Its not me opening up that can of worms... its the insistence on a license and distribution model that cannot easily handle various real burdens which creates the can of worms out of thin air.
Yes of course a Friedmanite would try to shift the focus away from large corporations. No, let's not focus on corporate welfare, it's those bastard unions, non-profits, etc. that are the real problem.
Friedman never tried to place blame on any of those things. He blamed the government.
How could you have missed it, unless you never listened honestly?
The Democrats believe in social spending with taxes to support it.
Current government spending (federal, state, and local) is $47619 per household.
How much more spending do you need? See, we've been hearing this all along.. just some more necessary spending.. and now its $47619 per household, and you still want more.
What's odd is that every Republican President since 1976 has presided over a larger year-to-year increase in both the debt and the deficit than the worst Democratic President (Carter).
Ok, now redo the analysis using the party in control of both House and Senate, instead of the Whitehouse. After all, the Democrats are blaming the Republicans for there not having been a budget passed even though its the Democrats are in control of the Whitehouse.
I know that if you do so, that you will find a much stronger correlation than your Presidential analysis.. but you wont like which party it lands upon one bit.
Why are you against voting for a Democrat when a Republican held the country hostage?
Maybe because that extra $1000 per year in taxes he is going to have to pay was a tax cut given to him by the Republicans, not the Democrats.
We hear it all the time that the Bush tax cuts were for the rich, but this guy right here who is squarely in the middle class is looking at a 2% tax hike when those Bush tax cuts phase out.. because the claim that the Bush tax cuts were for the rich was always just a lie repeated again and again by Democrats.
Between Federal, State, and Local government spending its scheduled to be $6.3 trillion in 2013. Thats over $47000 per household. Think about that for a moment. $47000 per household. Thats the actual number, folks.
This guy you are replying to makes $50000 per year. Compare $47000 to $50000.
Its a spending problem. Its a flat-out lie that its a taxation problem.
The beneficiaries of corporate welfare would have you think so.
,br>
It isnt just corporate welfare. Its basically any and all special-interest groups and here is why:
By definition a special interest group is a small fraction of the people, but when they lobby government they lobby for large benefits to themselves. Because these large benefits are only a small expense to any individual there is never any organized competing interest to lobby against the policies put forth by the special interests.
Its not just corporations. Its unions, foundations, non-profits, universities, ethnic groups, religions,..., and even the government itself...
As Milton Friedman put it, its "The Tyranny of the Status Quo" -- and its only possible because the Federal government stole the power from the States, greatly reducing the influence of individuals.
The crisis started when the cost of borrowing went up for Greece to the point where they could not afford to borrow money to continue keeping their government functional.
This ignores the fact that Greece doesnt have its own currency.
You cannot compare any Eurozone countries to the United States because unlike Eurozone countries, the United States only borrows in order to keep the money supply (inflation) independent from government finances. When push comes to shove the U.S. central banks simply prints the money the government needs (rather than selling bonds) and that has the side effect of also devaluing its existing debt. Greece (and Italy, etc..) cannot do this, which is why they are in such an immediate pickle.
Sure, many economies have been destroyed by hyper-inflation, but this isnt true in every case where deficits have been monetized.
Yea, adding unneeded checks to every operation because of lazy/shitty programmers is a much better idea.
I think the point that you are missing is that those checks are needed because the majority of programmers are both lazy and shitty once they are dealing with a large codebase. Here we have an obscure input causing the problem because its not obvious (lazy, shitty) that a variable might be null.
AMD C-50 and later C-60 processor, that is faster than an atom, but sips power. $200 at Target almost 2yrs ago, but Target now only carries the intel atom version that is slower, worse battery life, and can't handle as much memory, for more money.
..and people wonder why AMD cannot compete. The C-series processors have absolutely no competitors in its market for all those reasons (faster, cheaper, etc..), yet AMD still cannot gain traction due to Intels anti-competitive behavior.
Dont want your money, but I also noticed that Pascal() errors out extremely early due to it using a naive factorial method where the intermediate products overflow double precision. See the wikipedia article on Pascals Triangle in the section titled "Calculating an individual row or diagonal by itself (Gray's Theory)"
I called the factorial method naive because the multiple recursions used to calculate the multiple factorials is also more expensive than the single recursion necessary, ie.. it has no redeeming qualities.
You get another circuit running, detecting whether the sound in the buffer has reached the trigger level. If it has, then send everything in the buffer, until it drop back down below the threshold. Otherwise don't send anything. How about that?
An audio buffer in a space suit in 1969? Really?
You are just proving how fantastically ignorant you are.
I'm assuming that the same folks that root iPhones and Android phones, and seemingly every other bit of hardware on the planet will defeat this pretty fast as well.
Surely they can do it faster than the others, since its Microsoft and they dont know how to do security, right?
Unless you happen to have an open stop-loss order.
Translation: Unless you are algorithmic trading.
You do know that stop losses are an algorithm, right?
if(price < threshhold) sell();
Then you can be badly burned, as I have been personally.
So you were personally burned trying to take advantage of algorithmic trading, so fuck everyone that wants to take advantage of algorithmic trading? Doesntg that make you a hypocrite?
In another flash crash, I made a lot of money due to a very low open bid, but then the SEC decided to nullify all trades during that particular flash crash.
Not an argument against algorithmic trading. An argument against the SEC nullifying trades.
If my boot sector is write protected, then it can't be modified, and it can verify the early environment kernel it loads hasn't been tampered with as well.
You speak later about booting from read only media, but thats part of the problem. Even if you prevent a specific boot sector from being written to, that doesn't tell you or the kernel anything about which bootsector was loaded and executed... and therefore the kernel cannot know that it has, or ever had, full control.
Who "wears" an iPhone or iPad? Usually they are kept in pockets or jackets or backpacks.
In my experience they are usually kept about chest height in front of the owner, in their left hand, and the owner is paying almost no attention to anything other than their iDevice.
These only effect people who ARE algorithmic trading. The prices bounce back to their real market valuation again and again...
Re: Knight Capital
A company lost money with flawed algorithmic trading... which means someone else gained. Whats the problem?
Re: "amazing graphic"
Is this supposed to be evidence of bad things? Perhaps you could enlighten us on the assumptions that you are using to declare them bad, so that maybe we can agree with them or refute them.
Re: "Quote SPAM"
You seem to be making another assumption here, but again failing to detail what that assumption is that makes the thing that you are talking about bad.
What I am seeing is that you arent actually justifying your theory, that you are instead just declaring it correct with lots of factoids that dont actually justify your theory without the underlying assumption already in place that they are bad.
I'll accept the research over your hand waving, because thats how science works.
What you miss is that the quintile is not at 20, 40, 60%... They are at more like 25%, 75%, 90%, 95%. The quintile used divides by slice of pie...
What you seem to miss is that the data I am using, from the congressional budget office, actually states how many households are in each quintile. You miss this so trivial of a thing because you never bothered to care about the facts.
Lowest quintile - 22.7 million households
Second quintile - 23.6 million households
Middle quintile - 23.7 million households
Fourth quintile - 23.3 million households
Highest quintile - 23.6 million households
What I see here is that the defense of the original theory, that "the rich dont pay their fair share" gets more and more convoluted as I repeatedly wreck a succession of justifications for the theory with actual data.
you have two choices..
1) think of something even more convoluted to try to justify a theory that cant be backed up with data, or
2) look at the actual data, from the source, and realize that you are wrong
It wouldn't even need to be a 6 month period. If everybody was forced to hold shares for a single day, that would outright kill High-Frequency and Algo-based Trading. Hell, a mandatory holding period of 1 hour would probably do that.
It certainly would do what you claim, but you havent justified why you would want to kill algorithmic trading.
The effects of algorithmic trading have been studied, and its shown that the practice reduces the spreads between bids and asks, which translated directly into you getting better prices both when buying and selling than you would have gotten otherwise.
Please explain why you want to pay higher prices when buying and get less money when selling.
I realize that you probably didnt know that this was true, and if thats the case then you should step back and have a real long think about why you developed the opinion that you have and what you can do in the future to prevent mob irrationality from dominating your beliefs.
no, it isn't. You just don't know what fair share means.
You say that, but you never justify it...
Hint: the more lopsided that holding of money is, the more the the people with the most wealth have to pay to be fair.
Yes, but they already pay significantly more. Until you explain why the amount that they are paying isnt a fair share, all you are doing is claiming without justification that it isnt a fair share.
Lets go to the numbers (2009 figures from the Congressional Budget Office), broken up by quintile:
Lowest quintile pays 0.3% of the federal tax burden.
Second quintile pays 3.8% of the federal tax burden.
Middle quintile pays 9.4% of the federal tax burden.
Fourth quintile pays 18.3% of the federal tax burden.
Highest quintile pays 67.9% of the federal tax burden.
Now you might start trying to claim that they make sooo much more than these numbers indicate, that the ratio between their income and their liability doesn't also increase in this same progressive manner... but lets look at the numbers from the same source, the congressional budget office:
Lowest quintile averages $23.5K in income.
Second quintile averages $43.4K in income.
Middle quintile averages $64.3K in income.
Fourth quintile averages $93.8K in income.
Highest quintile averages $223.5K in income.
Now lets divide the current share of the tax burden in each quintile by the average income:
To be clear here, thats is their share of the tax burden divided by their share of the income. If the income grew faster than the share of the tax burden, then the numbers on the right hand side would be decreasing.. but thats not the case.. they are increasing.
Now, are you able to justify the argument that the rich do not pay their fair share? As income grows, the share of the tax burden grows even faster, so you are going to have to try a different argument.. one that doesnt simply appeal to the emotions of the ignorant.
While I don't doubt (reading quickly through the description of what happened) that this change was bad, a policy that "kernel changes can never break a userland app" seems like a bit of an odd statement to make.
In my experience (and I do do development in environments where this comes up frequently), it is not at all unusual for applications to either rely on buggy behavior of another piece of code, or to make unwarranted assumptions about how another piece of code works, that happens to be valid under some circumstances but not others. If an application does not properly handle the documented behavior of an interface, then the application is broken.
No it isn't an odd statement. Its very rational...
...and no, it isnt the app thats broken in your scenario... its the documentation thats broken once the "undocumented" behavior gets leveraged.
What you are arguing is similar to a compiler switching from arithmetic shifting to non-arithmetic shifting or vise-versa with the excuse that the behavior was always "undefined" in the C/C++ specification.. while it may be undefined, good programmers learn how their compiler behaves and then takes advantage.. if the compiler devs change the behavior later, then the compiler devs are the ones that are out of line.
Slashdot Mirror
Its not me opening up that can of worms... its the insistence on a license and distribution model that cannot easily handle various real burdens which creates the can of worms out of thin air.
Please come back when you learn the meaning of the word "implied context."
Please come back when you figure out why it doesnt end at context.
Because Open Source means giving other people the right to copy freely
This cannot be true because its never free to copy something.
So for a program covered by the GPLv3, who pays? The developer? The person who redistributes it? The end user?
At least one of the above.
This is really not that complicated.
Yes of course a Friedmanite would try to shift the focus away from large corporations. No, let's not focus on corporate welfare, it's those bastard unions, non-profits, etc. that are the real problem.
Friedman never tried to place blame on any of those things. He blamed the government.
How could you have missed it, unless you never listened honestly?
The Democrats believe in social spending with taxes to support it.
Current government spending (federal, state, and local) is $47619 per household.
How much more spending do you need? See, we've been hearing this all along.. just some more necessary spending.. and now its $47619 per household, and you still want more.
What's odd is that every Republican President since 1976 has presided over a larger year-to-year increase in both the debt and the deficit than the worst Democratic President (Carter).
Ok, now redo the analysis using the party in control of both House and Senate, instead of the Whitehouse. After all, the Democrats are blaming the Republicans for there not having been a budget passed even though its the Democrats are in control of the Whitehouse.
I know that if you do so, that you will find a much stronger correlation than your Presidential analysis.. but you wont like which party it lands upon one bit.
Why are you against voting for a Democrat when a Republican held the country hostage?
Maybe because that extra $1000 per year in taxes he is going to have to pay was a tax cut given to him by the Republicans, not the Democrats.
We hear it all the time that the Bush tax cuts were for the rich, but this guy right here who is squarely in the middle class is looking at a 2% tax hike when those Bush tax cuts phase out.. because the claim that the Bush tax cuts were for the rich was always just a lie repeated again and again by Democrats.
Between Federal, State, and Local government spending its scheduled to be $6.3 trillion in 2013. Thats over $47000 per household. Think about that for a moment. $47000 per household. Thats the actual number, folks.
This guy you are replying to makes $50000 per year. Compare $47000 to $50000.
Its a spending problem. Its a flat-out lie that its a taxation problem.
The beneficiaries of corporate welfare would have you think so.
,br> It isnt just corporate welfare. Its basically any and all special-interest groups and here is why:
..., and even the government itself...
By definition a special interest group is a small fraction of the people, but when they lobby government they lobby for large benefits to themselves. Because these large benefits are only a small expense to any individual there is never any organized competing interest to lobby against the policies put forth by the special interests.
Its not just corporations. Its unions, foundations, non-profits, universities, ethnic groups, religions,
As Milton Friedman put it, its "The Tyranny of the Status Quo" -- and its only possible because the Federal government stole the power from the States, greatly reducing the influence of individuals.
The crisis started when the cost of borrowing went up for Greece to the point where they could not afford to borrow money to continue keeping their government functional.
This ignores the fact that Greece doesnt have its own currency.
You cannot compare any Eurozone countries to the United States because unlike Eurozone countries, the United States only borrows in order to keep the money supply (inflation) independent from government finances. When push comes to shove the U.S. central banks simply prints the money the government needs (rather than selling bonds) and that has the side effect of also devaluing its existing debt. Greece (and Italy, etc..) cannot do this, which is why they are in such an immediate pickle.
Sure, many economies have been destroyed by hyper-inflation, but this isnt true in every case where deficits have been monetized.
Yea, adding unneeded checks to every operation because of lazy/shitty programmers is a much better idea.
I think the point that you are missing is that those checks are needed because the majority of programmers are both lazy and shitty once they are dealing with a large codebase. Here we have an obscure input causing the problem because its not obvious (lazy, shitty) that a variable might be null.
except the GP says the iPad has less CPU...
Thats what he says.. but its not reality.
AMD C-50 and later C-60 processor, that is faster than an atom, but sips power. $200 at Target almost 2yrs ago, but Target now only carries the intel atom version that is slower, worse battery life, and can't handle as much memory, for more money.
Dont want your money, but I also noticed that Pascal() errors out extremely early due to it using a naive factorial method where the intermediate products overflow double precision. See the wikipedia article on Pascals Triangle in the section titled "Calculating an individual row or diagonal by itself (Gray's Theory)"
I called the factorial method naive because the multiple recursions used to calculate the multiple factorials is also more expensive than the single recursion necessary, ie.. it has no redeeming qualities.
You get another circuit running, detecting whether the sound in the buffer has reached the trigger level. If it has, then send everything in the buffer, until it drop back down below the threshold. Otherwise don't send anything. How about that?
An audio buffer in a space suit in 1969? Really?
You are just proving how fantastically ignorant you are.
I'm assuming that the same folks that root iPhones and Android phones, and seemingly every other bit of hardware on the planet will defeat this pretty fast as well.
Surely they can do it faster than the others, since its Microsoft and they dont know how to do security, right?
Unless you happen to have an open stop-loss order.
Translation: Unless you are algorithmic trading.
You do know that stop losses are an algorithm, right?
if(price < threshhold) sell();
Then you can be badly burned, as I have been personally.
So you were personally burned trying to take advantage of algorithmic trading, so fuck everyone that wants to take advantage of algorithmic trading? Doesntg that make you a hypocrite?
In another flash crash, I made a lot of money due to a very low open bid, but then the SEC decided to nullify all trades during that particular flash crash.
Not an argument against algorithmic trading. An argument against the SEC nullifying trades.
If my boot sector is write protected, then it can't be modified, and it can verify the early environment kernel it loads hasn't been tampered with as well.
You speak later about booting from read only media, but thats part of the problem. Even if you prevent a specific boot sector from being written to, that doesn't tell you or the kernel anything about which bootsector was loaded and executed... and therefore the kernel cannot know that it has, or ever had, full control.
Who "wears" an iPhone or iPad? Usually they are kept in pockets or jackets or backpacks.
In my experience they are usually kept about chest height in front of the owner, in their left hand, and the owner is paying almost no attention to anything other than their iDevice.
Too bad constants like pi cannot be used in formula... might actually care about your crappy program otherwise...
Re: Flash crashes
These only effect people who ARE algorithmic trading. The prices bounce back to their real market valuation again and again...
Re: Knight Capital
A company lost money with flawed algorithmic trading... which means someone else gained. Whats the problem?
Re: "amazing graphic"
Is this supposed to be evidence of bad things? Perhaps you could enlighten us on the assumptions that you are using to declare them bad, so that maybe we can agree with them or refute them.
Re: "Quote SPAM"
You seem to be making another assumption here, but again failing to detail what that assumption is that makes the thing that you are talking about bad.
What I am seeing is that you arent actually justifying your theory, that you are instead just declaring it correct with lots of factoids that dont actually justify your theory without the underlying assumption already in place that they are bad.
I'll accept the research over your hand waving, because thats how science works.
What you miss is that the quintile is not at 20, 40, 60%... They are at more like 25%, 75%, 90%, 95%. The quintile used divides by slice of pie...
What you seem to miss is that the data I am using, from the congressional budget office, actually states how many households are in each quintile. You miss this so trivial of a thing because you never bothered to care about the facts.
Lowest quintile - 22.7 million households
Second quintile - 23.6 million households
Middle quintile - 23.7 million households
Fourth quintile - 23.3 million households
Highest quintile - 23.6 million households
What I see here is that the defense of the original theory, that "the rich dont pay their fair share" gets more and more convoluted as I repeatedly wreck a succession of justifications for the theory with actual data.
you have two choices..
1) think of something even more convoluted to try to justify a theory that cant be backed up with data, or
2) look at the actual data, from the source, and realize that you are wrong
Clearly you need to be told where the data is, because you never once cared about the actual data. Hopefully now you WILL start giving a shit about having theories that you cannot back up... you really should be embarrassed. Really.
It wouldn't even need to be a 6 month period. If everybody was forced to hold shares for a single day, that would outright kill High-Frequency and Algo-based Trading. Hell, a mandatory holding period of 1 hour would probably do that.
It certainly would do what you claim, but you havent justified why you would want to kill algorithmic trading.
The effects of algorithmic trading have been studied, and its shown that the practice reduces the spreads between bids and asks, which translated directly into you getting better prices both when buying and selling than you would have gotten otherwise.
Please explain why you want to pay higher prices when buying and get less money when selling.
I realize that you probably didnt know that this was true, and if thats the case then you should step back and have a real long think about why you developed the opinion that you have and what you can do in the future to prevent mob irrationality from dominating your beliefs.
no, it isn't. You just don't know what fair share means.
You say that, but you never justify it...
Hint: the more lopsided that holding of money is, the more the the people with the most wealth have to pay to be fair.
Yes, but they already pay significantly more. Until you explain why the amount that they are paying isnt a fair share, all you are doing is claiming without justification that it isnt a fair share.
Lets go to the numbers (2009 figures from the Congressional Budget Office), broken up by quintile:
Lowest quintile pays 0.3% of the federal tax burden.
Second quintile pays 3.8% of the federal tax burden.
Middle quintile pays 9.4% of the federal tax burden.
Fourth quintile pays 18.3% of the federal tax burden.
Highest quintile pays 67.9% of the federal tax burden.
Now you might start trying to claim that they make sooo much more than these numbers indicate, that the ratio between their income and their liability doesn't also increase in this same progressive manner... but lets look at the numbers from the same source, the congressional budget office:
Lowest quintile averages $23.5K in income.
Second quintile averages $43.4K in income.
Middle quintile averages $64.3K in income.
Fourth quintile averages $93.8K in income.
Highest quintile averages $223.5K in income.
Now lets divide the current share of the tax burden in each quintile by the average income:
Lowest quintile 0.3 / 23.5 = 0.01276596
Second quintile 3.8 / 43.4 = 0.0875576
Middle quintile 9.4 / 64.3 = 0.14618974
Fourth quintile 18.3 / 93.8 = 0.19509595
Highest quintile 67.9 / 223.5 = 0.30380313
To be clear here, thats is their share of the tax burden divided by their share of the income. If the income grew faster than the share of the tax burden, then the numbers on the right hand side would be decreasing.. but thats not the case.. they are increasing.
Now, are you able to justify the argument that the rich do not pay their fair share? As income grows, the share of the tax burden grows even faster, so you are going to have to try a different argument.. one that doesnt simply appeal to the emotions of the ignorant.
While I don't doubt (reading quickly through the description of what happened) that this change was bad, a policy that "kernel changes can never break a userland app" seems like a bit of an odd statement to make.
In my experience (and I do do development in environments where this comes up frequently), it is not at all unusual for applications to either rely on buggy behavior of another piece of code, or to make unwarranted assumptions about how another piece of code works, that happens to be valid under some circumstances but not others. If an application does not properly handle the documented behavior of an interface, then the application is broken.
No it isn't an odd statement. Its very rational...
...and no, it isnt the app thats broken in your scenario... its the documentation thats broken once the "undocumented" behavior gets leveraged.
.. while it may be undefined, good programmers learn how their compiler behaves and then takes advantage.. if the compiler devs change the behavior later, then the compiler devs are the ones that are out of line.
What you are arguing is similar to a compiler switching from arithmetic shifting to non-arithmetic shifting or vise-versa with the excuse that the behavior was always "undefined" in the C/C++ specification