fuck you want.
Handicap accessibility is a legal requirement in most of the world, and anyone that breaks that accessibility could be a target for a lawsuit. In this case thats the guy that submitted the "patch" that broke this feature. Sure, he wasn't trying to break the feature and he probably wont lose the lawsuit, but he will still be there in court defending himself and explaining why he didnt even try to fix it if someone really wanted to push this issue. Whats that? Linux is free software? Yeah, but maybe it came installed on his computer (you guys have been pushing for a more frequent Linux option when buying a desktop, right?) and thats exactly when the ADA kicks in.
Microsoft would also potentially be facing a lawsuit if they broke handicap accessibility and then ignored the issue. Keep that in mind.
and the situation today is better than its ever been.
The veracity of this claim is inversely proportional to the veracity of your previous claim.
Try having a self-consistent view of reality for a change.
Get over yourself... "turn in your geek card" indeed...
No. Seriously. Turn in your geek card.
A geek would be interested even if they werent interested in graphics programming. Thats why Abrash was a writer for Dr Dobbs Programmers Technical Journal, not Graphics Weekly.
I have no interest in writing an operating system, yet Dr Dobbs also covered the porting of BSD to the 386 architecture culminating in 386BSD which I was an avid follower of.
You sir, are a technology brat, not a geek.
I'm sorry, who is asking for special rights and privileges that only they should have?
Homosexuals are asking to be added to the special rights group. Are you thick?
No, I'm saying exactly the opposite actually.
You keep telling yourself that... doesnt make it true.
Equal rights means everyone is the same. It does not mean that some people have special rights and privileges, nor does it mean that other people can demand that they and only they be added to the special rights and privileges group. However, thats exactly whats happening. Thats the reality of it and its why what you are saying does not match what you feel that you are saying.
The "distrimination" is that a straight person can marry anyone they want (if they are straight, the won't "want" to marry anyone of the same gender), and a gay person can not marry anyone they want. How is that equal?
You make the claim that straight people would not want to marry people of the same gender, but clearly that is not true since there is an incentive to be married. Perhaps straight people would not want to be thought of as homosexuals for getting hitched to a member of their own gender, but thats not the same thing at all.
Getting married grants the people involved special rights and privileges. Homosexuals don't want equal rights and privileges.. they want the same special rights and privileges that not everyone else enjoys.
I would disagree, I would say that it is the right to those benefits. That's a technicality though.
So what you are saying is that its not about equal rights. Realize that adding your own limited class to the special benefits club is not the same as equal rights.
A flat tax benefits the rich whereas a graduated income tax SHOULD benefit the poor.
Ah yes, so right now they are benefiting?
Come back when reality enters your theory.
Again, you throw around the term "lie" pretty loosely. [Psychological projection link]
Indeed. The Democrats do fall into psychological projection quite easily, and in fact this Yee guy is a case study. He pushed for heavy gun regulations precisely because he was right in the middle of easy gun trafficking. After all, if he is right in the middle of it, so must everyone else.. and something must be done if everyone has such easy access to gun traffickers.
....
Republicans arent saints, but this projection syndrome isnt one of their flaws. Its all Democrats, When a Democrat politician calls their opponent something negative, its fairly likely that the Democrat making the claim is a closer fit to that negative than anybody opposed to him.
"Racist!" Said by someone who pander to people based on the color of their skin. Isnt that pretty racist? So why they calling other folks racist? Projection.
"Greedy!" Said by someone that demands that certain folk give more money to bloated government budgets. Isnt that pretty greedy? So why they calling other folk greedy? Projection.
I favor a negative income tax. I'd do it something like this...
Its much simpler to implement.
For example, everyone starts out with -$X income tax (they will get $X if they do not earn anything.)
Then you enforce a simple flat tax rate on income.
Such a tax is efficient to collect, and is itself fair. There is also no crying foul about a flat tax in this case being regressive because the first $X in taxes comes out of the negative rate. In other words, both highly progressive and completely fair. The liberals get what they want (progressive taxation), and the libertarians get what they want (a fair tax rate.)
But again, you've got to get rid of all other forms of welfare as well as all other kinds of tax and subsidy. And yes, it replaces SNAP.
Communism has never been tried on a large scale. Only typically fascist systems of capitalism masquerading as communism have been given a go.
You are mistaken. They didn't start as fascist dictatorships. A dictatorship is just the inevitable result.
There is little incentive to prevent 0.1% of your labor going to some would-be dictator, meanwhile there is lots of incentive to set it up so that you as a would-be dictator get 0.1% from every single person. Nobody has any incentive to stop you until you are, in fact, dictator.
Thats why communism has always turned into a dictatorship and always will.
I think that you are both missing the real result. The grocery store is going to close, to be replaced by automated delivery. The boxes of stuff you wanted will be left in front of your house, boxes which had never been handled by any human being until you went outside to collect them.
Give it 30 years.
Start with a low but sure guaranteed minimum weekly income, even if it's just $20 (on top of any income you normally get), and increase gradually as more and more stuff is automated. It's the perfect solution to a growing problem.
Welcome to the libertarian "negative income tax" solution. Soon you will be a full blown libertarian.
The difficulty with making it work is that all the other forms of welfare, including minimum wage laws as well as business welfare such as tax breaks and subsidies, need to be eliminated.
If you just start handing out more money, then nothing really changes.
During the Nixon years, a negative income tax almost made it through congress. It will never happen today because the authority to both tax and subsidize selectively is the method of choice for politicians to selfishly assert their influence.
Naked short selling isn't illegal per-se because in some cases it isn't actually a problem but it's a type of transaction that tends to carry more risk than allowing it is worth.
But it should be illegal.
There have surely been millions, perhaps even billions of shorts that were both naked and unfulfilled by now. However we've set up the market so that nobody gets fucked in these cases... by the magic of simply pretending that they were fulfilled.
Sooner or later the numbers are going to have to add up. The entire system collapses on that day.
Your trades would still occur if there was a 10 second delay between posting your trade and it going through
I find it amazing how the argument against HFT's begins with how much money they are making "off of you" but never ends with anything talking about the dollars and cents of the alternative. The reason the arguments never end this way is that they are illogical. They hook the reader with "omg you are getting burned" but then conveniently never explain how you would actually do better with the proposed alternative or a reversion to old methods. Its because the proposed alternative is actually worse once you knuckle down and stick to talking about the money.
The gap between bids and asks is smaller now, due to HFT's. Instead of spreads like $0.95/$1.05 that were common decades ago, it is $0.99/$1.01. You save $0.04 per share, or make an extra $0.04 per share than what you could do decades ago. Its a different guy making the gap now, but the gap is much smaller. You benefit.
The man in the middle pushes in unwanted and takes their cut before the buyer and seller know what hit them.
You say this, but you don't show this.
.. in fact it requires a completely different qualia .. it requires the entity trying to game the market in the manner that you (completely incorrectly) imagine HFT's to be doing to completely corner it. Cornering doesnt require HFT's.. HFT's actually mitigate cornering.
That "man in the middle" had to beat the best price that was already there.
How do you get hurt while getting a better price?
omg I got paid more money than I otherwise would have... thats terrible!
omg I spent less money than I otherwise would have... thats terrible!
I mean seriously.. the only way you can have the reaction you are having is if you dont understand how trading works. When people pay less than they would have for a stock, that benefits those people. When people sell their stock for more money than they would have, that benefits those people. You seem to think that the HFT is causing the opposite, yet to the extent that that is possible does not require high frequency trading
Prior to HFT's the spreads were larger. Study after study shows this to be true. The spreads are smaller... the HFT guy isnt taking an extra cut - he is reducing the cut that was already there.
That doesn't happen since HFT - now it's all 10,000 shares @ 1.00
What you are observing is precisely what you would observe when all the players have a better overall idea of the current value of a stock. That is because the market is more efficient.
So HFT's are bad because the prices you see are less ignorant now? Think about it.